Uniting Kingscliff Redevelopment

7321

03/11/2025

Object

Email

This submission contains more information regarding my objection regarding the lack of meaningful consultation. Further to my original submission number 6886, please find attached ANOTHER document that shows we did indeed run the idea of two single corridor buildings for block A. The attached document is the submission I made to the DPHI when they were first called for, in 2024. I have highlighted the pertinent paragraph. I believe that it was the role of the DPHI to pass on all relevant objections from the submissions received. I am not sure if this was done, or, if it was passed on, what the developer did with the information.

DPHI submission_Redacted.pdf (PDF, 1.11 MB)

7326

Tweed District Residents & Ratepayers Assoc.

Redacted

03/11/2025

Object

Email

Please find attached subject submission.

IPC-SUBMISSION-UKR.pdf (PDF, 726.88 KB)

7116

New South Wales 2487

03/11/2025

Object

Website

Please see my attached word document with pictures, as objections to the Uniting Kingscliff Development.

Kathryn Meggitt submission_Redacted.pdf (PDF, 1.88 MB)

7126

New South Wales 2487

03/11/2025

Object

Website

I object to the DPHI assessment of the Kingscliff Uniting Redevelopment I object to that fact that it will only provide eight new RCF beds. I object to the 199 ILU units. There is no definitive difference between these types of units and any other unit blocks currently being built on Kingscliff especially as there has been no mention of cost. We certainly have more than enough three-bedroom, two-bathroom units and do not need more. Most seniors are looking to down size and three bedroom, two bathrooms do not represent this. Why can’t Uniting promise affordable housing for seniors and build an appropriate number of two- and one-bedroom units that are within the purchasing capacity of older people who have limited funds. I object that 17.05 metre height of the buildings are compatible to the character of the area and to Kingscliff. Kingscliff community has worked hard to keep the height to 13.6m limit and 17.05m is a substantial over build. We are not the Gold Coast; we are not Sydney. The bulk and scale of this development would destroy the character of Kingscliff’s beachside charm and would negate the reason why people choose to live and visit here. I object to the fact that the assessment has ignored the concerns of local community groups who provide services during natural disaster. Desk jockeys do not have the lived experience of first responders on the ground and how dare this assessment, this government and Uniting ignore those concerns with inappropriate emergency evacuation plans. Has this government learned nothing from past natural disasters? I object to this facility as it would produce significant light spill and create a substantial level of light pollution for the township and surrounding residents. I object to the height, size, scale of the development as it would add substantially to traffic numbers that already are putting the Kingscliff infrastructure under stress. I object that this assessment does not take into consideration the Tweed Shire Council town planning policies and protocols. The LEP and other related development policies and protocols are the result of intense community consultation and the process of the DPHI and SSD completely ignore these. It would seem that if you are a developer and have money you can ignore all plans that that give residents the confidence to build, believing that the surrounding areas will remain within character, height and be built in accordance to the character of the community. The DPHI and SSD process are an abuse of power and totally ride rough shod over small communities who do not have the resources to combat developers like Uniting. Why cannot this development be scaled back to suit the character of Kingscliff, adhering to Tweed Shire council planning and design rules while keeping the intent of the development?

7131

New South Wales 2488

03/11/2025

Object

Website

I am apposed to the proposed development. I am the Vice President of the Cabarita Beach Bogangar Residents Association. I speak on behalf of the numerous members of our association who are apposed to the proposed development. We live in the Tweed Shire, not the Gold Coast. The build form and character of our shire is not that of the Gold Coast. We are a low rise shire where buildings are positioned with sensitivity to the neighbours and surrounding environment. Our shire prides itself on lower density and much greater care for the environment we live within. This proposal does not fit the low rise coastal character. The bulk scale and character of the proposed development is not in line with Kingscliff development plan. The SES is apposed to this development due to the unrealistic emergency plan. This facility will be built on a flood plain. By the time evacuation of the premise is required, the surrounding streets will be flooded. It puts the rest of the community at risk by adding this unreasonable additional load to our emergency services. There is no administrative plan to address this concern from the developers. Perhaps they should be tasked with taking care of the residents during emergency situations eg flooding, without the aid of the local SES. This facility triggers State approval largely due to the size of the development. 231 independent living luxury apartments are being built, along with 105 aged care beds. The independent apartments are a cash grab by the developers to gain approval for a development that would not get Council approval due to its bulk, scale and character. These luxury apartments are being built by being camoflaged with the additional 105 aged care beds. Not only the loss of sky view but also that of overshadowing during the winter months, will dramatically affect existing residents unless they are to the north of this proposed development. Please acknowledge the degradation in community character and inherent issues this development proposal brings to the community and reject the proposal in its current form. If the number of independant living apartments was approximately the same as the number of aged care beds, then the bulk and height of this development would be reducued and be more in line with the existing community aesthetics.

7136

New South Wales 2487

03/11/2025

Object

Website

I am writing to formally object to the proposed redevelopment of the existing aged care facility located at 24A Kingscliff Street, Kingscliff (SSD/47105958). I reside at [REDACTED], directly opposite the development site, and I am therefore directly affected by the proposal. While I acknowledge the importance of providing quality aged care accommodation within our community, I have significant concerns regarding the scale, height, and impacts of this particular proposal. In its current form, the development will result in a loss of local amenity, increased traffic congestion, and inadequate provision for pedestrian safety in what is already a constrained residential area. 1. Height and Scale of Development The proposed height and bulk of the redevelopment are inconsistent with the surrounding residential character of Kingscliff. The adjoining and nearby properties are predominantly low-rise residential dwellings, and the proposed building will appear visually dominant and out of scale with its immediate context. This will detract from the coastal village character and significantly alter the streetscape. I also note that the development application uses my property at [REDACTED] to demonstrate a “three-storey apartment block” adjacent to the site, which is incorrect and misleading. My property is a three-storey single dwelling, not an apartment building. This misrepresentation gives an inaccurate impression of the surrounding built form and should not be used to justify the scale or bulk of the proposed development. Furthermore, the application fails to recognise the impact of the adjoining R2 zoned areas immediately adjacent to the property, as well as the nearby R1-zoned area, namely Drift Court, which has in practice been developed at an R2 scale and density, despite its R1 zoning. As a result, the proposed development will tower above all surrounding properties, creating a sharp and inappropriate transition in height and character between zones. This lack of sensitivity to zoning boundaries and existing neighbourhood form demonstrates a poor contextual response to its setting. In addition, the proposed development contains 41 three-bedroom units and 119 two-bedroom units, which is excessive for what is described as a "retirement living” facility. It is difficult to justify why such a large proportion of three-bedroom apartments is necessary to meet the needs of retirees. This mix clearly contributes to the overall size and bulk of the development and suggests that the Uniting Church is more focused on asset value and growth potential than on genuine retirement accommodation needs. In doing so, the proposal neglects to respond to the long-standing concerns of the local community regarding the excessive scale and intensity of the redevelopment. 2. Loss of Residential Amenity The increased building height and bulk will result in visual intrusion and a loss of privacy for nearby residents, including those on Beach Street. The proposed scale does not appropriately transition to the neighbouring residential zone, as expected under good urban design principles. In my case, the increased height of the proposed residential facility will directly overlook our private pool area, located on the southern side of our property at [REDACTED]. This pool area was designed specifically for private family use and relaxation, and the loss of privacy caused by the proposed building will effectively remove all amenity and enjoyment of this space. The proposal, therefore, has a severe and unreasonable impact on the residential amenity of my property. 3. Traffic and Parking Impacts I strongly disagree with the findings of the Traffic Impact Assessment submitted with the development application. The assessment fails to reflect the real conditions of Kingscliff Street and Beach Street, which already experience high parking demand and limited on-street capacity. The increase in staff, visitor, and service-vehicle movements associated with the expanded facility will exacerbate congestion and create further parking pressure on surrounding streets. Additionally, the current site entrance and exit are positioned at an acute angle to Kingscliff Street, which will make vehicle manoeuvring difficult and potentially unsafe — particularly with the increased volume of traffic expected as a result of the development. This design flaw could create visibility issues and congestion at the site access points. Furthermore, the traffic assessment does not adequately consider peak periods when Kingscliff experiences higher visitor and local traffic volumes, such as during weekends, school holidays, and ever increasing local events. These periods significantly affect traffic flow and parking availability in the area, and their omission from the analysis results in an inaccurate assessment of the proposal’s real-world impacts. 4. Pedestrian Safety and Accessibility There appears to be inadequate consideration of pedestrian safety in the design, particularly given the expected increase in traffic movements. The streets surrounding the site are frequently used by residents, children, and elderly pedestrians. In particular, there is currently no adequate pedestrian crossing on the south side of Beach Street toward the beach. This location is heavily used by pedestrians accessing the coastal area, and the absence of proper crossing infrastructure creates unsafe conditions. Furthermore, pedestrian usage in this area may include individuals with compromised mobility, such as elderly residents, people with disabilities, or those using mobility aids. This further increases the potential risks associated with the lack of safe pedestrian crossings, especially at the Kingscliff Street intersection, where vehicle movements are expected to intensify as a result of the proposed development. The proposal fails to address these existing deficiencies or make provisions to improve pedestrian connectivity and safety, which should be a key consideration given the increased activity generated by the development. 5. Cumulative Impact and Local Context The development should be assessed in the context of its surrounding neighbourhood character and infrastructure capacity. The proposed intensity of use and built form are not in keeping with the existing scale and density of the Kingscliff residential area and would set an undesirable precedent for future developments. Conclusion For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Department refuse the application in its current form, or alternatively, require substantial amendments to address the issues raised above — particularly regarding building height, bulk, traffic management, and pedestrian safety. I feel particularly aggrieved by the lack of consideration shown toward both myself and my fellow community members who live in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development. Despite numerous community concerns being raised, these appear to have fallen upon ears with little or no genuine connection to our community or the town of Kingscliff. This disregard for local feedback has caused considerable frustration and disappointment among residents who care deeply about preserving the character and liveability of our area.

7141

Queensland 2487

03/11/2025

Object

Website

I was a neighbour of the proposed development of Uniting. A cannot fathom the enormity of the proposal in the backyards of peoples homes. I will have a serious impact at the property where I lived and from what I can see will impact every neighbour. It is too big and bulky It is too long It will create shadows. There will be a serious breach of privacy for everyone including future tenants. It would seriously affect the amenity of every neighbour It is over development of a small site out of metropolitan areas. And, it is out of character with its surrounds. Noise dust, light pollution, and 4 years of construction. As a community member I assisted in evacuation of elderly in the 2022 floods. This was a serious situation without SES or trained rescuers and without the local community many people would have been lost. There should be no elderly developments in the flood plains. I can’t see that the developer has considered the neighbours or village but only what is within the fence. This development is needed and the only way this can be done fairly is to significantly reduce its size. I object to the existing design.

7146

New South Wales 2487

03/11/2025

Object

Website

My Name is Kristy and I object to a development of this proportion. It is significantly oversized and disrespectful to the neighbouring homes and the Kingscliff village community. We have elderly family that are neighbours. When I originally spoke to them about this project, I was a supporter due to the need for aged care UNTIL I was shown the plans. How could this be approved? This project is a massive overdevelopment of the site The Bulk and scale will significantly affect the existing homes, There are significant privacy issues, It will affect the traffic and parking around town during business hours, The flooding with the floor levels above the surrounding houses will definitely cause issues as the basin has previously provided an outlet and pathway for storm and flood water. It will put too many vulnerable people in a flood zone. This is out of keeping with the 2 and single rise homes surrounding the property. There is a need for aged care and housing. I however object because of shear size. This is not balanced development and has a complete disregard for the existing community. Surely there could be a more suitable and sensible option for this site. This is just pure greed and disrespect to the Kingscliff Community.

7151

New South Wales 2487

03/11/2025

Object

Website

We Object to this Development

Ken McCollum redacted_1.pdf (PDF, 3.52 MB)

7156

New South Wales 2487

03/11/2025

Object

Website

I Object to this development

Adam Thompson_Redacted.pdf (PDF, 1.8 MB)

7166

New South Wales 2486

03/11/2025

Object

Website

I object to the DPHI assessment report of the Kingscliff Uniting Redevelopment. As a retired builder who has built houses in the Tweed Shire for over 40 years, including many in Kingscliff, the proposed redevelopment is NOT compatible with the character of the community. Tweed Shire has an enforced height limit of 13.6 metres and the 17.05m height proposed by Uniting’s redevelopment is a substantial change that will definitely affect the character of the town. As a retired builder, the bulk and scale of this redevelopment is an abomination and is does not have “an appropriate Built-form relationship” with the surrounding area. The DPHI assessment is well and truly incorrect in approving this redevelopment to proceed in its current height, bulk and scale. It needs to be redesigned to be more in keeping with the long-held height limit of the area and also to present a series of buildings which have far less scale and bulk and are compliant to the council building regulations. It also needs to more appropriately address safety issues during a natural disaster particularly flooding. As a retired volunteer first responder, a more comprehensive plan to evacuate “senior people” during a crisis, needs to be much better thought out. The lessons from previous disasters need to be learned from and not ignored. The current plan is ill-formed and not feasible and puts vulnerable people at risk. I also object to the amount of traffic that will increase as a result of this huge redevelopment. Kingscliff traffic infrastructure is already under stress with major traffic jams at peak hour, holidays and general day-to-day traffic. Pot holes are rife within Kingscliff roads and often cause damage to cars. More traffic will only exacerbate the issues of congestion, road infrastructure and repairs. I object to the DPHI assessment report of the Uniting Kingscliff Redevelopment and find it does not reflect accurately the issues that will arise from such an over built facility.

7186

New South Wales 2487

03/11/2025

Object

Website

I object to the current proposal for the Uniting Kingscliff Seniors Housing Redevelopment. The plan, as it stands, fails to respect the established character of the neighborhood, diminishes the quality of life for nearby residents, strains local infrastructure, and increases both flooding and environmental hazards that threaten our community’s safety and livability. This project does not serve the public interest and should not be classified as a State Significant Development (SSD). Labeling this project as State Significant is an inappropriate use of the SSD designation. Such status should be reserved for developments that truly benefit New South Wales—like major hospitals, vital infrastructure, or large-scale cultural or industrial projects. This redevelopment does not meet those criteria. Instead, it is a private expansion of an existing aged care facility, seemingly designed to circumvent local planning rules. The proposal only adds eight new aged care beds (from 112 to 120) but introduces 199 Independent Living Units, essentially creating a high-density seniors’ apartment complex. This is not a meaningful expansion of aged care; it is a commercial residential project with local, not state, significance. The primary beneficiary appears to be Uniting’s financial interests, not the broader community of New South Wales. Despite claims from the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure, this development does not align with the public interest. It disregards the planning frameworks established by Tweed Shire Council, which were developed through extensive community consultation to preserve Kingscliff’s low-rise coastal identity. Approving this project would undermine those protections and set a troubling precedent for overdevelopment in the area. The resulting loss of privacy, sunlight, amenity, and flood safety for current residents cannot be justified as serving the public good. True public interest lies in upholding local planning integrity and ensuring that growth does not compromise community wellbeing. The proposed buildings exceed the 13.6-metre height restriction set by the Local Environmental Plan, reaching up to 17 metres. Their size and density are out of step with the surrounding low-rise environment. The design features block-like facades with minimal setbacks, giving an institutional feel that clashes with the village atmosphere. The Kingscliff Plan earmarks this area for low-density housing, with higher-density development intended for future greenfield sites further west. This proposal directly contradicts that vision. Flood risk is a major concern for this location. As a resident of Spoonbill Lane, I have personally observed significant stormwater accumulation behind our homes during the March 2025 storm and the 2022 floods. The drainage system was already overwhelmed by rainfall alone, not river flooding. Water backed up onto our streets and Kingscliff Street, blocking exits for residents. This was before any additional hard surfaces or underground parking were added. Raising and filling the Uniting site to meet new floor height standards will only push more floodwater into neighboring streets and properties. There is no credible hydrological evidence that these risks have been properly addressed. Residents of Spoonbill Lane, Beach Street, Lorien Way, and nearby areas will face greater flood exposure as a result. Traffic congestion is already a problem in Kingscliff. Local roads were never intended to handle the volume associated with hundreds of new residents, staff, visitors, and service vehicles. The Department’s reliance on average traffic figures fails to capture peak times or the real-world congestion already present on Kingscliff Street and nearby intersections. More vehicles will increase risks for pedestrians and cyclists and worsen parking shortages. The added strain will also impact local infrastructure, especially health services. Tweed Shire already has one of the highest proportions of seniors in NSW and limited access to general practitioners. Bringing in hundreds more retirees without expanding health or aged care capacity will only exacerbate existing pressures on essential services. The proposal is also misleading in its presentation. Proponents argue there is a need for more aged care beds, yet the plan adds only eight while introducing nearly 200 independent units—likely bringing around 300 more retirees to Kingscliff. This does not address the aged care shortage; it diverts resources to upscale housing for independent seniors rather than expanding genuine aged care. It will also increase demand on health, transport, and emergency services that are already stretched thin

