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.

To: NSW Department of Planning and Environment Re: Submission of Objection – SSD-83069459 (4-8 Bells Boulevard, Kingscliff)

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing to formally object to the proposed mixed-use development at 4-8 Bells Boulevard (SSD-83069459). My objection centres on the significant breach of established planning controls and the irreversible negative impacts this scale of development will have on the Kingscliff community.

1. Breach of Clause 4.3 (Height of Buildings) & Dangerous Precedent Under the Tweed Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2014, Clause 4.3, the maximum building height for this site is 13.6m. The proponent is seeking 21.4m, which represents a 57% variation to the development standard.

Precedent: Granting such a massive variation through the State Significant Development (SSD) process completely undermines the integrity of the LEP. It sets a dangerous precedent that the "coastal village" height limits, which were hard-won through years of community consultation, are effectively meaningless. If approved, this will trigger a "race to the top" for all remaining lots in the Salt and Casuarina precincts, permanently altering our skyline.

2. Failure to Align with the Kingscliff Locality Plan (KLP) The Kingscliff Locality Plan (Volume 1, Section 8) explicitly identifies the need to maintain a "low-rise coastal character." This project’s bulk and scale are in direct conflict with the KLP’s strategic vision. A 5-storey building is visually intrusive and will create a "canyon effect" along Bells Boulevard, eroding the amenity and open feel that the KLP was designed to protect for locals and visitors alike.

3. Negative Cumulative Impact The Department must assess this project not in isolation, but in the context of the rapid intensification of the Salt precinct. The cumulative impact of this high-density proposal, alongside other recent approvals (such as the Uniting Seniors project), will place an unsustainable burden on local infrastructure. The local road network, particularly the Bells Boulevard and Casuarina Way intersections, was never designed to accommodate this level of high-rise density.

4. Traffic Congestion and Safety Bells Boulevard is the primary northern gateway for Salt Village. Adding 75 apartments and 1,500sqm of retail will result in unacceptable traffic volumes. I am concerned the Traffic Impact Assessment underestimates the safety risks to the high volume of pedestrians and cyclists—including many young families and tourists—who frequent this specific precinct.

5. Environmental and Floodplain Risk The site sits on a sensitive floodplain. I object to the extensive basement excavation and land-fill required for a building of this scale. In light of recent extreme weather events in the Tweed Shire, displacing groundwater and increasing hard-surface runoff poses a genuine flood risk to surrounding lower-density properties.

Conclusion The proposed development is an overreach that prioritises developer yield over community-agreed planning standards. I urge the Department to reject the height variation and require the project to be redesigned to comply with the 13.6m height limit mandated by the Tweed LEP 2014.

Sincerely,
Tim Bradley

As a young man looking to start a family and working in Kingscliff, this project will go a long way to delivering housing diversity in the area. Kingscliff needs projects like this to attract younger people to the area that can't afford the +$2m luxury homes or massive beachfront apartments. I also like the use of shared spaces and open central courtyard, and can see it being a real meeting place for the community, all without being any higher than what's around it.

I am writing to formally lodge an objection to the proposed five-storey mixed-use development in my local suburb.
My primary concern relates to the height and scale of the development, which would significantly exceed that of surrounding residential and mixed-use buildings. As proposed, the building would be visually dominant, stand out as an eyesore, and detract from the established character and amenity of the area.
This coastal suburb is valued for its low-rise, human-scale built form and distinct identity. Unlike areas such as the Gold Coast, which have embraced high-rise development, this locality has deliberately retained a more modest height profile. That uniqueness is a key part of what makes the area attractive to residents and visitors alike, and it should be protected.
I am supportive of thoughtful development and recognise the importance of accommodating residential and commercial growth. However, new developments should be sympathetic to their context and sit within the established boundaries of height, scale, and character already present in the area. In my view, this proposal does not achieve that balance.
I respectfully request that the assessing authority give due consideration to the cumulative visual and character impacts of this development and reconsider approval in its current form.

I am writing to raise serious concerns regarding the State Significant Development proposed for Bells Boulevard, Kingscliff. The project seeks to exceed the current 13.6 metre height limit under the Tweed LEP 2014 (Clause 4.3) by a substantial margin, requesting an uplift to 21 metres to permit a five storey building. This is not a minor variation; it represents a fundamental shift in the planning controls that have long governed Kingscliff.
The Kingscliff Locality Plan was developed through extensive consultation and is built on a clear commitment to low rise, human scale coastal development. Approving a height increase of this scale at the top of the rise would undermine that framework and set a precedent that future proponents will inevitably rely upon. It would also erode community confidence in the integrity and consistency of the planning system.
The impacts are significant and foreseeable: direct overlooking of existing homes, overshadowing and privacy loss for the 42 approved townhouses on the adjoining downslope parcel, and increased traffic and parking pressure on an already constrained road network. The proposal also introduces avoidable land use conflict by placing a large number of new residents beside a long established resort.
This development is inconsistent with the LEP, inconsistent with the Locality Plan, and inconsistent with the expectations set for this community. I ask that you ensure the planning framework is upheld and that this proposal is not approved in its current form and that any future development on the site be required to comply with the existing 13.6m height limit and the Kingscliff Locality Plan to ensure appropriate scale, amenity protection and planning consistency.
Sincerely,
J Keast

We don't want to become a Gold Coast. Don't mind more retail or residences as will be more options for guests/visitors, BUT only 3 storey max not 5 .
Will be problems for parking , emergency vehicles etc . More cars around and shadows will be extended across already existing residential . Busier and not our quite beautiful Kingscliff. Will also bring more option for further crime which is already around.

