SUBMISSION: SSD-83069459-LOCATED AT 4-8 BELLS BOULEVARD, KINGSCLIFF NSW
I wish to express my opposition to the current proposal at the above-mentioned address,
I own Lot 123/Apt 5212 in the Class 3 residential apartment building located at 9 Gunnamatta Ave, Kingscliff (registered as Strata Plan 73905). I support a project, but not this one.

1. Height. I support the enforcement of the current TSC 3 storey height planning policy, for the reasons set out in that policy document, and because the tropical pool, which my unit overlooks, only receives afternoon sun. A five-storey development in front of the pool will completely block light and make my apartment impossible to rent-out, both during construction and thereafter. The vista to the west of SP 73905 would also be seriously impacted by adding two storeys to the height limit.
The original DA consents of 23 April 2003 for the Salt Beach Precinct envisaged that the site in question could be developed for Class 2 residential apartments, with a 3-storey height limitation

2. Parking. The proposed development should comply with the ‘retail’ parking issues raised in the Tweed Shire Council submission, as well as the parking overflow implications for the ‘residential’ parking area owned by SP 73905. This is already stretched for space. I think TSC’s estimated parking shortfall is insufficient.

3. Enforcement Of Use Intent. Conditions should be added to any DA consent to give formal effect to the intent that the apartments would be used for normal residential purposes. That should be done by requiring the Developer to place negative covenants on the title registration to prohibit short-term residential accommodation. The intent is clear, but would be unenforceable without the negative covenants. Higher Courts have always upheld Torrens title indefeasibility.
4. This derelict site is horrible, but a five-storey proposal is almost worse. For the sake of the residents and guests in the surrounding resorts, this proposal should be dismissed, and a new low-storey proposal should be permitted with the view to early completion and as little disruption to neighbours as possible.

I strongly object to the proposal to increase to the permitted height of buildings development standard for the site. There is no valid reason for this increase in height and it will not blend in with the aesthetic of the area. The very reason for the height restriction in the first place was to protect the area from high rise development

This project will provide new housing to support the growing needs of the local community. It helps improve housing availability, encourages a diverse and inclusive neighbourhood, and supports long-term local sustainability. The development has been planned to integrate with the existing community while contributing to economic activity and local services.

Hi, I am the owner of 2 units that face directly onto this proposed new development (my units directly look at the roundabout). I am a single mother, work hard and don't have much other than I took a risk to buy a property in a very expensive market with not a great return. I don't get the increases in property values that others get outside Mantra at Salt but couldn't afford anything else. I chose this property due to the amazing outlook of Mount Warning. The traffic is mildly busy but manageable. I did not provide objection to the duplexes being built, but this new proposal is quite ridiculous. Not only has the Tweed Shire Council been strict with building subdivisions in the Tweed Shire but building heights has always been restricted. Why should this new developer be exempt from this. Yes we need affordable housing (affordable!!) for the people that cannot afford millions of dollars (like me) but we don't need extra shops and high rises. This new development will directly remove any view or prospect of me getting any clients into the units. It will have zero to offer. I will lose money, which I don't have much of. This is so unfair. Big companies come in and just monopolise smaller people and we get no say. I will have nothing if this goes up. This needs to be low set housing so that there is benefit to all. I am so disappointed that this has come out and completely reject this proposal. There are enough shops already and in the off season, they find it hard to fill. The traffic will be appalling in a street that is already busy. This is a pure example of big business ignoring what is around them. This is all I have. I have worked hard my whole life to take care of my children and this was the only thing that I could afford after many years of hard work. The view, the income, the prospects will be gone if this highrise goes in. Why can't they just mirror the other side of this development and put low set housing in. This is a pure money making exercise without regard for anyone or anything around them.

I’m in favour of the development at Bells Boulevard. I think it makes sense for this area, especially since it’s already close to shops, roads and other services. Also having a mix of apartments, including some more affordable places, will help different kinds of people keep living in Kingscliff, not just those who can afford big houses.

I support the project

I object to rezoning proposal to increase the permitted height of Buildings Development standard to height of 21m.

I also interpret ‘dot point’ 5 - ‘Landscaping, communal open space & swimming pool’ to be misleading. Unless the swimming pool is part of the communal open space?
Please explain.

The development is too high and should be restricted to 3 levels not 5. We don’t want Kingscliff to end up like the Gold Coast.

We have a height limit here for very good reasons and I don’t think that offering 2 / 70 appartments as “affordable” justifies destroying the amenity of our beautiful town. First your building g, then the next one wants 8 stories, then we’re another Gold Coast, which is everything we’ve tried to avoid.

Stick to the height limit, don’t worry you’ll still make millions from your development.

The project by its description seeks to increase the overall height restrictions currently in place for the area. Whilst the addition of 2 extra residential floors would no doubt aid profitability, it comes at a significant cost to the peace and harmony of the area. That, combined with an already unacceptable level of vehicular traffic not just on Casuarina Way, but also the feeder streets to the Salt village area are impacting negatively and often dangerously on the amenity of residents. The road system bounded Gunnamatta, Barrel, Banzai and Cylinders is already in excess of reasonable expectations for narrow residential streets. If this project were to go ahead in its existing form, without any form of traffic minimisation strategy the increase in road traffic would represent a totally unacceptable risk. Council has already added 14 more residences to the same project. The impact of this will already add to the traffic flows in and around Barrel Street. I base these views on my more than 35 years as a NSW Police Officer retiring at the rank of Assistant Commissioner.