7196

New South Wales 2487

03/11/2025

Object

Website

Since the flooding of the Tweed valley in 2017 and, far more so, in 2022 the impact of the continued filling of flood liable land has continued to adversely impact my amenity, and my living environment as I live in Chinderah. Whilst it may be argued that this filling would act as a levee for the Uniting Redevelopment and will only cause floodwater backup upstream in the Tweed valley, and so not impact Chinderah. I would challenge this. I have been a member of the Tweed Shire Council Floodplain Management Committee since 1986 I have heard this ' back up' of floodwaters excuse by a number of developers over the ensuing years since 1986. Whilst the floodwaters will initially backup to disadvantage the M1 at Melaleuca Station, it will also cause great disadvantage to the villages of Tumbulgum, Condong and other villages and towns upsream. I ask, once this 'back up' occurs, do the floodwaters remain back upped? Of course they DO NOT!!! These same back up floodwaters come back down the Tweed River flood path to devastate my home village of Chinderah which has 8 caravan parks on or very near the Tweed's riverbank. Added to these caravan parks which ha ve permanent residents, there is my village itself, my home and those of my neighbours which all bore flood inundation in 2017 and 2022. Secondly, Tweed Shire Council's Building height limits for Kingscliff and their Locality Plan, have been totally ignored by these developers who openly stated that this development was in itself 'a resort'. Thirdly, the increased traffic and parking issues now being experienced in Kingscliff, will too ,be exacerbated, so that we, the existing residents,will face further disadvantage. In conclusion, this resort will completely ruin the Kingscliff village and will only be for the benefit of the wealthy and the disadvantage of the local residents.

7201

Redacted

03/11/2025

Object

Website

To whom it may concern, I object to the Uniting Kingscliff redevelopment, I have quite serious concerns and they are as follows. 1. The building of 199 units, 4 storeys high will be an eyesore in our community, it will overshadow the existing homes which are 1 or 2 storeys high and so create loss of privacy and well being to existing residents and neighbours. 2. The noise and light pollution that will emanate from this proposed development, possibly 24 hours a day, will adversely affect immediate neighbours and surrounding streets, of which I live in with my elderly husband. 3. I have major traffic concerns regarding the streets around this development. Proposed access is to be Beach St., Lorien Way and Kingscliff St. I travel along these roads on a daily basis and can tell you that they are full of cars already parking outside the existing homes and units there. If a bus is coming you need to tuck in behind a parked car to allow the bus to pass before you can proceed and at times when faced with a large SUV the same applies. I foresee major traffic jams and /or traffic incidents along these streets with the increase in traffic that would inevitably occur with such a large increase in not only population but all the support and ancillary traffic that such a development would attract. 4. Flooding is always a worry. The capacity for drainage to the creek is limited as witnessed during the 2022 flood. Our house was safe but we were cut off and unable to leave our immediate area for several days. 5. This development does not have the support of the community due to the sheer scale of it and the problems that will follow. The artist's impression do not give enough detail and it seems it is targeted to monied retirees who will move into the area and not existing residents looking for aged care living. I do hope, you, in the NSW Independent Planning Commission are truly independent and can see that we here in Kingscliff are not opposed to development but welcome it as long as it would fit into our streetscapes and community. As an idea, visit here and see for yourself what a devastating impact this huge development as it stands would adversely affect our community. Thank you Jennifer C

7211

Kingscliff Ratepayers and Progress Association Inc.

New South Wales 2487

03/11/2025

Object

Website

Please consider the attached submission as an objection by the Kingscliff Ratepayers and Progress Association Inc to SSD-47105958, Uniting Kingscliff Redevelopment. Thank you to the Commission for your consideration of this submission and for your interaction with the community on this matter.

Peter Newton for IPC Uniting Kingscliff KRPA submission_Redacted.pdf (PDF, 198.42 KB)

7221

New South Wales 2486

03/11/2025

Object

Website

I Object Uniting Kingscliff (SSD-47105958) I object to the new redevelopment of the Uniting site at Kingscliff. I have an elderly parent in currently residing in aged care in Tweed and see the need for and understand the shortage of aged care. I am however familiar with this site and see this proposal as a massive over development of the site and for the Kingscliff Community. The Buildings large and offer no relief or articulation in the buildings and will cause issues. These issues are, Privacy, views completely taken, over shadow, light spill, noise, reflectivity of sun from windows and balustrades, parking and traffic. I also feel this this is not in the character of the surrounding houses and neighbourhood nor the village of Kingscliff. Such a large influx of aged people to a small town will create an imbalance of older generations and only increase the demand for beds. This project also appears to be masquerading as a aged care facility when in fact it is development that belongs to the cities and not a small coastal town.

7226

New South Wales 2486

03/11/2025

Object

Website

I object to the Uniting NSW (ACT) development for Kingscliff I have reviewed the documents online and am extremely concerned about the overall size of the development. This is completely out of context with the local character of the Kingscliff town. It has just been jammed in amongst the existing houses. It will severely affect the amenity of the surrounding houses. I am concerned about the flooding and access to elderly people in a major event. It can be completely overwhelming and cause distress. I am also concerned for the mental well being of the surrounding neighbours as this will take away any views of the sky and any outlook for an aging community in place. This is a project that is aiming for possible yield of return but has forgotten the residence and the community. There are many other better locations for such a development. I do not support this development for its shear size and the concern of issues upstream of the development that will be impacted by the development.

7246

New South Wales 2487

03/11/2025

Object

Website

I write to strongly object to the proposed Uniting Development at Kingscliff in its current form. The sheer size & scale of this proposal is a ridiculous overkill with unfair consequential intrusion for the many neighbouring residents. It is beyond comprehension that a development of this size could even be considered in a residential area. Whilst we rightfully acknowledge the growing need for quality aged care facilities, this redevelopment proposal is not addressing that very issue. Instead, they propose a Unit development under the guise of aged care. The proposal only allows for 120 aged care beds – previously 112 beds, but in addition there is 199 units, with unacceptable building heights to 17mtrs. Community concerns regarding building heights, high density, flood impact, storm water & drainage, traffic, environmental issues, solar impact, privacy & buffer zones have not been effectively addressed with this proposal in its current form. Our community has fought hard to maintain our village, our lifestyle, our liveability, our values & our home whilst attempting to accommodate appropriate development for our village & nearby villages. There is no appropriate development proposed here. This planning proposal does not align with our existing Kingscliff Locality Plan. We continue to defend our coastal village values with our KLP. We must be more responsible with development in our coastal villages. The long-term impact of decision making against our amenity & liveability will be detrimental for generations to come. I urge the commission to refuse this proposal in its current form. Regards Gail Woodbury.

7251

New South Wales 2487

03/11/2025

Object

Website

• Overshadowing • Flooding • Loss of Privacy with buildings towering well above existing properties • Out of character with area- Finished project will be an eyesore • Four storeys are way taller than the single or double storey properties all surrounding • Not keeping in with streetscaping and over-height • Traffic and pedestrian concerns on Lorien way, Beach Street and Kingscliff Streets • Lack of articulation – boring block style buildings • Light spill and noise pollution in an otherwise quiet residential area • Parking issues as limited parking onsite and in town

7261

New South Wales 2486

03/11/2025

Object

Website

I have lived in the Tweed for more than 20 years and I am particularly familiar with the existing site. I have personally seen flooding issues and worried how this will flood houses to the North East of the estate. I am a carpenter and have worked on the site when it was Blue Care and was working in the estate to the east when the 2022 floods filled the basin. The Buildings are huge for the size of the land and will cause overlooking and privacy problems for the neighbour. I would love the retire to Kingscliff myself but not at the expense of others. They could definately come up with a better smaller design so I Object to what is proposed.

7266

New South Wales 2486

03/11/2025

Object

Website

My name is James and I worked on a house that overlooks the proposed site. The Size is too big and in my opinion will seriously affect the privacy of the houses around the new building. The flooding will also be an issue to the houses around the aged care. i am sure there is a better solution. they should be able to make it smaller because it affects so many people in so many different ways that it does not seem fair. I defanately would not want to live next to it. It will be the biggest building in Kingscliff

7271

New South Wales 2483

03/11/2025

Object

Website

First of all I would like to say i think there is a need for aged care facilities. I have 2 elderly grandparents in aged care. I think this is a huge over development of the site. The Buildings are big, block views and outlook, destroy privacy and are not fitting the local surrounds. Parking is an issue in town as it is and the area floods and puts greater pressure on our rescue, ambulance and police services. I do not support the scale of this development as it trys to send a message to the community it is for aged care. The size of the buildings will be overwhelming for the surrounds so I object. Leah

7276

New South Wales 2487

03/11/2025

Object

Website

To Whom It May Concern, I am writing as a resident of Kingscliff to formally object to the proposed Uniting Kingscliff Seniors Housing Redevelopment (SSD-47105958). The current proposal represents a significant overdevelopment that is incompatible with the character, scale, and environmental context of our community. Grounds for Objection 1. Non-compliance with Height Limits and Overdevelopment The proposed buildings range from two to four storeys, exceeding the Tweed Local Environmental Plan (LEP) height limit of 13.6 metres. This is inconsistent with the surrounding low-rise residential area, which is predominantly one- and two-storey homes. The excessive height and bulk will dominate the streetscape and erode the established character of Kingscliff. 2. Overshadowing and Privacy Impacts The development will result in significant overshadowing of neighbouring properties, reducing sunlight access to homes, gardens, and solar panels. Numerous units will overlook adjacent homes, leading to a severe loss of privacy in bedrooms, living areas, and outdoor spaces. [echo.net.au] 3. Increased Traffic and Parking Pressure With 199 independent living units and 120 aged care beds, the development will substantially increase traffic volumes, deliveries, and parking demand on local streets not designed for such intensity. This raises concerns for pedestrian safety, noise, and congestion. We already have trouble crossing Kingscliff street to go to the beach due to the volume of traffic, this development with increase this problem. 4. Flooding and Stormwater Management Risks Parts of the site are historically flood-prone. The proposal to raise ground levels and increase impervious surfaces will exacerbate overland flow and flood risks to neighbouring properties. The community has repeatedly raised these concerns, which remain inadequately addressed. Any flooding to our properties and local streets will impact the cost of insurance for our properties. 5. Environmental and Amenity Impacts The scale and density of the development will negatively affect the amenity of surrounding homes. Light spill from communal areas and car parks, as well as noise from mechanical plant and increased activity, will impact residential comfort. 6. Property Devaluation The visual intrusion, loss of privacy, and environmental impacts will likely lead to a devaluation of surrounding properties. Residents should not bear the financial burden of a development that disregards local planning controls and community feedback. 7. Inadequate Community Consultation Despite extensive community opposition and over 290 public objections, the proposal has not meaningfully responded to concerns. The Environmental Impact Statement selectively references compliance without demonstrating genuine integration into the local context. Conclusion This proposal, in its current form, is incompatible with the established character of Kingscliff and fails to adequately mitigate its impacts. I respectfully urge the Independent Planning Commission to refuse the application or require substantial amendments to: Reduce building height and bulk to comply with LEP controls. Improve setbacks and privacy measures. Address flooding and stormwater comprehensively. Limit traffic and operational impacts. Ensure genuine community engagement and transparency.

