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.

This is outside agreed 3 storey limit. Also too dense. Will put a strain on local roads and parking . Not in keeping with surroundings.
Will set a poor precedent.
Won’t be affordable housing unless you consider $1m affordable . Too close to the beach to ever be affordable due to market forces.
Bad idea all round .

I have several areas of concern:
1. The streets in the area are already congested, while there are plans for underground parking there is just not enough to cope with both the residents and visitors to the shopping precinct. Cars will be parked on residential streets and will be a major inconvenience for local residents already coping with the influx caused by the increase in short term holiday accommodation.
2. The only access is along Casuarina Way which was never designed for the huge increase in traffic, nor was the bridge over Cudgen Creek.
3. The supposed addition of "affordable housing units" is a political ploy. Two units out of one hundred have been allocated. During a discussion with the developers, I was informed the affordable units would be restricted to one-bedroom apartments and the cost of the units would be 25% below market value. That equates to a one-bedroom apartment at $900,000, in which world is that affordable housing.
4. Increasing the height limit from 13.6 meters to 21 meters (originally proposed 18 meters, creeping up already) is not a minor change as the developers are framing it but an increase of over 50%. Allowing the construction of a 5 storey building where the current limit is 3 storeys is a huge change in both the character of the area and will inevitably lead to a rash of similar proposals. This is not the Gold Coast, and we do not wish to become another high-rise paradise.
5. Storm water run-off will increase, the drainage system barely coped with Cyclone Alfred and the additional stress will almost certainly lead to flooding.

My objection is based on the following planning grounds:
1. Non-Compliance with Height Restrictions
The proposed development exceeds the applicable height limits prescribed under the relevant planning controls for the site. These height standards are critical to managing building scale, protecting local character, and ensuring equitable development outcomes. Approval of a development that exceeds these limits would undermine the intent of the planning framework and establish an undesirable precedent within the Tweed Shire.
2. Inconsistency with Rezoning Objectives
The proposal is inconsistent with the objectives and intent of the existing zoning and any recent or proposed rezoning applicable to the site. The scale and intensity of the development do not align with the strategic planning outcomes envisaged for this zone, particularly in relation to orderly development, land-use compatibility, and the protection of surrounding residential and environmental amenity.

3. Adverse Amenity Impacts
The excessive height and bulk of the proposed development are likely to result in significant adverse amenity impacts, including but not limited to:
• Overshadowing of neighbouring properties and public spaces, reducing access to sunlight
• Visual dominance and loss of local character due to excessive scale and bulk
• Potential loss of privacy for adjoining properties
• Increased sense of enclosure and reduced streetscape quality
These impacts are contrary to the objectives of good urban design and do not reflect the low to medium scale development outcomes intended for the area.
4. Undesirable Planning Precedent
Approval of a development that fails to comply with established height controls and results in demonstrable amenity impacts would weaken confidence in the planning system and diminish the effectiveness of adopted planning instruments designed to guide appropriate development outcomes.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that Development Application SSD-83068459 be refused, or alternatively not approved in its current form unless it is substantially amended to fully comply with applicable height limits, zoning provisions, and amenity protections.

The scale of the proposed development is out of character for the location. The current height limit of 13.6m reflects the nature of this coastal suburb and the site set among 3 storey tourist resorts and low density residential housing. Furthermore, the adjacent existing 3-storey buildings flow down the slope which reduces the visual impact on approach. The proposed development would be located at the top of the hill exacerbating the visual impact of height and bulk as approached from below in almost every direction. The architectural perspectives provided are misleading as the placement of people and objects in the close foreground serve to diminish the true scale of the building for the viewer. I am strongly of the view that the development will create an ugly eyesore in a location that is entirely unsuited to a building of such height and bulk. Tweed Shire has been largely successful in avoiding overdevelopment in its coastal communities and it would be an abomination if the character of Kingscliff and Salt Village were to be transformed in such a manner.