While I don’t object to any development of this land, I do strongly object to the increase in height of this development. The current height limit is 3 storeys/13.6m. It is absolutely ridiculous for this to be changed and a development approved by saying that there are “2 affordable homes “ in this development. Nothing in this development will be affordable. This loophole is simply being used to push for big development in this area. To allow this development to go ahead and approve a building of 5 storeys/21m will set a precedent not only for this area but for all of the Tweed Shire for other developments like this to go ahead. This IS NOT what the permanent residents of Tweed want. There is inadequate parking in the area to accommodate a development of this size and the permanent residents in surrounding streets will be negatively impacted by this. There is insufficient infrastructure to support a development of this size. The roads through Kingscliff and Casuarina are suburban streets, 50kmh zones, roads that our kids cross everyday to get to school. They are not main roads and are not suitable for the increase in traffic that developments of this size would bring. This is not the Gold Coast and this is not what Tweed residents want for their area. There could be a much more suitable development built on this land. This is not a development that will have any impact whatsoever on the housing crises.

We need to stick to the original height limit that Salt has been built upon .

RE: Submission for SSD-83069459 – 4-8 Bells Boulevard, Kingscliff
Dear Mr. Thomas,
I am the registered proprietor of a lot within SP 73905 (9 Gunnamatta Ave, Kingscliff).
This submission is not an objection to the development in principle. Appropriate development can contribute positively to Kingscliff when it aligns with established planning controls and respects the character and capacity of the local environment. However, the scale and intensity of this proposal go beyond what has historically been permitted or supported in this area and risk setting an undesirable precedent
While I hold a position of general support for the redevelopment of the subject site, I request that the following planning concerns and proposed conditions of consent be addressed:
1. Building Height and Bulk (Tweed LEP 2014 & DCP Compliance)
The proposal seeks a departure from the established three-storey height limit (approx. 13.6m) mandated by the Tweed Local Environmental Plan (LEP) and the original 2003 Masterplan consents for the Salt Beach Precinct. I submit that the proposed five-storey scale represents an inappropriate "abrupt change in scale" (per the NSW Apartment Design Guide) and is inconsistent with the "desired current and future character" of the locality. The proposed development fails to align with the intended scenic landscapes, neighborhood character, and locality plans of the Kingscliff area. The proposals do not transition smoothly to neighbouring properties and causes a sharp, noticeable contrast in bulk when compared to neighbouring properties. To allow this proposal would set an unwanted and undesirable precedent. Also the additional two storeys would significantly compromise the western vista and solar access for residents of SP 73905.


2. Traffic and On-Site Parking Provisions
The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) lacks a definitive schedule of uses for the retail/commercial components. Without a confirmed GFA breakdown—specifically regarding high-intensity "Food and Drink Premises"—the current parking assessment likely understates the required rate under the Tweed DCP. I request that the Department require a revised parking study to prevent overflow into the private parking and residential streetscape of Gunnamatta Avenue.
Affordable Housing Contribution

The proposal includes only two affordable housing units. While affordable housing is important, this level of provision is minimal in the context of a development of this size and does little to address local housing affordability pressures.
The limited number of affordable units suggests a minimal compliance approach rather than a meaningful contribution to housing diversity or community need.

3. Restriction as to User (Short-term Rental Management)
To safeguard the development’s contribution to permanent housing stock, I request the imposition of a Public Positive Covenant or a Section 88B instrument (Conveyancing Act 1919) on the title. This should restrict use to permanent residential occupation, ensuring the development does not pivot to Short-Term Rental Accommodation (STRA), which would bypass the intent of the Housing Delivery Assessment.
Conclusion
Taken together — excessive height, parking pressure, traffic impacts and limited affordable housing provision — the proposal risks detracting from the existing character and amenity of the area. Rather than integrating sensitively with its surroundings, the scale of the development has the potential to overwhelm the existing built form and undermine the qualities that define the Salt precinct.
For the reasons outlined above, I respectfully object to the proposed development in its current form. I request that the height be reduced to align with the existing 13.6-metre limit, that parking and traffic impacts be more rigorously addressed, that affordable housing provision be meaningfully increased, and that greater weight be given to the long-term character and liveability of Kingscliff and the Salt precinct.

Thank you for your consideration.
The outcome will impact the community for years to come.

My concerns relate to the proposed building height, parking provision, traffic impacts, and the overall impact on the surrounding area.

1. Current Height Limit in Kingscliff and the Salt Precinct
Under the Tweed Local Environmental Plan 2014, the maximum building height that applies to mixed-use and town centre areas in Kingscliff, including land within and adjacent to the Salt precinct, is 13.6 metres. This height limit reflects a deliberate planning intent to maintain a low-rise coastal village character consistent with the existing built form.
The proposal seeks approval for buildings of up to 18 metres, or five storeys. There is no precedent for development of this type or height within the Salt precinct or the surrounding Kingscliff area. Existing development has consistently complied with established height limits and built-form controls.