7286

New South Wales 2487

03/11/2025

Object

Website

Planning and Development Department Dear Sir/Madam / To Whom It May Concern, Re: Formal Objection to Proposed Development by Uniting – Kingscliff Village (Kingscliff, NSW) I am writing to lodge a formal complaint/objection with respect to the proposed large-scale development by Uniting at the Kingscliff Village site. While the concept of independent living and retirement accommodation is appreciated, I and many neighbours have serious concerns about the scale, design and environmental/community impacts of this project. We believe it poses unacceptable risks and negative consequences for existing residents and future occupants alike. Please accept the following as our detailed statement of objection. 1. Excessive Height and Building Mass The proposed buildings are of a large scale in both height and capacity—far beyond what is appropriate for the local character and setting of this area. The building height appears significantly taller than surrounding residences, resulting in a dominant presence and potential overshadowing of neighbouring homes. The capacity (number of units, residents, and traffic volume) is very large, effectively converting what might have been mid-scale retirement accommodation into a high-density complex. This building mass will markedly change the streetscape and visual amenity for neighbours, undermining the residential scale and character. The size of the build raises concerns about structural implications, wind tunnel effects, and micro-climate changes in its vicinity. 2. Flooding Risks & Stormwater Run-off We are extremely concerned about the increased flood risk posed by the development due to greatly reduced permeable surfaces and increased hard (concreted) area. The large capacity of the development will require expansive building footprints, associated parking, driveways and service areas, most of which appear likely to be hard surfaces rather than landscaped/permeable. The addition of large scale underground water storage facilities in times of heavy rainfall poses significant risk to the structural integrity of existing buildings located in the surrounding area. So while it may appear to be a solution to significant downpours, it poses an unnecessary risk to existing homes. The reduction in natural ground cover and green open space will diminish the site’s ability to absorb rainwater, increasing storm-water run-off into adjacent land and drainage systems. In times of heavy rainfall or flash storms—the very conditions seen in our region—the limited run-off space will worsen flash-flooding risks, both within the site and for existing properties downhill or adjacent. Existing residents already experience flooding or water-lag in extreme weather. Introducing a large concrete footprint will likely worsen that situation for existing homes and create dangerous conditions for both neighbours and future residents of the development. The future residents of the Uniting village are themselves at risk: placing a high-density building in a location with increased flood run-off and reduced permeable surface is irresponsible and may endanger vulnerable older persons in the event of flooding. 3. Traffic, Access and Daily Impact on Neighbours The capacity and scale of the development will inevitably generate increased daily traffic—both vehicle and pedestrian—which will negatively affect the amenity, safety and convenience of existing neighbours. More residents means more cars entering/exiting the site, plus visitor, service and delivery traffic. This will increase noise, congestion and reduce safety, particularly in peak hours or narrow local roads. The larger the building, the more frequent ancillary service visits (garbage, maintenance, deliveries) and this adds wear and uses to local roads and infrastructure not designed for this scale. The increased traffic presents an additional danger to older residents, local children and pedestrian flows in the neighbourhood. 4. Light, Wind Flow, Privacy / View Impacts Beyond physical scale and flooding, the development will have a series of adverse effects on surrounding residences in terms of light, wind flow, intrusion and view loss. The height and mass can cause overshadowing of adjoining properties, reducing natural light, solar access and thereby lowering amenity for neighbours.\ The large surfaces and height may act as wind catchers or deflectors, altering wind flow and potentially creating uncomfortable gusts or turbulence at ground level near existing homes. Elevated floors and large windows mean invasive vantage points into private yards, homes and gardens of existing residents; this loss of privacy is unacceptable. Light pollution is another concern: a large multi-storey building with many units and communal areas will introduce significant artificial lighting (exterior façade lighting, corridors, parking areas) which will intrude into neighbouring yards and gardens, reducing dark sky amenity and disturbing local residents. 5. Negative Impacts on Future Residents It is important to emphasise that the development’s design flaws may not only harm existing neighbours but also future residents of the Uniting village. A site with compromised drainage and increased flash-flood risk is an unsuitable location for independent living/retirement accommodation, where safe, comfortable conditions are essential. The reduced amenity caused by overshadowing, wind effects, and light intrusion may detract from the quality of life for older residents who expect a tranquil, low-density environment. If the building footprint occupies essential open space or green buffers which would otherwise mitigate these issues, then the developer is failing to provide a safe, sustainable living environment. 6. Request for Stronger Controls / Mitigations Given the magnitude of these concerns, I respectfully request the following: The proposal should be reassessed with respect to its height, scale and footprint—drawing it back to a more appropriate scale that aligns with the neighbourhood. Traffic and access impact studies must be demonstrated and appropriate mitigation (reduced unit numbers, redesigned access, speed controls, pedestrian safety measures) incorporated. The windows, building orientation, height setbacks and landscaping must ensure privacy, clean wind-flow, and minimal light pollution to neighbouring properties. Future residents must be provided with a safe, amenable environment—the design must prioritise their welfare and not place them at unnecessary risk from flooding or poor ambient conditions. Conclusion In summary, while the idea of a retirement/independent-living village is commendable, the current proposal for the Kingscliff site is too large, too dense, and carries unacceptable risk and negative impact for both current neighbours and future occupants. I urge the Council/NSW Government to reject or substantially amend the application unless these major issues are successfully addressed. Blocking of natural air flow and light, light pollution during evenings, increased traffic and sound, invasive views into the existing residents homes from grossly over sized buildings, flooding and water run off issues, structural issues for existing homes during the building and after completion of the uniting development, and many more serious issues are overwhelmingly negative consequences of this over development plan. The plan needs to be significantly downsized to a maximum of 2 stories which would allow for a decent amount of new and existing residents and also allow existing home owners the dignity and respect of maintaining their current quality of living. The overdevelopment of the proposed Uniting site is unsafe, disrespectful, out of context for the current site, and will destroy most of the current positive qualities existing residents in the immediate community have. The large amount of people this proposed development will have on the community far outweighs the positives of aged care (of which the bulk of this development only caters for wealthy, able bodied over 60’s individuals, there is very little provision for the vulnerable or working class). I would like to be kept informed of the assessment progress, any public hearings or variances considered, and I reserve the right to appear and submit formally at any consultation. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I look forward to your response. Yours faithfully, [Name redacted] Also, as I have previously written: I am greatly concerned about multiple negative impacts the proposed development will have once completed and also during its construction. I am concerned about the increased pressure on existing infrastructure to mitigate flash flooding and flooding in general. The proposed development will add significantly to the already struggling storm water system that experienced flooding during the last flooding of the tweed. This will pose immediate physical danger to existing residents, including myself, and the proposed new residents of the development. The flooding will also pose an immediate threat to the structural elements of current residents homes as well as their contents. Most properties are single story, meaning that flooding would damage the entire housing structure and its contents. With every added development of the Kingscliff area brings increased pressure on stormwater infrastructure and the natural cycle of water into low lying areas as their intended and natural role in nature. There are only so many spaces water can move to during localised downpoors, and the increased concreting and removal of natural surfaces speeds up the movement of water causing it to build up in areas at a more rapid speed and with less places to disperse it then creates flash flooding or prolonged flooding. The proposed flood mitigation tanks concern me regarding the effects they will have on the foundations of several homes that surround the proposed development. The mitigation tanks are vast in size and depth and will no doubt effect the structural aspects of homes surrounding the development. The increased vehicle traffic of residents, deliveries, and employees of the proposed development will place increased pressure on an already busy area. There is currently a significant amount of traffic that uses the roads surrounding the proposed development, but the particular problem will be along Lorien way (immediately next to my home) and beach street. My property will suddenly become a corner block property with the main entry point going along side my master bedroom and driveway. This will create significant increase in noise, light pollution from cars and street lights at night, and a dangerous exit from my driveway as I will now have to deal with a doubling of traffic right next to my driveway. Increase noise from foot traffic of proposed residents, noise and night light pollution from balconies facing onto my property, and the invasive echo of noise reflection from the large building proposed will create a disruptive and uncomfortable home environment which I will no longer be able to seek refuge in. The over sized buildings are invasive and do not fit in the with character of kingscliff and in particular the immediate residents that surround the lower areas of Kingscliff. The obscene size and greed of the buildings will block out the cool ocean breeze which most residents have bought their homes for. The buildings will also block sunlight during the day and create invasive views into our homes and yards, as well as light pollution being emitted from all of the units. The over sized proposal is a clear indication of corporate greed and a blatant disregard for the wellbeing of locals. It is clearly not aimed at catering for aged care and is an obvious provision of coastal living that only the wealthy can afford. There will be very few locals who can afford this style of living and there will be very few vulnerable and sick aged individuals who can afford this style of living either. More than half of the proposal will have more than 2 bedrooms and is clearly not aimed at providing aged care. The proposed development is obscenely over-sized for the proposed site and is invasive on a number of levels. During the construction of this development, locals will be negatively impacted for a prolonged period of time. Increased noise from 7am-6pm weekdays and 7am-1pm saturday is incredibly invasive. When are the locals expected to have rest time? And at another space in the proposal it says 7am-5pm weekdays and 8am-3pm saturday. So the information isnt consistent and both versions of the information are invasive, particularly the work on saturdays. And it is noted in the proposal that the development will try and stick to these times, however will sometimes have to operate outside of these times also! Increased dust and air pollution is an immediate danger to locals who suffer from respiratory illnesses, one of which is my father. How does the development aim to reduce constant dust and sediment particles becoming airborne? The request to build above local council’s regulations are horrific and appalling. The invasive arrogance of the proposed development is significantly distressing and concerning. Local suggestions and concerns have been ignored. The open days were hosted by a collection of ‘specialists’ who didn't actually have any answers and were surprised at most of the questions asked. The 2 story (building A) residences proposed to go where 2 Lorien way properties will be demolished are extremely invasive for my property and the immediate properties next to it. 35, 37,39, and 41 Lorien way will be greatly affected by being boxed in by the proposed development from 2 sides. There is no need for a 2 story building to go in, 1 story would be a sufficient and reasonable addition. 2 stories will block airflow, light during the day, and create noise and light pollution at night. There will be invasive views into our properties from the large windows and balconies. The whole development is completely invasive and causes so many detrimental effects on the immediate resistance. So instead 2 residences, there will be 16 residences. This ‘double loaded’ arrangement is grossly invasive and unnecessary. Where will all of the cars go from these residences?????? Each unit either has a courtyard or balcony which is invasive for the immediate neighbors and also myself. The diagram on page 75 even shows the invasive shade and lack of sunlight inflicted on the existing residents through this 2 story building ‘A’. I can also note that the road is immediately next to my fence along the driveway side. This is highly invasive with noise, light pollution, and lack of privacy. The development has included examples of existing blocks of units, however they are 3 stories high and are significantly dominant in the Kingscliff town. The development is proposing 4 stories which is a gross overdevelopment of the area. The context of the current residences is 1 story and the proposed development should be a maximum of 2 stories at most and predominantly 1 story. 299 car spaces, so an increase of 299 vehicles traveling in and out of the completed development plus deliveries and waste removal which will be significantly more if the increased occupation goes through. There is a danger of airborne asbestos as old buildings are removed. Disruption and an attempt to control local underground springs located under the proposed site of development. A Cafe, hair salon, cinema, club house, gym are available for residents and their guests. So there will be an increased flow of traffic and people as guests. The proposed development is creating a town within a town. This will negatively affect the existing residents of surrounding areas by once again significantly increasing the amount of traffic in the area and immediate streets where current locals driveways exit. The noise pollution caused by this will be significant. Where will everyone park???? There's 299 car spaces proposed for the 39 single bedroom, 119 double bedroom, and 41 triple bedroom residences. A total of 199 residences with 160 of them being most likely occupied by 2 people with multiple vehicles. Where will employees park their cars? Where will guests park their cars? The streets are already overloaded with parked cars. How will the area support such a significant increase in vehicle traffic? And the comment that over 60’s don't drive or get out and about is offensive and inaccurate on a number of levels. Retirees are constantly out and about driving to and from their homes enjoying their retirement living. The increased sound and air pollution caused by these vehicles will be significant. And even if new residents walk or bike ride, that’s just another form of overpopulation for the already busy area. There is already a constant flow of foot traffic along walkways. The proposed development will significantly add to that also, turning the street into a constant flow of foot traffic and vehicle traffic. Will ambulances enter via Lorien way now? Even though there are very little spaces provided for high needs aged care, the previous ambulance access point didn't affect my location. It will now run right past my home, in particular my bedroom. I am and have been since the beginning of this process several years ago, completely overwhelmed and traumatized by the process and proposal of the uniting development. The false facade of ‘providing for aged care and the community’ is significantly misleading as the gross oversized nature of the development is not suited for the proposed location. The proposal will create an invasive and detrimental quality of life for the immediate neighbors of the surrounding development as well as surrounding streets/areas. The gross increase of vehicles, the physical eye sore and blocking of natural light and air movement, the light pollution at night, the sound pollution of residents, the increased and immediate nature of deliveries and waste removal, and gross over development proposed is simply too big and far from appropriate. The construction of this development will destroy the quality of life of surrounding residents for the duration of the construction. This will be the beginning of the end of what used to be a lovely neighborhood. A neighborhood that current residents chose to live in due to its bright, sunny atmosphere, clean and fresh ocean breezes, relatively quiet neighborhood with low density living, and its calm and charming personality. Flooding will increase in severity and occurrence. And no doubt the structural aspects of existing homes will be damaged by the earth works, flood mitigation tanks, and underground car parking. The area will become loud and unlivable. Blinds will have to be constantly closed to maintain some remnant of privacy. Mold will become an issue due to lack of sunlight and air flow (mold is a hygiene and medical concern). Simple tasks like washing and drying clothes will become an issue. Parts of established gardens will die due to lack of sunlight. The chances of a car accident will increase due to a gross increase in traffic. Delays to getting to and from places will occur due to increased traffic. Current homes will lose significant value due to all of the previously noted concerns. The proposed development is grossly oversized and a clear greed fueled grab at millions of dollars under the false pretenses of aged care and assisting area growth. The proposed site is totally inappropriate and the immediate and outlying current residences will be greatly negatively affected if this development goes through. It would be greatly appreciated by all of the existing neighboring residents if this development is drastically downsized or prevented completely. There has been a great amount of stress and anxiety throughout the proposal process and initial attempt to acquire our homes. We have not been respected and have not been respectfully considered.

7291

Redacted

03/11/2025

Object

Website

- Overshadowing concerns from 4 storey buildings Current living rooms and outdoor spaces of neighboring properties in full sun now however proposed shadow diagrams in full shade - No solar panel shading studies for existing solar panels on properties - No cross sections determining how much sun is lost in properties - The shadow lines have changed because there is not a lift over-run in building F and generator housing on top of RAC which is not represented in current diagrams - Bulk and scale of your redevelopment being 4 storeys not in keeping with the surrounding homes; which are either 1 or 2 storeys - Artist impressions deceiving hiding all the 4 storey buildings behind trees or other buildings of parts of buildings not giving the correct impression of the size of the buildings in relation to existing ones in comparison, - The completed building will be an eyesore - On that new ground level there will no doubt be a retaining wall completely surrounding the project, or will most probably be the new carpark beneath the building and that is not shown in any visual artists’ impressions - Once Uniting is finished the new ground level in Beach Street may be 1500-2000mm above the current existing building height so 4 storeys above that again will dwarf all existing buildings by comparison but again no detail shown - No artist impressions show neither the new building starting height of the proposed buildings and for all the many homes that surround the development this is crucial - Uniting plan to hide the buildings by adding trees, and lots of trees. Current residents are losing sun however with 10-20m trees proposed this is due to shade properties more - Full length windows and doors will look straight into current homes with no attempt to protect privacy - Limitation on light transmission concerns to surrounding properties - No changing the glass balustrading to opaque as requested to hide current residents - No mention as to fence details on development including height, type of construction and noise transmission - The developer has maximized unit numbers on the site for monetary gain without considering existing residents - View and privacy loss and way more shadow loss that Uniting are reporting. - Noise that will come from the massive number of residents in the buildings once completed, and where their balconies will be located and noise coming from the residents, as well as the noise from not only one air conditioning unit but multiple air conditioning units. - Not keeping with streetscaping and all that you will see when driving up our street are the masses of units directly in view some streetscapes will show one long building, way longer than the length of the new Tweed Valley Hospital - The community not wanting the development. - Totally out of keeping with our street character when all you will see driving up Drift Ct will have massive number of units towering way above our homes and overshadowing current residents; - The street views have not been at all represented in the artist impressions, with Uniting hiding buildings behind trees or buildings - Loss of sun to current yard will make our yard a barren wasteland and pools plunged into shadow - Lawns and gardens of existing properties will die with no or little sun - Traffic concerns both on site (underground car park noise) and ventilation of carpark fumes. - Suppression of noise for the masses of not only rooftop air-conditioning units Basement venting and where that will be made. - Flooding concerns - this area is a flood plain. where will that water go? Causing more flooding in the area which has flooded before. - Where will the animals that live there go? they have no alternatives. - 17m+ Height Limit concerns from a new raised height - What is deemed Natural Ground Level currently and proposed - Noise made from residents and their invited guests once its completed.

7296

New South Wales 2487

03/11/2025

Object

Website

I strongly object to the current over development Uniting is proposing on our back boundary. We have tried to get Uniting to visit our home to show the impacts this development has on our home. What we have received is inaccurate solar analysis, no cross sections and very little detail. We really need to ask the question how do we ensure they are actually meeting their Sears obligations with regards to the project? Provide a solar access analysis of the overshadowing impacts of the development within the site, on surrounding properties and public spaces (during summer and winter solstice and spring and autumn equinox) at hourly intervals between 9am and 3pm, when compared to the existing situation and a compliant development (if relevant). We strongly refute the impacts of the shadow analysis and would ask the commission as to what steps can we take to address (the lack of detail, and inaccuracies in the diagrams?) We have 2 daughters living with us and our pool and alfreso is our private space, the sheer bulk and scale of this project is not conducive to considering our privacy. Can we request cross sections through the Commission's findings? other than relying on trees and planters that are considered only on privacy impacts, landscape but not mentioned in solar analysis. Thanks Fiona Thompson

7301

New South Wales 2487

03/11/2025

Object

Website

Good Afternoon Commissioners, I live with Mum and Dad and love the Kingscliff lifestyle. My concerns include privacy, amenity, noise and light spill. I enjoy taking advantage of the sun that streams into our alfresco area and pool. In none of the Uniting shadowing does our pool get a mention nor the affect the shadowing has on it. My Dad has taken numerous photos of the area for his previous submissions but nothing has changed. My bedroom is situated upstairs and is North facing to Block F. If you look at the privacy plans provided these are directed to downstairs at our home and none consider people looking straight into my private space. Can you please consider there needs to be a reduction of the sheer bulk and scale of this development to better fit with the surrounding areas (including my Home) Thanks Maddy Thompson

7306

New South Wales 2487

03/11/2025

Object

Website

Good Afternoon, I strongly object to the planned development. I have lived at [address redacted] for 7 years with my family and love the Kingscliff lifestyle. I work as a teacher and appreciate coming home to enjoy my personal space with Mum and Dad. My bedroom is North facing and is directly in line with Block F. I have serious privacy concerns for my private space and our pool and outdoor area. Often we lay in the sun and enjoy our peaceful part of Kingscliff. Dad has shown me the lack of detail with regards to the shadowing and I really think there should be accountability on ensuring the current amenity of the sun is considered accurately and if Uniting are not willing to an independent study is undertaken from all backyards. I object to the bulk and scale and the issues it brings as a result. Thanks Olivia Thompson

7311

Hastings Point Progress Association

Victoria 3016

03/11/2025

Object

Website

Nearby Hastings Point has recently had to deal with a similar and equally inappropriate development proposal. What was originally proposed as Aged Care in Hastings Point had Stage 1 built. There was no provision for aged care at all in the forseeable future despite undertakings to the community, the residents dining room has morphed into a for profit cafe. There remains no plans whatsoever to provide for the intensive levels of Aged Care that the proposal was originally touted to the local community This is supposed to be accessible Aged Care. Building 200 luxury units are far from Aged Care and are totally inappropriate. The SES have expressed objections based on risk to human life and no plans for safe evacuation in a floodprone area The local community have expressed justifiable concerns re noise, height and overshadowing by both buildings and proposed trees 'around the boundary. It appears that the overshadowing modelling provided by the developers is not correct as demonstrated by photographic evidence from the community and needs to be independently verified. This appears to be yet another attempt to use Aged Care legislation as a 'trojan horse' to enable luxury unit development. Roads are inadequate to cater for a development of this size. There appears to be no new infrastructure that will support this proposal let alone make any significant or useful contribution to the local community This is a state significant development and should be considered in terms of the impact not only on the Kingscliff Community but the broader Tweed Community.