There is a 3 story limit in the area for environmental protection reasons.
The costal area is to be protectected .Not overdevelped and turned into the Gold coast.
This is outrages to be suggested as some sort of cheap housing lie.
Kings Forrest has not even been inhabited and that will be way to many people already for the infrastructer in the area.
How thet even get to submit this king of project when the legal limit is 3 stories for a reason.

I write as a long-term resident of Kingscliff to formally object to the proposed development at 4–8 Bells Boulevard.
While I acknowledge the need for thoughtful growth and housing diversity within our community, I have significant concerns regarding the scale, character, amenity impacts and broader planning implications of this proposal.
1. Excessive Height and Scale
The proposed five-storey development is inconsistent with the established low-rise character of Kingscliff. The bulk and height of the building appear excessive relative to the surrounding built environment and risk permanently altering the village atmosphere that residents and visitors value. Approving a development of this scale may also set an undesirable precedent for further intensification beyond what was originally envisaged for this precinct.
2. Impact on Residential Amenity
The proposal will likely result in overlooking and loss of privacy for neighbouring properties, particularly from upper-level balconies and windows. Overshadowing may also reduce solar access to adjacent homes and outdoor spaces. These impacts would significantly diminish the liveability of nearby residences.
3. Traffic and Parking Pressures
Kingscliff already experiences congestion during peak tourist periods and holidays. Increased density at this location will inevitably generate additional vehicle movements, placing further strain on local roads and pedestrian safety. Even with basement parking proposed, overflow parking and service vehicle access are genuine concerns for surrounding streets.
4. Flooding and Environmental Concerns
Given the flood-prone nature of parts of Kingscliff, there is concern about stormwater management, site fill, and cumulative impacts on surrounding properties. Any development in this area must demonstrate beyond doubt that it will not exacerbate flooding risks or compromise drainage patterns.
5. Planning Integrity and Community Confidence
It is concerning that the proposal requires variations or exceeds what many residents understood to be the intended planning controls for this area. Community confidence in the planning process depends on transparency and adherence to established controls that protect neighbourhood character and amenity.
Kingscliff is valued for its coastal village identity, walkability, and human-scale built form. Development that is disproportionate to its surroundings risks eroding these qualities. I respectfully request that the application be refused in its current form, or substantially amended to better reflect the character, scale and amenity expectations of the local community.
Thank you for considering my submission.

Submission in Support of Proposed Development
To the NSW Department of Planning

My name is Luke Fitzgerald and I reside at 25 Longboard Circuit, Kingscliff. My home is located within a few hundred metres of the proposed development site. I also operate a local business based directly across the road at Salt Village, giving me both a residential and commercial perspective on this proposal.

I am writing in support of the proposed development. Kingscliff, and Salt Village in particular, is clearly under-served in terms of retail and food offerings relative to the number of residents and visitors it accommodates. The current lack of choice and activation means locals and tourists regularly travel out of Kingscliff to meet everyday needs, which weakens the local economy and undermines the purpose of having a designated village precinct.

Additional retail and food outlets within this development would help reinvigorate the area, increase pedestrian activity, and encourage people to stay and spend locally. From my position as a nearby business operator, increased activation benefits the broader precinct rather than competing with existing businesses. More foot traffic supports employment, improves commercial viability, and strengthens the overall village atmosphere.

The proposal will also contribute to local job creation, both during construction and through ongoing retail and service employment once completed. Keeping jobs and services within Kingscliff reduces the ongoing reliance on travel to surrounding centres, improves convenience for residents, and supports a more self-sustaining local economy.

In relation to building height, I do not consider the proposed height of approximately 21 metres to be an issue in this location. This site is one of the last remaining significant development parcels in the local area and is appropriately positioned to accommodate additional scale. It has no direct, immediate residential neighbours that would be unreasonably impacted, and its location at the entry to Salt Village makes it suitable for a more prominent built form that helps define and complete the precinct.

If a site of this size, location, and context cannot support a development of this nature, it raises a legitimate question about where growth in Kingscliff is intended to be accommodated. Concentrating height and density in well-located, planned sites is a more responsible approach than dispersing development pressure into established low-density residential areas.

Overall, I believe the proposal represents a balanced and logical opportunity to improve local amenity, strengthen the Kingscliff economy, support tourism, and provide long-term benefits to residents and businesses alike. For these reasons, I support the proposed development and encourage the NSW Department of Planning to give it favourable consideration.