2. Excessive Building Height and Departure from Planning Controls
A five-storey development represents a clear departure from the established planning framework. The proposed height significantly exceeds the current height limit and is inconsistent with the scale and character of surrounding development.
Approving a development of this height would undermine the intent of the existing planning controls and weaken confidence in their ongoing application.

3. Precedent and Cumulative Impact
Approval of this proposal would set a precedent for future developments seeking similar or greater height variations. Once such a precedent is established, it becomes increasingly difficult to resist further departures from the planning framework.
The cumulative impact of approving developments that exceed established height limits will fundamentally alter the character of the Salt precinct and Kingscliff over time, moving it away from the low-rise coastal village identity that has been carefully planned and maintained.

4. Parking Provision and Likely Shortfall
While the proposal includes basement parking, there is insufficient confidence that the number of spaces provided will adequately meet demand generated by residents, visitors, retail users, staff, and service vehicles.
Salt already experiences pressure on on-street parking, particularly during peak periods. Any shortfall in on-site parking is likely to result in spill-over into surrounding residential streets, reducing amenity for existing residents and increasing congestion.

5. Traffic Impacts and Side Street Congestion
A development of this scale will generate increased traffic volumes, including private vehicles, deliveries, ride-share services, and service vehicles. Bells Boulevard and surrounding streets are local roads designed for a coastal village environment and may not be suitable for intensified traffic levels.
Increased traffic is likely to impact pedestrian safety, cyclist movement, parking availability, and overall neighbourhood amenity, particularly in nearby side streets.

6. Impact on Surrounding Character and Amenity
Taken together — excessive height, parking pressure, traffic impacts, and limited affordable housing provision — the proposal risks detracting from the existing character and amenity of the area. Rather than integrating sensitively with its surroundings, the scale of the development has the potential to overwhelm the existing built form and undermine the qualities that define the Salt precinct.

Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, I respectfully object to the proposed development in its current form. I request that the building height be reduced to align with the existing 13.6-metre limit, that parking and traffic impacts be more rigorously addressed, and that greater weight be given to the long-term character and liveability of Kingscliff and the Salt precinct.

I do not agree that this development meets the height requirements of our community. Nor does it warrant special approval to be excluded from the 3 story height limit in place in this area. The claim of affordable housing is false and by no means does this development assist with affordable housing in this area. Families and those in need will not benefit from purchasing or renting in this development as these units are well outside the average family budget, particular those that the claim of affordable housing is aimed to benefit. This is purely a developers way to gain approval at the detriment of the tweed coast community. Parking requirements are also not satisfactory with the surrounding streets being very narrow already. There is various evidence of side swipes to cars trying to squeeze through and the garbage trucks often damage cars trying to get through, or miss collecting rubbish entirely. TSC would be well aware of these issues.

I object to this development application as the built form is insensitive to the adjoining existing development & the form & character of the Kingscliff/Casuarina coastal area.
1 - Construction of a five storey building does not relate with the height of buildings along the Kingscliff coast & would be detrimental to the style of the area. The proposed building is directly under the inward southern flight path which already seriously impacts the Mantra Salt building on the 3rd floor. Increasing building height to 21m would cause very unnecessary aircraft noise levels on the 5th floor apartments & the adjoining communal area.
2 - The interface with the Mantra Salt apartments has afforded NO setback from the road, leading to a cluttered slop effect which is contrary to the open outlook currently enjoyed by the Mantra apartments.
3 - The existing mantra apartments will suffer loss of views to the west hinterland including spectre of the wonderful Mt. Warning sunsets. The increased height to 21m will mean loss of afternoon sun to the existing Mantra balcony`s.
4 - The proposed building balconys will incur overlooking with existing Mantra balcony`s NO public landscape buffer is provided to Gunnamatta Ave but only to Casuarina Way.
5 - The zoning to residential apartments is contrary to the character of the existing areas residential style dwellings.
Overall there is NO need for the proposed increased development footprint over the current existing use zoning.

This height increase is not acceptable for our beautiful coastal area. I disagree with the increase of height to 21m (5 floors). This mixed development area needs to align with the Mantra + Peppers resorts which are only 3 floors.

This application for extra height should not be approved. Once one of these is there'll be a flood of them and it'll totally screw the area - turn it into Gold Coast in a flash. Do the right thing...

There is a building height restriction in Kingscliff which will be broken if this development is approved. This will result in future development also being allowed as the precedent has been set.
The cost of this development will result in more very expensive apartments which will not help the lack of affordable housing in the Tweed Shire.
My husband and I are long term residents of the Tweed . My husbands family have been in the Tweed for more than 100 years

There needs to be far, far more than 2 "affordable" apartments to justify increasing the maximum height of the area. I am not against high density housing, but if the argument for it is affordability then there needs to be more than just a token gesture.