7316

New South Wales 2487

03/11/2025

Object

Website

I object to the development in its current form for the following reasons *the height proposed exceeds the Kingscliff limit of 13.6 metres. While this may now be allowed by the State Government's new height limit of 17.4 metres, this is totally out of keeping with the character of the surrounding buildings in particular the direct neighbours. The currently proposed building heights will also result in unacceptable overshadowing, privacy and amenability of the direct neighbours. *The light spill at night to the direct neighbours will be unacceptable. *Our unit is beside the current roundabout which currently carries a high volume of traffic. This development will increase the amount of traffic using the roundabout during construction and final operation to an unacceptable level. *The foot print of this proposal is in excess of the recently built Hospital, some of the buildings being over 43 metres in length, which again impedes privacy, shadowing, and amenability of neighbours. This coupled with the increased height being considered, makes for a development out of character and of monolith proportions. *Having experienced two recent floods, we have dire concerns about the effect of the fill used and the water diversion proposed. *We recognise that there is a need in Kingscliff for more High Care and Assisted Facilities however the proposed development only provides a small number (6) of High Care living and no Assisted Living units. There will be 199 Independent Living Units and NO ASSISTED LIVING UNITS! What's more, the independent units proposed include a significant number of 3 bedroom units which aged care residents would not be interested in occupying. Most aged people downsize and are looking for 1 or at the most 2 bedroom units to live in. We recommend that the design be changed to provide a majority of 1 or 2 bedroom ASSISTED LIVING UNITS. * Noise and vibration would most likely be excessive during construction for the neighbouring properties. *The view from our unit and most of Kingscliff to the West, is towards Woolumbin and the ridge tops of the surrounding caldera. The proposed height and scale of this development will obscure the view during the day. The view of Woolumbin in particular is spiritual to the local indigenous people and to many of the non-indigenous residents. The majority of Kingscliff residents would be devastated if they lost their connection to Woolumbin.

7236

Redacted

02/11/2025

Object

Email

I object to the proposed development Uniting Kingscliff Redevelopment for the following reasons. 1. First and foremost, the local council and the State Emergency Services have deemed this area to be flood prone and too dangerous to use as accommodation for elderly people. 2. I live in [REDACTED]; to enter Lorien Way by car is already a hazardous and dangerous procedure made so by the number of cars already parked in the vicinity and the buses that use this route. This proposed development will exacerbate this problem. 3. I have visited two very similar establishments that have been built in this area and in each case parking has been made virtually impossible by the number of cars parked close to and adjacent to these facilities. It does not require a leap of the imagination to imagine how this building will affect parking in the local area. 4. Housing development in Kingscliff in the past has been controlled by a building height of 13.6 metres. This control has kept Kingscliff what it is, a small rural community living by the sea. This height control has successfully kept Kingscliff from becoming another high rise Gold Coast development. How the Uniting Church has been allowed to exceed this height limit ( proposed 17.05 metres ) is open to question and should not be allowed! 5. This building will have a footprint of 246 metres greater than Tweed Hospital (140 - 150 metres) which dominates the road leading away from Kingscliff. One can only imagine how this structure will dominate and adversely affect the single story buildings in the close vicinity. 6. It is labelled as a Seniors’ Housing Development which is to accommodate independent living for 86 -100 beds whereas the Age Care beds number of beds remain much the same. 7. This influx, of presumably elderly people, will increase the pressure on local medical services exponentially. Moreover, I can only presume people already living in residence will be given priority when they require care. 8. If this development must proceed, the entrance to the property most certainly should not be in Lorien Way. Entry to the site should be Kingscliff Street which is the main thoroughfare. 9. In a recent meeting held in the Tweed shire Council buildings and attended by two government commissioners local people clearly demonstrated the effect overshadowing will have on nearby homes. people in Drift Court in particular look forward to a life of living in complete shadow. 10. In my view, this development is nothing more than a plan to give Uniting and its shareholders a financial advantage at the cost of considerable and ongoing inconvenience to those people who live in the vicinity Yours faithfully [REDACTED]

6931

New South Wales 2487

02/11/2025

Object

Website

I object to this development in its current form. The proposed heights of the buildings exceed the present allowable limits by many metres, there are too many buildings being planned, and this position is not suitable as it is in a flood prone area . The SES has stated that this area is not suitable for more development because of the flooding problems sure to occur in the future. Tweed Shire Council is also against the proposal as their experts have concluded that there are too many factors such as flooding and increased traffic on local roads to contend with. Basically this is a developer trying to have plans passed as seniors housing , though there will be only 8 extra nursing home beds more than the existing beds now in use. The seniors apartments proposed are instead luxury units and not affordable seniors housing at all. This development should not go ahead in its present form.

6936

New South Wales 2487

02/11/2025

Object

Website

I object to this developments overdevelopment, we need aged care beds not more residential appartments. The proposal does not meet community needs but instead a developers need for a commercial return. Please reduce the bulk and scale of the buildings to ensure it does not destroy liveability for existing residents on neighbouring streets.

6941

Redacted

02/11/2025

Object

Website

I object to the Uniting development at Kingscliff and the DPHI Assessment of the plan. Objection to Safety, Height, Bulk, Scale and Character I object because of the height, bulk and scale of the development which in no way fits the character of the beachside township of Kingscliff. The DPHI states that it is “compatible with the envisaged character of the area”. What rot! The envisaged character of the area is not 17.05 metres of building height but a 13.6 metre height. The height, bulk and scale of the proposed development is a substantial change and NOT compatible. The bulk of the development and the scale will overwhelm anything that currently exists in Kingscliff and planned for its future. The visual impact will destroy the character of the town and also provide an entry for further developments of a similar nature in the future. Kingscliff is not the Gold Coast, nor is it Sydney. Its coastal beachside charm is BECAUSE OF its 13.6m height limit and for its character of a low key, relaxing place to live and visit. No one “envisaged” such a monster to be dropped into a beachside town that has spent many years protecting the 13.6 metre height limit. I would also argue that the safety protocols are substandard and risk putting “seniors” at risk during a natural disaster. The SES has some major concerns with the development: why has the DHPI and Uniting not listened to their concerns which reflect the reality of rescuing people in dangerous weather events, not sitting behind a desk as a paper exercise. The planned emergency action plan by Uniting is less than adequate. The development proposal does not take into consideration community expectations, community group concerns and there is no recognition within the Uniting plan of the Tweed Shire Council principles of town planning and design. It is a unit complex hiding behind a State Significant Development (SSD) category as a “seniors housing” complex. Objection to DPHI and SSD Approval Process and the Uniting Kingscliff Redevelopment DHPI Assessment Report Most of all, I object strenuously to the state government development approval process especially SSD which benefits developers and significantly hinders a small community like Kingscliff to have its voice heard and considered. The state government development approval process including the SSD, is flawed and so is the DPHI assessment report. When a developer submits a plan to the state government especially under an SSD there is the assumption that it will proceed no matter how outrageous it is. The provisions to achieve SSD status from a planning and design aspect are so low, that almost any proposal can proceed. This advantages developers and puts small communities on the back foot at the start. We are constantly playing catch up and the feeling is that the development WILL go ahead regardless of what the community places in front of the developers and government approval people. All we can do is fight a rear-guard action to try and scale back the development as close as possible to the (in this case) Tweed Shire Council LEP. Small communities do not have access to a team of architects, town planners, landscape architects, engineers, accountants and the other people who regularly put these proposals together for large companies. As a small community, we do not have the resources or finances of developers and government. We have to scramble to come up to speed with all the technicalities, familiarise ourselves with the state planning policies, become proficient at interpreting architectural designs, be aware of the everchanging politics which govern government policies (in this case housing demand). An example of this was the change brought in on 25 September to “decouple” the foot print with the height of a building. The goal posts keep changing. While Uniting (and other developers) have teams of paid people whose job is to be aware of these proposed changes, small communities are often caught by surprise as evidenced by the shocked reaction of the attendees in the IPC hearing at Tweed Civic Hall on 28 October when the “decoupling” rule was announced. I object to the power imbalance, the David and Goliath situation that has been created by the state government building approval process and the SSD process. It unfairly supports developers and does not support everyday residents to keep the liveability of their town. In fact, It actively works against local communities from being heard and validated. As a community of very concerned residents, we feel that the developer and the government are “going through the motions” and nothing will change in scaling back of the development to more appropriately suit the character of Kingscliff because the process supports developers, the state government, the politics of the day and actively negates the right of everyday people. There is no fair go in this process for the ordinary person in small communities.

6946

New South Wales 2487

02/11/2025

Object

Website

As an elderly person and resident of Kingscliff for 30 years I am aware we need extra aged care beds and this development is not supplying them. The overdevelopment of units for sale to relatively young seniors is not providing accommodation for people once they need more care. The design does not take into account accessibility and safety of residents during emergency situations.

6951

New South Wales 2487

02/11/2025

Object

Website

I strongly object this oversized development behind my house. I am probably the WORST affected property from this development and when it came time for uniting to come and have a look from our point of view as to how we would be affected they did everything they could to AVOID coming into our property. They also downplayed the affect the shadowing would have on our property by not including our alfresco area in the diagrams. A 13 to 17m high apartment block in the middle of houses which is NOT on the beachfront is way out of scale and will COMPLETELY obstruct the view from the back of my property to the point where it will basically block out the Sky. Every Balcony in the development will be staring directly into my living room and backyard which was designed to be open plan. If i had of known there would be an over scaled apartment block behind my house of this size and scale i probably wouldnt have purchased the land and built this house here. It simply does not fit within the community feel that kingscliff brings. What can of worms is opened once this goes in ? where does Kingscliff end up after this what comes next ? I would like to know where all the flood water and ground water is going to be directed. Flood waters have come up to my back fence if this development goes in its a high probability that this water would enter my house. How much is my insurance after this ? How much of my solar result is going to be diminished ? All shading diagrams have been purposely falsified and are inaccurate. This is simple maths and Angles and its already been proven by adjacent residents that is had been done incorrectly. This area is for houses and families not for Penthouses of this scale. Retirement villages are single level Villas . Put single level Villas out the back and everyone is happy.

6956

New South Wales 2487

02/11/2025

Object

Website

Parking issues in an already congested area Lack of infrastructure to support more population The height of the building overshadowing other properties- lack of privacy in neighbouring blocks. Light disturbance to other community members Flooding

6961

New South Wales 2487

02/11/2025

Object

Website

I object to The Uniting Development at Kingscliff. The main reasons are the ridiculous bulk and size, traffic and safety, and fitment for purpose. I will highlight areas that have been least reflected upon by others. 1. Purpose. We have a waiting list over 100 people waiting in our area for nursing home beds. The fact that they are only increasing these beds by 8 is a joke. Uniting originally had 112 licenced beds but decided to cut back to 86 by choice. If this development included a significantly higher ratio of nursing beds to profit making units the community would be much happier. The majority of the Independent Living Units (ILU) will be bought by non locals which will eventually increase the demand for nursing home beds. This is will increase the waiting list and time for all. This is a massive negative impact for the Kingscliff community. 2. Safety. The non evacuation plan for floods has been rejected by the SES and Tweed Council. This site has flooded in 1974, 2005, 2017, 2022 and 2025. We have all seen massive amounts of water come up through the storm drains making roads impassable in minutes. For a large population of over 70 year olds not being able to access medical services, emergency services, medications, etc, is irresponsible. Also for fires, lifts are turned off. Having over 70 year olds evacuate down 5 flights of stairs is beyond belief and negligent. A catastrophe waiting to happen. 3. Non State Significance. At the recent public meeting a gentleman put forward the reasons why this does not fit the criteria for State Significance. The panel ask the government panel about this and was given a reply that "residential care building developments above $30 million automatically qualify. I checked the appropriate website the official quoted and found this to be incorrect. The section labelled Health mentioned any "Hospital above $30 million", in no area was residential care mentioned. Even it was I fail to believe that the residential part of this development breaks the $30 million barrier. 4. Community interest or benefit. As shown at the public meeting the resounding feeling was almost unanimous objection to this development in its current form. Everyone saw through this application as a profit driven property development disguised as a aged care facility. The Uniting pastor that spoke in favour of the proposal broke down in tears when hearing on how it would effect the dally living of the poor locals that are situated adjacent. She stated " I had no idea of the size of the development." 5. Planning. Uniting have shown a pattern of these developments to increase its profitability. Even though they are a not for profit they clearly set out to make massive profits in some areas to prop up the overall balance sheet. As all property developers they ask for everything and hope to negotiate down to a reasonable outcome. They have used a cut and paste method taking the plans of of one of their Sydney developments and pasted onto this site. The problem being the Sydney site was 40% bigger and surrounded by roads on all 4 boundaries. Uniting must be rubbing their hands with glee thinking this gigantic over stepped project may be passed in its current form without any negotiating down. In summary I am opposed to this development in its current form. If they stick to the height limit of 13.6m and build mainly urgently needed nursing home beds, I am sure the community would favour this development.

6966

New South Wales 2233

02/11/2025

Object

Website

As a close Family Friend of one of the residents in drift court i strongly Oppose the over scaled Development by uniting Church. I regularly bring my family and myself here to stay in a quiet coastal town in a private house in a residential area. Our privacy wont just be comprimised it will be completely ruined. I have also been at the residence in heavy rain and have seen the amount of water that doesnt have anywhere to go. What will happen with the ground level being raised out the back ? The flood risk is massive. Kingscliff isnt and never was a high rise coastal area thats not what it is about why are these changes coming in and whats in store in the future for this beautiful area that i can bring my family to, to stay with my friends in peace and privacy.

6971

New South Wales 2487

02/11/2025

Object

Website

I write to express my strong opposition to the Uniting Kingscliff development as currently proposed. This project will have devastating impacts on the privacy, outlook, safety, and overall amenity of my home and my neighbourhood. From my backyard, this massive structure will dominate the skyline, blocking sunlight and erasing the beautiful coastal views that define our community. The proposal’s excessive height and bulk—exceeding the Tweed Local Environmental Plan limit of 13.6 metres—will tower over neighbouring homes, creating significant overshadowing, loss of privacy, and a deep sense of enclosure. The sheer scale is completely out of character for our area. Before a single floor is added, this site already sits within a flood-prone zone. The proposed elevated building platforms will displace floodwaters, increasing the likelihood of water inundation in Drift Court and Blue Jay Circuit. Many of us lived through the trauma of the 2017 and 2022 floods—we know what it means when engineering models fail to reflect reality. To make matters worse, the development’s design fails to consider light pollution—intense external lighting and balcony illumination will spill directly into our homes, robbing us of our night sky and privacy. The process itself has been equally concerning. There has been poor community consultation—residents were not meaningfully engaged, and subsequent design changes were made behind closed doors, long after the community provided feedback. This development, in its current form, disregards both the intent and spirit of our local planning controls, and fails to respect the community that already lives here. Key Concerns 1. Excessive Height and Bulk The proposed increase in building height—now above 17m due to added rooftop plant and raised floor levels—is in direct conflict with the Tweed LEP height limit of 13.6m. This change was quietly adopted following a late State Environmental Planning (SEP) amendment, which has been used to justify a scale never intended for a site of this size and location. This is not metropolitan Sydney or Newcastle; Kingscliff does not have the infrastructure to support a dense, multi-storey aged care complex. The result will be a visually imposing wall of concrete overshadowing surrounding homes, destroying our amenity and altering the coastal character of our neighbourhood. 2. Loss of Privacy, View, and Sunlight My home directly borders the development site, and the proposed structures will loom over my property line, removing natural light, blocking sky views, and eliminating privacy. The proximity of balconies and windows allows direct overlooking into living areas and backyards—a gross invasion of privacy for local families. The planting of large boundary trees as a supposed “solution” only worsens the situation, increasing shadowing and leaf litter, while still failing to address the true issue—the building is simply too large and too close. 3. Flooding and Safety The site currently provides essential flood storage and natural drainage. By raising the development platform to RL 4.1m, Uniting is effectively displacing floodwater into neighbouring streets. With both this and the Gales development elevating ground levels, Drift Court and Blue Jay Circuit risk becoming flood basins in the next major rain event. Our community has already experienced devastating floods. We do not want to relive that trauma. The modelling used to justify this proposal cannot guarantee safety during extreme events, particularly with future climate volatility. 4. Light Pollution and Amenity The proposal introduces unshielded external lighting that will spill into surrounding properties, disrupting night-time amenity and wildlife. Residents will lose the peace of their own homes to the glow of floodlights and rooftop lighting—another example of a design that prioritises yield over community wellbeing. 5. Lack of Genuine Community Consultation Despite 291 community submissions—69% in opposition—the final design has grown larger, not smaller. Feedback has been ignored, and the design adjustments appear to have occurred after public exhibition, without reconsultation. This is unacceptable. Kingscliff residents deserve transparency, not token gestures. Reasonable Alternatives The solution is not opposition to aged care—it is opposition to poor planning. There are smarter, community-friendly options available, including: Removing one middle floor from Buildings B–F to reduce bulk, height, and overshadowing. Stepping down building heights towards site boundaries to protect neighbouring amenity. Adopting shielded lighting and opaque balcony screens to reduce light and privacy impacts. Complying with the 13.6m height limit established under the Tweed LEP. These options would preserve residential character, improve flood management, and rebuild community trust. Conclusion This proposal is too tall, too dense, and too risky for a flood-prone site surrounded by family homes. It will permanently damage the quality of life for hundreds of residents while offering few genuine benefits. The Uniting Kingscliff development must be redesigned or refused until it can demonstrate genuine compliance with local planning controls, meaningful consultation with affected residents, and a commitment to community safety and amenity. I stand firmly against the development in its current form.

6976

Redacted

02/11/2025

Object

Website

My primary objections relate to built form/scale The proposed increase in building height—now above 17m due to added rooftop plant and raised floor levels—is in direct conflict with the Tweed LEP height limit of 13.6m. This change was quietly adopted following a late State Environmental Planning (SEP) amendment, which has been used to justify a scale never intended for a site of this size and location. This is not metropolitan Sydney or Newcastle; Kingscliff does not have the infrastructure to support a dense, multi-storey aged care complex. The result will be a visually imposing wall of concrete overshadowing surrounding homes, destroying our amenity and altering the coastal character of our neighbourhood. Secondly my other main concern is Loss of Privacy, View, and Sunlight My home directly borders the development site, and the proposed structures will loom over my property line, removing natural light, blocking sky views, and eliminating privacy. The proximity of balconies and windows allows direct overlooking into living areas and backyards—a gross invasion of privacy for local families. The planting of large boundary trees as a supposed “solution” only worsens the situation, increasing shadowing and leaf litter, while still failing to address the true issue—the building is simply too large and too close.

6981

New South Wales 2487

02/11/2025

Object

Website

I object to the building variations afforded the proposed development and am concerned regarding the infrastructure in the immediate and close area .

6986

Redacted

02/11/2025

Object

Website

I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THIS PROPOSAL: 1. Firstly, flooding and property damage is a great concern. We have already experienced this in Kingscliff recently where properties were inundated with water - where people had been living for over 40 years and had never experienced anything like it. The new housing development very close to this proposal was the cause of this flooding, so one does not have to have too much intelligence to know that a development of this magnitude is going to have a very negative effect on flooding in the area 2. A further issue is the proposed height of the buildings. One rule for one and one rule for another. This is only going to start a precedent for Kingscliff. We have been fighting for years to keep the height at 13.6 metres. This is very wrong and not in keeping with the atmosphere of Kingscliff. 3. Furthermore, the traffic is already a concern in the very tight Kingscliff Street. It is going to be a nightmare when a complex of this magnitude is plonked in the middle of Kingscliff on a single road. There is little parking on the road now. It is evident that little thought has been put into how this is going to affect the residents of Kingscliff. 4,

6991

Redacted

02/11/2025

Object

Website

Outrageously big for our small area in Kingscliff Too tall well above 13.6m local height limit Too greedy- overdevelopment

6996

Redacted

02/11/2025

Object

Website

I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THIS PROPOSAL: 1. Firstly, I am very worried about the flooding. We have already experienced this in Kingscliff recently where properties were inundated with water - where people had been living for over 40 years and had never experienced anything like it. The new housing development very close to this proposal was the cause of this flooding, so one does not have to have too much intelligence to know that a development of this magnitude is going to have a very negative effect on flooding in the area 2. A further issue is the proposed height of the buildings. One rule for one and one rule for another. This is only going to start a precedent for Kingscliff. We have been fighting for years to keep the height at 13.6 metres. This is very wrong and not in keeping with the atmosphere of Kingscliff. It is going to be so much higher that all the other properties in Kingscliff. The developer is getting his way under the disguise of a nursing home People of Kingscliff are very aware of what is happening herel 3. Furthermore, the traffic is already a concern in the very tight Kingscliff Street. It is going to be a nightmare when a complex of this magnitude is plonked in the middle of Kingscliff on a single road. There is little parking on the road now. It is evident that little thought has been put into how this is going to affect the residents of Kingscliff. 4,

7001

New South Wales 2487

02/11/2025

Object

Website

I object to this on the grounds of over development. We need to see more access to aged care beds, but not the scale of this development. This development is not designed to meet the needs of te community, but rather the Financial gains of the developer. This will have a detrimental affect on neighbouring streets and the broader community.

7006

New South Wales 2478

02/11/2025

Object

Website

I write to formally object to the proposed Uniting development at Kingscliff, currently lodged as a State Significant Development. While the project is presented as a seniors housing initiative, its scale, commercial orientation, and disregard for local planning principles raise serious concerns about its physical suitability, community impact, and the integrity of the approval process. Flood Risk and Inadequate Mitigation Hydrological Vulnerability and Inadequate Mitigation The proposed site occupies a significantly low-lying position within the local catchment and functions as a natural collection point for surface water runoff from surrounding areas. It is not flood-free and has a documented history of inundation during moderate and severe weather events. The developer’s proposed mitigation—a shallow swale adjacent to 1.8m boundary fences—is insufficient and poorly conceived. These shallow indentations are likely to collect roof water, site runoff, and overland flow from neighbouring properties, effectively concentrating rather than dispersing floodwater. Without engineered drainage and reticulation retention basins, or elevation strategies external to the site and at ratepayers’ cost, this approach fails to meet even basic floodplain management principles. Given the increasing severity of coastal weather events and the known hydrological challenges in the region, the absence of robust flood planning places future residents—and surrounding properties—at serious and foreseeable risk. Planning Inconsistencies and Preferential Treatment Height limits and density controls that traditionally apply to all developers appear to have been relaxed or reinterpreted for the benefit of a non-profit entity. The developer has exploited loopholes in the Seniors Housing SEPP and other planning instruments, leveraging charitable status to bypass scrutiny. Authorities have failed to uphold the detailed legislation and protections that should apply equally to all, raising serious questions about fairness and transparency. Traffic, Parking, and Local Business Impact Kingscliff already faces significant congestion and parking shortages, particularly during business hours and peak holiday periods. This development will exacerbate those problems—introducing hundreds of new residents, staff, and service vehicles into an area with limited infrastructure. The result will be: • Reduced access to local shops and retail outlets that rely on regular patronage • Deterrence of tourists who contribute vital seasonal income and cultural engagement • Erosion of Kingscliff’s character as a family-friendly, walkable destination Commercial Motive Disguised as Mission While the development includes aged care beds, the bulk of the project consists of independent living units designed for sale at market rates. This undermines the stated mission of providing accommodation for the aged and infirm. Instead, it appears to be a tax-free real estate venture that benefits the organisation financially while offering minimal public benefit. Moral and Democratic Failure Local government has legislated within its authority to restrict overdevelopment and protect the integrity of the town’s infrastructure. Yet the State Government appears willing to override these protections in favour of large-scale developments that offer little direct financial benefit to the community. The voices of residents, councils, planners, and legitimate community groups have been dismissed in favour of opaque lobbying and institutional privilege. I urge the Commission to reconsider this proposal in light of its physical risks, planning inconsistencies, and moral implications. The public deserves transparency, fairness, and developments that genuinely serve the aged—not commercial ventures cloaked in charitable language. A Question of Respect—for Place, People, and Planning What is it about our politicians that compels them to interfere with places of natural beauty—places that have evolved through decades of thoughtful, locally driven planning, often without significant state intervention? Why do they so readily dismiss the careful stewardship of councils and communities in favour of top-down developments that serve neither the land nor the people who love it? In towns like Kingscliff, the charm lies not in concrete or density, but in the quiet dignity of open space, coastal air, and neighbourly connection. Yet the residents who are drawn into these oversized, multi-storey complexes—often from distant regions—rarely engage with the community or appreciate the setting. They do not walk the sunlit paths, greet their neighbours, or contribute to the social fabric that defines a place like Kingscliff. Over time, the very features that made the area special—its walkways, green corridors, and human scale—are reduced to neglected accessways, wedged between masonry walls and used only to reach distant units. What was once a place of beauty and belonging becomes a corridor of convenience, stripped of its soul. This is not progress. It is erasure. Rethinking Seniors Housing: Accessibility Over Density If one should be so bold, the housing crisis will not be solved by imposing high-density developments populated by elderly and infirm residents. These models often ignore the lived realities of ageing, mobility, and community connection. There is far greater benefit in developing low-rise subdivisions or precincts where aged accommodation is located predominantly at ground level, surrounded by open space and designed for accessibility. Not all residents will own a motor vehicle, but for those who do—and especially for the aged and infirm—it is essential that transport access is simple, direct, and free from physical barriers. Requiring residents to navigate multiple flights of stairs or long, enclosed pathways to reach a vehicle or public transport is both impractical and inequitable. Vehicle storage should be provided adjacent to each residence, not relegated to distant communal lots or underground structures. This cohort deserves dignity in design—housing that respects their physical limitations and supports their independence, rather than isolating them in vertical silos that serve planning metrics more than human needs. A Legacy Worth Defending: Housing, Memory, and Moral Responsibility In the current environment, there is no absolute solution to the provision of affordable housing. But that is no reason to abandon sensible, forward-thinking outcomes. The complexity of the crisis must not become an excuse for inertia, nor a justification for developments that serve profit over people. Is it too much to ask that our elected representatives—many of whom now reside in comfort—remember the legacy passed to them by preceding governments and, more importantly, by their own parents? For those legislators who came from modest or struggling backgrounds, whose current lodgings reflect a journey of upward mobility, would you not defend the right of every individual to avoid the hardship you once endured? Affordable housing is not just a policy challenge—it is a moral imperative. It demands humility, memory, and a commitment to equity. It requires that we build not just for numbers, but for dignity. And it calls on those in power to honour the very communities that shaped them, not to displace them in the name of expedience. The proposed development constitutes a substantial and intrusive imposition on the Kingscliff community. Its scale and positioning result in significant overshadowing and a marked intrusion upon the privacy of neighbouring residents, undermining the amenity and character of the area. Beyond its physical impact, the project threatens to become a visual and symbolic blight—both on the landscape and on the credibility of the public institutions that, in proceeding without genuine regard for community wellbeing, risk endorsing a deeply inappropriate burden on already strained local infrastructure and services. Such disregard for the cumulative social and environmental consequences is not only unjust—it is indefensible. If allowed to proceed, this development will stand as a stark indictment of planning processes that have failed to protect community values, and will further erode public trust in the institutions charged with safeguarding them. An Open Letter to Our Elected Representatives: A Moral Challenge on Housing and Planning To Our Legislators, As a politician of moral fortitude, would you prefer your own parents to reside in a medium-density setting—with dignity, access, and community—or in a high-density complex with few facilities, limited social engagement, and a diminished quality of life, such as that proposed for Kingscliff? This is not a rhetorical question. It is a test of empathy, leadership, and vision. The housing crisis is real. But it will not be solved by cramming high-density developments into already established communities—communities shaped by decades of local effort, thoughtful planning, and shared values. These developments, often framed as solutions, too frequently serve institutional interests while displacing the very people and places they claim to support. It is time for regulators to look beyond isolated projects and toward a national strategy that supports not only the aged and infirm, but the broader need for affordable housing for all Australians. That strategy must include: • Ground-level, (or first level at most) accessible housing designed for dignity and independence • Integration with open space, transport, and community services • Respect for local planning controls and community consultation If you cannot recognise the urgent need for affordable housing—and if you continue to convince yourselves that developments like Kingscliff represent progress—then no meaningful advancement will result. And if this pattern continues unchecked, it risks breeding widespread disillusionment, civic disengagement, and ultimately, social fragmentation. Should you believe that ignoring these intrinsic problems will somehow solve the housing crisis, then you are choosing to believe—perhaps conveniently—that the consequences of continuing down this path will never escalate. But to dismiss the risks of social fragmentation, civic unrest, and deepening inequality is to ignore history and human nature. Anarchy will ultimately result! This is not just about buildings. It is about belonging. It is about legacy. And it is about whether those in power will honour the communities that shaped them—or erase them in the name of expedience.

7011

New South Wales 2478

02/11/2025

Object

Website

I object to the development which will impact our neighbours, residents and local community.

7016

New South Wales 2487

02/11/2025

Object

Website

OBJECTION TO SSD-47105958 - UNITING KINGSCLIFF REDEVELOPMENT Address: 24A Kingscliff Street, Kingscliff NSW 2487; 27 - 33 Lorien Way, Kingscliff NSW 2487 Introduction Thank you for the opportunity to provide a written submission to the NSW Independent Planning Commission’s (IPC) consideration of the Uniting Kingscliff Redevelopment. Please consider this submission an objection to the proposal. My name is Peter Newton and I am a resident of Kingscliff. I am also deeply engaged in community activities as President of the Kingscliff Ratepayers and Progress Association Inc. This objection is not on the Association’s behalf and is my personal submission as a resident. The Commission will have noted that I provided an objection to this proposal during the Department of Housing and Infrastructure (DPHI) public exhibition/submission phase of this project. The matters raised in my previous objection still very clearly stand, simply because I can see nothing of relevance that has been addressed as a result of the consideration of the responses received as part of the public exhibition process, the applicant’s response to submissions and finally the DPHI assessment report, including the conditions of consent. This is despite the nearly 300 objections received along with non-supporting reports from agencies such as Tweed Shire Council and the NSW State Emergency Service. In sitting down to write this objection, I really am at a loss as to where to start. It seems that it’s all been said and no one is listening. Uniting, since they pulled their ‘Plan B’ template proposal out of the drawer in late 2022 (following their initial ‘ambit’ proposal), did not take on any further community feedback during the remainder of the consultation process. They have just responded with hollow words and platitudes, and continues to tell us time and time again how wonderful they are as neighbours and that they love us and our community. Uniting’s response to submissions just repackaged more of the same and then the DPHI assessment report very clearly followed the false narrative of Uniting in twisting itself inside out to find a way to be able to recommend this gross overdevelopment as ‘acceptable’. The assessment report’s conditions of consent then become no more than a guidebook on how to jam this square peg of a gross overdevelopment into the round hole of the existing Uniting Kingscliff site. It beggars belief, it really does, that not one relevant serious concern from the community or agencies regarding this gross overdevelopment has been considered to be legitimate by Uniting or DPHI. This particularly applies to the gross bulk and scale from which all other impacts are influenced. So, I’m not going to rehash all the points made from my earlier objection, as stated they still stand, apart from the fact that instead of 16.75m proposed building heights, we now have 17.05m. I will though, just say a few things directly in relation to the DPHI assessment report and then leave it at that. Comments re Bulk and Scale The DPHI assessment report pays no (or at best scant) regard to the gross bulk and scale, including building heights of this proposal. The report talks about these points, but, rather than address these matters substantially (as we would expect as a community), literally just follows the false narrative put forward by Uniting in their DA and their response to submissions. Among many other references, the assessment report particularly refers to and agrees with the completely wrong statements/assumptions made by Uniting regarding the changing face of the Kingscliff built environment, their (Uniting’s) interpretations of our local planning frameworks and views of change in our community. Having ticked that box, the assessment report’s conditions of consent then simply deal with how this gross over development at such an incompatible, highly community impactful bulk and scale could be built to that size and scale. Basically, an instruction leaflet on how to ‘build big in the wrong place’. The DPHI assessment report says, in a justification of the development at this scale, that the proposed ‘four storey building heights and forms would be compatible with the envisaged character of the area and provide an appropriate built form relationship and transition to adjoining low-density development’. This justification is pretty much a direct lift from Uniting’s narrative – no mention of, no reference at all to the actual envisaged character of the area (West Kingscliff Precinct) which is to ‘Continue to facilitate the development of low density housing within the existing residential precinct’ This quote is lifted directly from the Kingscliff Locality Plan, not Uniting’s narrative and interpretation of the intent for the West Kingscliff Precinct. References to the four storey character of Kingscliff are laughable, are a clear misrepresentation of the facts and are another example of the Olympic class gymnastics demonstrated by both Uniting and the DPHI in trying to justify this gross overdevelopment. The four storey character of Kingscliff are buildings that all fit within the 13.6 maximum height limit (where zoned for same) in our district. They are not 13.6m ‘plus’ and certainly not 17.05m. They have been added and blend with the like, surrounding built environments, of Kingscliff Street, Pearl Street and Marine Parade not in the low rise, low density areas of Kingscliff. Because they blend with the existing and emerging built environments – as planned – they provide tremendous infill development examples of four storey buildings completed, underway and at planning stage in Kingscliff (again at the maximum allowable 13.6m). The community welcomes these ongoing developments as they fit squarely within the intent of the (community consulted) Kingscliff Locality Plan. The top floors (fourth storey) of these buildings are also well set back from the leading edge of the building, so that they do not present a straight vertical face looming over the street scape. Again, these are welcome developments, supported by the community – which again busts another myth, presented by Uniting in a meeting with the Commission, in that we (the community) are concerned with all the development that is changing our town. Another gymnastic masterclass. We love what we’re seeing because it matches what has been planned for as our town grows – in the right place, within our agreed built height and density standards. The reality in the community is that we are actually concerned with any inappropriate, gross overdevelopment that trashes our planning frameworks, our height limits, the character of our neighbourhoods, and our fabric, amenity and liveability. And quite simply, there is no ‘…transition to adjoining low-density development’ as stated in the assessment report. I’ve got eyes and I can read a drawing, as can the local residents. This is wrong, so obviously wrong and to have this false narrative flow through from Uniting into the assessment report again is simply gob smacking. The buildings as proposed run in a linear line, at the same height, boundary to boundary and without any articulation in shape and form. Flood Impacts As stated earlier, the points made in my previous objection to this proposal still stand i.e. bulk, scale and height, impact on local infrastructure (including roads and traffic) and the completely inadequate flood mitigation strategies. I’ll close on this point with just a few comments regarding flood impacts and mitigation, which are in addition to those made in my previous objection. Quite simply, Uniting’s response to the flood matters raised and the DPHI assessment report’s acceptance of this is not acceptable for a community that went through the 2022 flood event. We thought we’d not see worse than 2017 – and then we did, much worse. Houses and streets within very close proximity to this site flooded, with significant levels of water, for the first time ever. ‘Lived experience’ has been discounted or at best very lightly regarded. We know what happened in 2022 when everything combined to create a ‘perfect storm’ of flooding. We also know we live in ‘climate change impact central’ and that all the modelling in the world counts for nothing when the big and more intense events start rolling in. With this in mind, both Uniting and the DPHI have clearly discounted the community’s knowledge and lived experience, absolute lip service has been paid to the NSW SES reports, Tweed Shire Council’s DCP, and other flood advice. Regarding the latter, Council’s DCP and also Interim Flood Levels Planning Policy are currently being reviewed and open to community feedback until early December – so, maybe it’s a tad premature for Uniting and DPHI to be signing off on the flood impact matters of this proposal. Uniting also talk about working to an 11 hour notice for evacuation – things happened so quickly in 2022 there was none or very little notice (local, elderly residents, 5 minutes from this site being canoed out of their homes by neighbours, no time to get out when the notice came) , and while the community and authorities have learned from this experience – 11 hours are just words on paper when it’s all going down. The DPHI report has endorsed Uniting’s ridiculous and frankly culpable ‘shelter in place’ and mitigation strategies. In terms of ‘shelter in place’, both SES reports are direct, clear and unambiguous on that point (and supported by Council), there is no room to move there, but Uniting and DPHI have somehow found a way. In terms of mitigation, among other things, the detention pit solution (those things that will take the place of the natural floodplain) is simply scary. The fact that Uniting’s hydrology expert could not identify where the five detention pits will be sited when asked by the Commission also doesn’t speak well for the diligence and veracity of the modelling. And let’s not mention the plan to run excess water into Lorien Way if anything fails in the engineered solution – although that flippancy does remind me of a comment from a Uniting rep very early on in the consultation along the lines of ‘once the water leaves our site it’s Council’s responsibility.’ The DPHI thinking and intent in relation to development on flood prone land is a bit inconsistent to me. Although not applicable to the Northern Rivers, the DPHI’s Low and Mid Rise Housing policy specifically excludes land with high risk to floods from development. This policy is actually driven by NSW housing needs and priorities and if it doesn’t allow high risk flood prone land development, why isn’t that same thinking and intent carried through in this case by DPHI? Uniting and DPHI seem to be using the fact that this is a ‘redevelopment’ to get around some aspects but even if only a risk based approach is required, the assessment seems less than reassuring. Dealing with these critical flood matters is not a ‘tick-a-box’ exercise. The impacts of an approach that focuses on being seen to be ‘just doing enough’, as has been promoted by Uniting and endorsed by DPHI, will be dire for all, the local and wider community, Uniting residents and staff. Concluding Comments The above are just a handful of examples of the way in which both Uniting and DPHI assessment report have either disregarded or misrepresented our planning frameworks along with a complete disregard of substantially addressing community and agency concerns. There’s more of course, but really it’s all there for the Commission to consider, from other submissions, the public meetings and meetings with stakeholders. I’ve read the objections currently uploaded to the IPC website, agency reports and the transcripts from meetings between stakeholders and the IPC and attended the public meeting. It really is mind-boggling that, as a resident with a strong trust in, respect for and also reliance on the local and State planning processes, that nothing, absolutely nothing of relevance submitted from the community and agencies, particularly the bulk and scale of this gross (meant for a city) overdevelopment has been significantly addressed in the DPHI assessment report. While we might have been ‘listened’ to, as Uniting like to keep telling us, lip-service’ does not equate to a serious regard of the issues raised. As a resident, it’s just not acceptable to see such a flagrant disregard for community views (and again our planning frameworks), as Uniting continually pushed for the development at this gross bulk and scale. Shamefully hiding this ‘underbelly’ under the guise of their quality aged care banner. As a speaker at the IPC public meeting succinctly put it – ‘this is a unit development masquerading as aged care’. So, and as someone who has a fair degree of professional career experience in writing submissions, briefings, reports, researching, presenting and advocating at all levels, this one - this project - has done my head in. From day one in mid-2022, so much quality information has been provided throughout this process right through to and including the IPC public meeting that goes to the heart of what is wrong with this proposal – it is gross overdevelopment totally at odds with the surrounding built environment. Its impact across local residents, wider community, our district, the trashing of our planning frameworks, exposing more vulnerable folk and the wider community to very real flood risks have not been significantly addressed. And for what? The faults and impacts of this proposal are so obvious and yet here I am as a community member and we as a community, feeling we are just yelling into the void. Why is that? I believe that word here is ‘yield’, that’s what it comes down to, no more, no less. Yield and the unwavering commitment from Uniting to push for this at any cost. And this is just not good enough, particularly when you see that Uniting does have options, they have always had options to reshape this gross overdevelopment into something that will meet theirs and community expectations, not trash our planning frameworks, our community’s character, resident’s amenity and not expose vulnerable folk to flood risks. Here’s a couple of recent Uniting developments: - Yamba (a coastal precinct on par to Kingscliff) retirement development with its mix of villa style and 4 storey apartment building and with a street (not residential) frontage. - Bateau Bay (in the densely populated City of the Central Coast) redevelopment, with its mix of two and three storey buildings – plus with a building footprint on a site nearly a hectare larger than the Kingscliff site. The Bateau Bay site also has a lengthy connector road boundary frontage (not residential homes). Bateau Bay is also a mirror to the Kingscliff proposal in that it’s a redevelopment and the method applied by Uniting to the community – go large (ambit), then pull it back a tad (how good are we, we’ve listened) and push hard throughout to get what they want, ‘listening’ but not acting. As a further, I guess reverse comparison, take a look at the Uniting proposed development in Waverley (Sydney’s Eastern Suburbs), which uses the same template as the proposed Kingscliff development. The proposed Waverley development has a similar bulk and scale and footprint as the Kingscliff proposal but is on a site much larger than the Kingscliff site and bounded by roads, not people’s homes. Of course Waverley is in our capital city, not a small coastal town. Kingscliff – Sydney, twin cities? What is wrong with this picture? Seriously, you couldn’t write this stuff – but they have. For some reason (let’s again call it for what it is, ‘yield’), Kingscliff has been presented with this city scale development almost from day one and Uniting have not moved from this position, just continuing to push it through. Now they have been aided and abetted by the DPHI assessment report and we, here in the community, are just left shaking our heads and wondering at the point of it all. Aren’t we supposed to be protected from such large scale, inappropriate development proposals? And again, throughout it all, Uniting have kept telling us how wonderful it all is and how wonderful they are and we love you all. Well, with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson, I’ve been counting so many spoons over the last few years whenever Uniting speak, there’s none left to count. I’ll close this objection by simply saying that I and the wider community supports a reduced version of the redevelopment of this site, but it must be balanced against community expectations, our planning frameworks and the provision of aged care services, not this gross overdevelopment that focuses on cramming as many units as possible onto the site at the expense of meeting the real need of increased residential aged care beds (8 extra beds doesn’t cut it). This development, given its scale and lack of balance between ILUs and residential aged care beds, very much appears a Uniting version of a commercially developed seniors community resort e.g. ‘GemLife’. Again, ‘a unit development masquerading as aged care’. All we ask as community members - our simple, uncomplicated expectations - is to live with the secure knowledge that our wonderful part of the world’s growth and development is guided and protected by our core planning frameworks – which are indeed the voice of our community. Don’t trash these frameworks, don’t trash our community chasing ‘yield’ and pursuing a ‘housing priority’ with total disregard of the cost to our town’s character, fabric, amenity and liveability. In the words of the very last speaker at the IPC public hearing – ‘just be fair’ - that’s all we ask. Thank you to the Commission for considering my objection and for your genuine and professional engagement with our community and the transparency of this process. Peter Newton

7021

New South Wales 2487

02/11/2025

Object

Website

Please see my Submission in uploaded file.

Uniting Seniors living DA objection - Copy.pdf (PDF, 129.76 KB)

7026

New South Wales 2487

02/11/2025

Object

Website

I object to the Uniting Kingscliff Seniors Housing Development. I live in Kingscliff, where I retired 11 years ago. I retired here because Kingscliff was a quiet town. Already I have been impacted by development in our area, and the Uniting development would further impact my lifestyle. Examples of impact are: fewer parking opportunities in the local shopping precinct, more traffic on our roads, longer wait times for local doctors, dentists, physios, hospitals, and all other services. Kingscliff Street is a very busy street which is currently in poor condition. Using Kingscliff Street currently takes me 5 minutes longer to reach my destination than it did 18 months ago. Adding extra traffic, would increase the travel time. It is already difficult to get appointments with local medical providers. There is also a very real risk of flooding to the area and impact on surrounding areas. I find the outcome of this development to be undesirable and unacceptable and of not much benefit in providing extra aged care beds which is what is required more than independent living units.

7031

New South Wales 2487

02/11/2025

Object

Website

I object to the Uniting Kingscliff Seniors Housing Development. I live in Kingscliff, where I retired 11 years ago. I retired here because Kingscliff was a quiet town. Already I have been impacted by development in our area, and the Uniting development would further impact my lifestyle. Examples of impact are: fewer parking opportunities in the local shopping precinct, more traffic on our roads, longer wait times for local doctors, dentists, physios, hospitals, and all other services. Kingscliff Street is a very busy street which is currently in poor condition. Using Kingscliff Street currently takes me 5 minutes longer to reach my destination than it did 18 months ago. Adding extra traffic, would increase the travel time. It is already difficult to get appointments with local medical providers. There is also a very real risk of flooding to the area and impact on surrounding areas. I find the outcome of this development to be undesirable and unacceptable and of not much benefit in providing extra aged care beds which is what is required more than independent living units.

7036

New South Wales 2487

02/11/2025

Object

Website

I object to the Uniting Kingscliff Seniors Housing Development. • I have lived in Kingscliff for 11 years, having retiredhere for its quiet atmosphere. • Recent and ongoing developments have already negatively impacted my lifestyle. • Specific concerns include: o Reduced parking in the local shopping area. o Increased traffic and longer travel times, especially on Kingscliff Street. o Longer wait times for local medical and health services. o Kingscliff Street is already in poor condition and travel times have increased by 5 minutes over the past 18 months. o Difficulty obtaining appointments with local medical providers. o Risk of flooding to the area and surrounding neighborhoods. • I believe the development is undesirable, unacceptable, and does not adequately address the need for more aged care beds, which are seen as more necessary than independent living units.

7041

Redacted

02/11/2025

Object

Website

1 I think it is an overdevelopment of the site 2 It is not in keeping with the relaxed village atmosphere of Kingscliff. 3 Site frequently floods. 4 The influx of associated worker & residents will severely impact traffic parking & local businesses. 5. I am a frequent visitor to Kingscliff an this development will alter the quite & peaceful atmosphere of Kingscliff 6 The residents in the vicinity of the development have built their forever homes it will affect their relaxed & neighbourly lifestyle. 7 Homes have been designed to take advantage of the sun & privacy this monstrosity will severely impact the lifestyle they expected to have in a village like Kingscliff. 8 I am of retirement age & have lived in a multi-storey complex & found I was much happier in a ground level complex .I have many friend who are of the same opinion. 9 The Uniting Church is a Christian organisation so why are they not at least following Rotaries 4 pillars Is it the truth Is it fair to all concerned Will it build goodwill & better friendships Will it be beneficial for all concerned.

7046

New South Wales 2487

02/11/2025

Object

Website

I object to this development because primarily the bulk and scale of this building and once competed the Uniting Project will tower way above the current built form in the area which is traditionally single and two storey buildings. The development is just way too big for the location planned and its at the expense of the local residents who lose sun, privacy and interruptions to their way of living that they are accustomed to. Not only do Uniting intend on buildings of 4 storeys in height but from a new raised ground level way above not only at the current levels but even above our ground height in Drift Court. This new ground height will see retaining walls built right around the new development of which there is very little detail. Last time Kingscliff flooded streets in Beach Street and Lorien Way had water in them, with Uniting current land capturing ground water. If Uniting is built that will only force more floodwaters into those local streets making flooding worse. The four storey buildings, which are all situated 9m from the boundaries are way too tall and will create way too much shadow for current residents, and we at 39 Drift Court are one of the most affected by not only losing sun on our northern side, but also to the north-west and western side. Our home will be affected by not one, but two buildings, on two sides which is the RAC and Building F and visually from a 3rd building, building C to our south-west. All will cast massive shade over my property. Buildings F to the north shading my property from sunrise till 3pm and RAC to my west shading us from between 2-3pm for the rest of the day. On overshadowing Uniting says… “it will not result in significant overshadowing to neigbouring properties”. Uniting too have failed to deliver artist impressions of the true impact of their development from every street involved, for they always seem to hide their buildings in behind buildings or trees. For instance, in Drift Court, namely 35 Drift Court there is a single level home and Building C will tower well above that property yet there is not one view in the artist impressions. In fact, the Uniting development in its finished form will tower way above all the other residents in all the streets and be more prevalent in all the single storey homes surrounding yet Uniting fail to show any impressions of these, unless of course hidden by a tree or other building. Uniting should have to provide true and correct artist impressions of the building in its built state from not only the front street view but from every backyard as well to understand the true impact this building will have on EVERY surrounding property. Uniting have also somehow managed to exclude top floors of their building in artist impressions for both 37 Drift Court and 39 Drift Court. When Uniting is completed, we go from full sun at 9am to full shade. By 12pm we gain some sun back its short lived for between 2 and 3pm we will be in total shade once again. Normally when a project is planned then shadow diagrams are required for hourly increments of the day however with Uniting, they are vague and unsubstantiated to show the true impact of shade on current properties. When we built our home, we had to face our living areas due north to capture the sun however that’s all wasted now for its now in shade. Then at 3pm we will endure full shade not only in the yard but to the entire ground floor level, and this includes the sun which currently streams into our house all day every day. The shadow diagrams are greater than in their latest documents as rooftop generator rooms and lift overruns have been added to both buildings and not shown in the latest shadow diagrams. I also object to the current shadow lines however I fell the shadow lines are however grossly over-represented with way more shadow with what there actually is, making the potential loss sun to our properties way greater. Has this been a developer ploy to increase the current shade on properties so that the percentage loss of sun is way less to push through the project quicker? 100% loss of sun both at 9am and 3pm to my property alone should send alarm bells ringing Inside our house its worse, way worse. In our living area we currently get streaming sun from dawn till dusk and once uniting is constructed we believe we may only get 2 or 3 hours of sun, if that. Uniting don’t show what the loss of sun is going to be inside, and there are not even any studies done on cross sections to determine how much sun will be lose in current properties One would think that if a developer intended to put a four storey building that will cast massive shadows into your living area then that would be their top priority to produce diagrams to show loss of sun at hourly intervals. But there are no cross sections and to say the least, some pretty ordinary shadow diagrams as well and I object to that. Uniting say that is necessary to increase the number of aged care beds but not for only increasing the aged care rooms by a handful whilst adding 199 apartments. On the aged care beds the dementia unit is on the first floor, so hardly a great place for it to be located. Dementia patients need to be out of their rooms and be able to walk around freely on walking paths and occupying their day to that what they deserve not locked up with a room every day. I know because my father suffered dementia for many years and in the end passed away due to dementia complications. If they need to increase the facility then double or triple the Aged Care building number of beds would make more sense instead of doing what they intend doing is building 199 Apartments, and so then what happens to the 400 residents here there surely cannot all fit into the new RAC building because its not where near big enough. The massive 4 storey buildings to our rear fence all looking down on us, we will lose all privacy, and most of the sun. Our backyard our turf needs a minimum 6 hours of sun, so its dead. In fact, everything in the backyard will die due to total shade. We also have a decent sized raised vegetable garden; no more as plants don’t grow in shade There’s no grass for my kids or grandkids and no warming northern sun either in my backyard or in my home. We currently get full sun at 9am to 2 pm in our pool however at 9am it will be total shade and also at 2pm shade as well. I am so against and really object to this overdevelopment of this site in its current format due to its current density, height, bulk and scale will I think ruin this lovely part of West Kingscliff forever. This is not an inner-city landscape, this is a coastal town in regional New South Wales, and we definitely do not need anything like this monstrosity of multiple buildings in our backyards.

7051

New South Wales 2487

02/11/2025

Object

Website

I object to the Kingscliff Redevelopment Project because there are just way too many factors going against the project including - Overshadowing concerns from 4 storey buildings - No solar panel shading studies including our house where we have over 30 solar panels - No cross sections determining how much sun lost in properties - Bulk and scale of the development being 4 storeys not in keeping with the surrounding homes; which are either 1 or 2 storeys - Artist impressions deceiving hiding all the 4 storey buildings behind trees or other buildings of parts of buildings not giving the correct impression of the size of the buildings in relation to existing ones in comparison, - The buildings will be built on a new ground level of which there is very little detail. How high will its elevation be in Beach Street and Lorien Way in relation to other properties? There is just no detail at all - No details in relation to fencing types or design - No artist impressions show neither the new building starting height of the proposed buildings and for all the many homes that surround the development this is crucial - Uniting plan to hide the buildings by adding trees, and lots of trees. Current residents are losing sun however with 10-20m trees proposed this is due to shade properties more - Full length windows and doors will look straight into current homes with no attempt to protect privacy, including homes like ours with pools. All privacy is lost - No limiting on light transmission to surrounding properties. - No changing the glass balustrading to opaque as requested to hide current residents - No mention as to fence details on development, including height, type of construction and noise transmission - The developer has maximized unit numbers on the site for monetary gain without giving consideration to existing residents - View and privacy loss and way more shadow loss that Uniting are reporting. - Noise that will come from the massive number of residents in the buildings once completed, and where their balconies will be located and noise coming from the residents, as well as the noise from not only one air conditioning unit but multiple air conditioning units; - Not keeping with streetscaping and all that you will see when driving up our street are the masses of units directly in view some streetscapes will show one long building, way longer than the length of the new Tweed Valley Hospital - Totally out of keeping with our street character when all you will see driving up Drift Ct will have massive number of units towering way above our homes and overshadowing current residents; - The street views have not been at all represented in the artist impressions, with Uniting hiding buildings behind trees or buildings - Loss of sun to current yard will make our yard a barren wasteland and pools plunged into shadow - Traffic concerns on particularly quiet residential streets of Beach Street and Lorien Way - Not enough parking in plans for the 199 new apartments with all apartments only having one car-space per unit - Sound and noise transmission concerns This project will have a massive effect on Kingscliff Residents way of life, and the project will stand out for a 4 storey building on a new raised ground level will dominate the skyline in this area of Kingscliff which is mainly single and double storey homes and I really object to it proceeding.

7056

New South Wales 2487

02/11/2025

Object

Website

To whom it may concern, I wish to submit the following objection to the Uniting - Kingscliff Redevelopment proposal. This proposal in its current form should not be appproved based on the fact that this project does not integrate into the surrounding area in a positive manner and will exacebate already experienced issues of traffic and parking in Lorien Way, Kingscliff during construction and once in operation. Lorien Way, Kingscliff already experiences significant traffic issues as it receives both route and school buses, daily between 5:15am and 11:00pm. Currently approximately 80+ buses per day. This along with existing local traffic issues as there are only two access points in and out of this residental estate via the narrow tighthly congested road, being Beach Street, Kingscliff due to multi-occupancy dwelling, i.e units and town houses with limited off-street parking and Elrond Drive to the south. In its proposed design this redevelopment would create unwanted and hazardous additional increases of traffic from the developments residents, visitors, employees, service and delivery vehicles and garbage trucks on a daily basis and would create further road safety issues in Lorien Way, Kingscliff, which are currently being already experienced. The proposed repositioning of the entrance and exit to this facility should remain in Kingscliff Street and not Lorien Way as this road was designed for local traffic only and would significantly increase the amount of traffic, creating further impacts to residents from additional vehicle noise and amenity issues. The height of the proposed development does not comply with Tweed Shire Council local governement guide lines and would create shadowing on adjacent properties, as well as impacting a lack of privacy to existing adjoining properties. It is my opinion that developments such as the one proposed would be better built on greenfield sites like for example "Kings Forest Development" or in the vicinity to the Kingscliff hospital development as it can be better integrated into the road and traffic network and mitigate problems with traffic, access and over development in areas that are inappropriate such as the proposed site. I have no objection to increasing the number of aged care beds to accommodate a growing ageing community but unfortunately this proposal appears to be driven more so by greed without fully considering the impacts to the surroundiing local residents and community. As a resident that has lived in the Kingscliff area since 2010, I have experienced first hand the impacting of flooding to the area on a number of occasions. The last flood in 2022 impacted on Lorien Way, at which time it flooded this street and surrounding streets impacting access to and from the estate. Not exactly what is desirable if you have aged or elderly residents that suffer an emergency and cannot be accessed due to road closures due to flooding. Hence why the entry / exit to this development shoud remain in Kingscliff Street as this road does not flood. I would finally like to conclude to say that I am not against sensible development that integrates well into the community but this project does not demonstrate sensible, safe or appropriate redevelopment inline with community expectations or fit into the character of the local community environment. Once again projects of this size and scals should considered and be built on greenfield sites factoring in the appropriate road network in partnership with the NSW State Government and developers such as "Kings Forest Development". We have so much land in this area that this project would be better suited to between Kingscliff and Pottsville and the currently proposed site is far from suitable or ideal for what is proposed. If the Department of Planning and Environment deems this to be a suitable location both the size and scale of this redevelopment needs to be scaled back in height as well as occupancy and the current entry / exit remain in Kingscliff Street to remain flood free and not impact on local roads and estate that were never designed or built to cater for this level of use. Thankyou for the opportunity to provide feedback on this development proposal.

7061

New South Wales 2487

02/11/2025

Object

Website

As a Kingscliff resident I strongly object to the size and scale of the proposed Kingscliff UPA development. I was also most disappointed at the DPHI Report which basically green lighted everything that UPA wishes to do . POTENTIAL FLOODING Increased flooding will occur in the area because of the huge buildings that are proposed. As a local resident of many years I have observed that flooding does occur on a regular basis and this proposed massive development will only compound and increase this. The fact that the local SES objects strongly to this massive development because of potential flooding cannot be ignored as the SES has years of accumulated knowledge and lived experience of flooding in this area. The opportunity for existing local residents to purchase Flood Insurance could also be in jeopardy. TRAFFIC IMPACT The reality of an extremely heavy increase of traffic in the surrounding area of the proposed redevelopment is very, very high.The daily number of food delivery vehicles etc, garbage trucks, Staff Vehicles , residents’ vehicles ,visitors’ vehicles ,etc will greatly increase in an area already beginning to experience some problems in this area.Parking pressures from staff, residents and visitors will also increase. IMPACT ON LOCAL RESIDENTS LIFESTYLE AND PRIVACY the impact of such large buildings adjacent to already existing homes has been modelled and the lack of privacy and sunshine added to the increased chance of flooding is simply not fair or reasonable. COMMUNITY IMPACT The size of this massive redevelopment will only add a very small number of Aged Care beds but will add an overwhelming number of luxurious apartments for independent living placing many pressures on other community facilities and services. KINGSCLIFF’S FUTURE Kingscliff is currently developing and transitioning from a seaside village to a bustling town but if such a major redevelopment is successful as proposed then the fast track to becoming an over- populated, under resourced, traffic congested, poorly planned “Gold Coast” community will become a reality. LOCAL OPINION AND FEELING Local residents are NOT against sensible progress and support more Aged Care facilities but not on this scale and in this position. The fact that the elected Tweed Council, the SES the local Kingscliff Progress Association, many ,many residents and other organisations are against this re-development as prosed surely must stand for something??

7071

New South Wales 2487

02/11/2025

Object

Website

1 I object to the Uniting Kingscliff Redevelopment. While the community recognises the need for improved aged care facilities to meet future demand, this must not come at the expense of our values, identity, or planning principles. Despite extensive feedback, our concerns have been largely ignored, with the DPHI assessment offering generic responses that fail to reflect the community’s perspective. Proposed Uniting Redevelopment The proposed development flagrantly disregards the Kingscliff LEP, exceeding the 13.6-metre height limit by more than 25%, with buildings reaching 17.05 metres — a deliberate overreach that prioritises developer profit over community safety, amenity, and character. Pattern of Development Across its projects, including Mona vale presented at the IPC and Bateau Bay (see Figure 1), Uniting consistently applies the same footprint and design model, showing minimal adaptation to site-specific constraints. Their approach prioritises replicating a pre-set model — because each site apparently deserves the same cookie-cutter solution. Figure 1: Bateau Bay development example 1. Respect for Community Values and Planning Integrity The LEP embodies the collective vision and values of the Kingscliff community, demonstrating a long-standing commitment to maintaining balanced, human-scaled growth. To respect the LEP is to respect the planning frameworks our community has carefully created — frameworks designed to protect our town, our streetscapes, and our way of life. These rules exist to serve the community, not the financial interests of a developer, and must be upheld to ensure Kingscliff retains the character and liveability we have fought to preserve. The proposed development undermines these frameworks and sets a dangerous precedent for overdevelopment in our small coastal town. 2. Scale and Massing The scale of this development is immediately overwhelming. Its oversized frontage and site boundaries rival the Tweed Valley Hospital, yet it sits on a modest suburban street. Uniform façades, minimal setbacks, and wall-like massing along Lorien Way, Beach Street, and Drift Court loom over neighbours, creating a stifling sense of enclosure. The development dominates the streetscape and surrounding homes, giving the impression of an institutional complex rather than a residential community. Reliance on Landscaping Uniting relies solely on landscaping, including large 9–14 m trees, to attempt to reduce visual bulk and provide privacy. These trees will take seven years or more to mature, offering no immediate mitigation. Landscaping cannot address privacy concerns, which are highly questionable in this design, and will in fact increase overshadowing, leaving neighbours exposed to persistent visual intrusion. Privacy Measures The proposal provides no opaque balustrades, privacy screens, or louvers — features standard in contemporary residential design to protect privacy and prevent overlooking of neighbours’ living and social areas. It is unclear why Uniting has deliberately chosen to omit 2 these measures, leaving boundary residents exposed to permanent overlooking and diminished privacy, compounding the overwhelming scale of the development. 3. Demographics and Health Service Impacts Under the Growth Management and Housing Strategy (April 2025), Kingscliff and the Tweed Coast already have one of the highest proportions of seniors in New South Wales, with 27.8% of residents over 65 compared with the state average of 17.2%. ¹ he proposed Uniting redevelopment would add around 350 more elderly residents through 199 Independent Living Units yet increase Residential Aged Care beds by only eight — from 112 to 120. ¹ This creates a critical imbalance in aged care and community support. Local health and aged care services are already stretched well beyond capacity. The GP-to-population ratio sits at just 0.65 per 1,000 people — well below the state average — and wait times for appointments can exceed 16 days. Hospitals are frequently occupied by elderly patients awaiting placement in aged-care facilities, reducing acute-care availability for others. While Kingscliff now benefits from a modern hospital, more complex procedures such as heart interventions or trauma care still require transfer to the Gold Coast. By increasing population without expanding health or aged-care capacity, the proposal would compound these pressures, further reducing access and quality of care across the community. 4. Lack of Community Benefit – Key Points • 199 ILUs vs only 8 additional RAC (residential aged care) beds – minimal increase in aged care capacity. • Medical support limited: RCF residents supported by visiting GPs; ILU residents rely entirely on the local health system. • Kingscliff’s limited infrastructure: small coastal town with few social, recreational, and community hubs; hundreds of new residents exceed capacity. • Construction impacts: neighbouring residents face 4–6 years of noise, dust, heavy traffic, and disruption. • Housing affordability: ILUs prices largely inaccessible to local seniors. The Uniting Kingscliff development claims to provide community benefit, but its contribution is limited and fails to address existing pressures in the Tweed and Kingscliff region, which already has one of the highest proportions of elderly residents in the state. Adding 199 ILUs without expanding healthcare, aged care, or community infrastructure risks intensifying demand on already stretched services. Medical support is restricted to RCF residents, who are supported by visiting GPs, while ILU occupants rely entirely on the local health system. The DPHI Assessment nonetheless concludes “no amendments are necessary,” leaving responsibility with NSW Health — an 3 approach that ignores clear evidence of inadequate service availability. The proposal references 120 RAC beds; the current facility has a capacity of 112 beds but only 86 residents, meaning the development will provide an actual net increase of just eight beds — a marginal expansion of RAC capacity offering little real benefit. Kingscliff is a small, close-knit coastal town with limited social and recreational facilities. Concentrating hundreds of residents in a single, high-density site exceeds the town’s capacity and places strain on shared community hubs. The ILUs high market value makes them largely inaccessible to local seniors, instead attracting wealthier retirees from outside the area. Neighbouring families and residents will endure 4–6 years of construction-related disruption, including noise, dust, and heavy traffic, creating a tangible impact on quality of life that cannot be offset. This prolonged disruption highlights the mismatch between the development’s scale and the town’s limited infrastructure, further demonstrating the lack of meaningful community benefit. The Uniting Kingscliff development, as currently proposed, fails to deliver meaningful community benefit. By adding 199 ILUs but only eight additional RAC beds, it prioritises commercial gain over local need, increases pressure on healthcare services, and places significant strain on Kingscliff’s limited infrastructure, while imposing years of disruption for neighbouring residents. A truly community-focused development would expand RAC (residential aged care) capacity, provide affordable housing, and support local infrastructure and services, rather than introducing high-cost private units that provide minimal real benefit to the town. The cumulative effect of these demographic, health service, and social infrastructure shortcomings reinforces that the Uniting proposal does not align with Kingscliff’s capacity or community needs. This lack of alignment extends beyond social planning into broader urban and environmental risks — including flooding, evacuation safety, and infrastructure strain — which further demonstrate why the proposal is unsuitable for this location. 5. Flooding, Stormwater, and Evacuation While theoretical modelling may suggest the site is safe, lived experience tells a far more urgent story of impacts that cannot be captured in abstract reports alone. “The Uniting Flood Impact Assessment (Sept 2024) and subsequent DPHI Assessment Report rely heavily on theoretical modelling that largely dismisses 2025 and 2022 events historical flood events including the 2005 floods. This creates a false sense of safety. “Any further consideration or approval of this development must be contingent upon a full assessment of the updated Council flood report.” The development depends on retention basins, pumps, and temporary storage tanks, all of which rely on electricity and ongoing maintenance to function. The proposed measures are insufficient to guarantee resident safety during extreme events. • Approval without enforceable, future-focused safeguards is irresponsible, as any failure of these systems could place residents at serious risk. 4 Key future-proofing measures needed include: • An enforceable maintenance schedule for all stormwater and flood control infrastructure. • Annual testing of pumps and generators under load to ensure functionality during extreme events. • A performance bond or similar financial assurance to guarantee ongoing operation of on-site detention (OSD) systems and pumps. Recent experience in March 2025 demonstrated that even areas of Kingscliff not directly flooded suffered widespread power outages, loss of communications, and contaminated water supplies for up to five days, proving that the proposed 72-hour generator provision is inadequate. The Applicant’s presentation (Slides 17–19, “Flood Considerations” and “Site Level Flood Assessment”) claims that the design will “reduce existing flood risk to life by 94 %” and that there will be “no increase in flood levels to neighbouring properties.” The proposed “stay-in-place” evacuation strategy is unsupported by the SES and Tweed Shire Council. Such a plan shifts unacceptable risk to vulnerable residents and is unsafe and indefensible. Residents cannot safely remain on site during severe floods, and the 72-hour isolation period falls far short of the TDCP standard of 168 hours (7 days). Flood modelling cannot replace lived experience, and planning must account for rapid water rise, emergency access disruption, and that evacuations are chaotic and frightening. In Summary This proposal: • Disregards community-endorsed planning frameworks designed to protect Kingscliff’s character. • Exceeds height, bulk, and scale limits, overwhelming the streetscape and neighbourhood. • Skews demographic balance and places additional strain on already stretched health services. • Fails to deliver meaningful community benefit or affordable options for local seniors. • Endangers residents through inadequate flood planning and unsafe evacuation strategies. Approving this redevelopment would reward non-compliance, prioritise developer profit over the community, and permanently alter the low-rise, coastal character that defines Kingscliff. I and my community invite the Independent Planning Commission to uphold the LEP and DCP, respect decades of community-led planning, and ensure development serves the community rather than overrides it. References Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2021 Census Data – Tweed/Kingscliff area, age distribution. 2.Local health service data – current medical and allied health service capacity

L James Objection Submission Uniting Kingscliff Redevelopment Proposal.pdf (PDF, 199.66 KB)

20220223-2192-UNITING-Nareen_Gardens-FAQs-005-WEB (2).pdf (PDF, 5.79 MB)

20220426-2192_-_Revised_masterplan-Factsheet-003 (2).pdf (PDF, 9.37 MB)

7076

Redacted

02/11/2025

Object

Website

The development is completely out of context with its surroundings. It will cause a significant impact on adjoining neighbours as well as community as a whole. It is a gross overdevelopment of the site, will cause major floor impacts, traffic and parking and additional population in an already crowded area. The development will also cause significant privacy and overshadowing on adjoins owners, which the documentation has failed to demonstrate through improperly shown shadow diagrams, and incorrect ground lines and exisiting site conditions, which I believe have been either purposely done so or unintentionally shown. I completely object to this proposal as demonstrated and should be refused or completely redesigned to fit within the towns context and surrounding neighbourhood

7081

New South Wales 2487

02/11/2025

Object

Website

I Object to Kingscliff Uniting Proposal [NAME REDACTED] (I am aging in place) I am extremely opposed to the overwhelming size and bulk of the project. It is not what Kingscliff is about, and it is extremely unfair in its design to us, (the Neighbours). It is too tall and too long and wider than the new Tweed hospital. It does not fit in with the surrounding homes dwarfing them and causing privacy, shadowing, amenity, and is just too bulky. There is also, light, Noise and dust pollution, extended construction period (4 Years?) and landscaping issues. Better planning would be to move this project off the flood plain and into a newly proposed development where it can be designed to fit. It does not consider the existing neighbours and only considers its future tenants in its current squeezed in location. No matter how many reports or approvals the DPHI or applicant make and say the flooding and stormwater is not an issue. It proves to me they don’t know what they are talking about. Council was not even aware of the flooding because their priority was spread across the previously flooded problem areas of the Tweed Valley and not on new problem areas arising. They did not see the water flowing from the back of the coastal dune to the south west into drift court pushing west. If this development goes in and we have the same event my house will flood because the flow to the south west will be blocked. I would strongly support this development in a greenfield site where there are proper planning and design. If this development is approved it will be at the current community’s expense. This is my objection.

7086

New South Wales 2487

02/11/2025

Object

Website

Hi My Name is [Name redacted] I object to the new Uniting development for the following reasons: - • It is too big and bulky and much bigger than the surrounding houses. • It is a lot larger than any other local development. • It will create privacy issues • It will create shade. • It does not comply with local height rules • It will destroy the liveability of surrounding houses due to privacy. • It will seriously increase the chance of my house flooding. I am upstream of development and the new floor height will dam the stormwater because the floor height is higher than mine. • It will create parking and traffic issues. We cannot get parks down town during the day as it is. I understand the need for housing and aged care. These should be in keeping with the surrounds and in alignment with the character of the village. AND THIS IS NOT

7091

New South Wales 2487

02/11/2025

Object

Website

What a joke of a proposal. Completely out of context and will have major impacts on surrounding property owners. I am in support of a smaller less design and less overdevelopment of the land. It is needed, however this is a gross overdevelopment scaled delelopmemtb of the site. The site already has flood issues and it will increase this and displace this to the surrounding homes. Not to mention the major traffic isssues on an already busy small suburban street that has almost no street parking in peak hours. There will also be be noise, major privacy and overshadowing to adjoins homes backing this development. I believe the current documentation is either purposely incorrect, or left out information such as existing ground lines, site lines and privacy and overshadowing diagrams are very minimal with no actual impacts on people’s private living spaces, particularly under roof and internal lining rooms that get light and direct sun in winter. Local Tweed Council also strongly object so surely that holds context that the community do not want this at this scale. Thank you

7096

Redacted

02/11/2025

Object

Website

Introduction I formally object to the proposed development at 24A Kingscliff Street, Kingscliff (SSD-47105958). As a Principal Traffic and Transport Engineer with over 25 years of experience across both public and private sectors, I specialise in traffic impact assessments, traffic engineering design, and integrated transport planning. My professional background includes extensive work on State Significant Developments, expert reviews, and Planning Panels throughout NSW. I previously submitted detailed feedback during the public notification phase, identifying multiple non-compliances with Australian Standards, particularly AS2890, and raised concerns regarding traffic, pedestrian safety, flooding, privacy, and built form impacts. These concerns were not addressed in the SSDA response to submission, and my comments were marked as “Not Addressed” without any technical response or justification. Key Issues and Grounds for Objection 1. Non-Compliant Access Configuration (AS2890) The Kingscliff Street access handle is insufficient in width and alignment to support two-way vehicular movement, particularly for service vehicles and emergency access. [refer attached review] The pedestrian pathway proposed along this access handle is unsafe, lacks adequate separation from traffic, and fails to meet DDA compliance standards. [refer attached review] 2. Lack of Technical Justification No detailed traffic designs, swept paths, or safety audits were provided. The Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) is generic, lacks site-specific analysis, and fails to address SEARS Item 10. [Refer attached review] 3. Pedestrian Connectivity Deficiencies The proposal does not adequately address pedestrian connectivity to Kingscliff Town Centre or Marine Parade, especially for aged and vulnerable users. [refer attached review] The Access Report fails to assess key pedestrian crossing deficiencies at Kingscliff Street / Beach Street and Pearl Street. [review attached] 4. Misrepresentation of Landscape and Tree Retention The landscape plans inaccurately depict tree maturity and retention, particularly along Drift Court and the Kingscliff Street access handle. [Refer attached] Trees planted in 2017 are misrepresented as mature screening, resulting in 8–10 years of privacy loss for neighbouring residents. [Refer attached] 5. Privacy and Amenity Impacts The proposed building height and bulk result in direct overlooking into habitable rooms of neighbouring properties. [refer attached] The EIS relies on minimal setbacks and planter boxes to justify privacy, which is inadequate. [refer attached] 6. Shadow and Solar Access Impacts Shadow diagrams are coarse and do not reflect true impacts on living spaces and solar access of adjacent dwellings. [refer attached] 7. Inaccurate Ground Level and Height Calculations Architectural plans misrepresent existing ground levels, leading to incorrect height calculations and visual impact assessments. [refer attached] 8. Flooding and Civil Engineering Concerns The flood model is not locally validated and fails to address site filling impacts on adjacent properties, particularly around the Uniting Church and Drift Court. [refer attached] No civil engineering report was provided to address drainage, overland flow, or stormwater impacts. [refer attached] 9. Misleading Visual Representations The Visual Impact Assessment uses strategic viewpoints and retains trees that are proposed for removal, misrepresenting the true impact. [refer attached] 10. Inadequate Parking and Construction Management Staff parking is underprovided, and construction traffic impacts are not adequately addressed. [refer attached] Conclusion The proposal, in its current form, is fundamentally flawed from a traffic engineering, civil design, and planning compliance perspective. The absence of detailed responses to public and expert submissions undermines the integrity of the assessment process. While I acknowledge the strategic importance of delivering housing and aged care facilities, this must not come at the cost of community safety, amenity, and planning integrity. Approving this development with generic conditions of consent will result in long-term safety, compliance, and operational issues for residents and the broader Kingscliff community. Summary of Objection Points Non-compliant access configuration (AS2890) Unsafe pedestrian access and lack of DDA compliance Conflicting design elements along Kingscliff Street access handle Loss and misrepresentation of existing trees Privacy impacts to neighbouring properties Shadow and solar access impacts Excessive bulk and scale inconsistent with planning controls Misrepresented ground levels and height calculations Inaccurate cross sections and visual renderings Deep planting inconsistencies and misuse of parking areas Flooding risks and lack of civil engineering detail Misleading visual impact and consultation outcomes Inadequate parking provision and construction traffic management Lack of active transport infrastructure and mitigation Request to the Panel I respectfully request that the Panel refuse the development in its current form, or require a substantial redesign that addresses the above concerns through detailed engineering, planning, and community consultation. Should the Panel approve the development as proposed, it will be to the detriment of the Kingscliff community and erode public confidence in the NSW planning system.

Uniting Kingscliff - Comments 19_04_23_NOT ADDRESSED_Redacted.pdf (PDF, 111.6 KB)

Andrew Eke SSD47105958 Review_Redacted_1.pdf (PDF, 22.07 MB)

7101

New South Wales 2487

02/11/2025

Object

Website

I refer to my previous submission in which I outlined several significant concerns regarding the proposed development. Unfortunately, these concerns have still not been adequately addressed in the updated documentation submitted, or adequately assessed in the assessment report. The key issues that remain outstanding include: • Building height and scale The proposed building height and massing remain inconsistent with the established character of the surrounding area. The development exceeds the scale that is appropriate for the neighbourhood and would result in a substantial loss of visual amenity to nearby properties. • Privacy impacts The height, layout and positioning of the buildings continue to create significant overlooking into adjoining properties, including private open space and habitable rooms. The measures proposed to manage these impacts are inadequate and do not protect the reasonable expectations of privacy for existing residents. • Flooding and stormwater concerns The proposed filling of the site alters existing flood behaviour and increases risk to surrounding properties. The flood modelling and stormwater assessments provided do not give sufficient confidence that these impacts have been accurately assessed or appropriately mitigated. While additional reporting has been provided, I do not consider these assessments to adequately or transparently respond to the concerns raised by the community. In several instances, the conclusions drawn appear inconsistent with on-the-ground conditions and known local issues. On that basis, these documents should not be relied upon to support approval of the development in its current form. For the reasons outlined above, I respectfully request that substantial amendments be made to the proposal to ensure it is compatible with the surrounding area, protects neighbouring residents’ privacy, and does not increase flood risk. If these issues cannot be satisfactorily resolved, the development application should be refused

7106

New South Wales 2487

02/11/2025

Object

Website

I refer to my previous submission in which I outlined a number of serious concerns regarding the proposed development. Unfortunately, these concerns have still not been adequately addressed in the updated documentation provided. The key issues that remain unresolved include: • Building height and scale The proposed buildings continue to be excessively tall and bulky compared with the surrounding neighbourhood. The scale is inconsistent with the existing built form and would significantly detract from the visual amenity enjoyed by nearby residents, including my family. • Privacy impacts Due to the height and layout of the buildings, there will be direct overlooking into our home and private outdoor spaces. This represents an unreasonable intrusion on our privacy that has not been mitigated by the design changes submitted. • Flooding and stormwater concerns The proposal to fill the site will alter natural flood behaviour and has the potential to increase flood risk to neighbouring homes. The assessments provided do not give me confidence that these effects have been fully or accurately considered. Although additional reports have been submitted in response to community feedback, I do not consider them to meaningfully address the matters raised. In several instances, the conclusions appear at odds with the local context and the lived experience of residents. As such, I do not believe these documents provide a reliable basis for approving the development in its current form. For these reasons, I request that significant amendments be made to ensure the proposal is respectful of the surrounding area, protects the privacy of existing residents, and does not increase flooding impacts on our community. If these issues cannot be properly resolved, I believe Council should refuse the application.

6831

Redacted

01/11/2025

Object

Website

I object to uni rings proposed development in Kingscliff. We have a lovely village feel and a height limit that needs to be respected. We don’t have the support or services to support a development of this size in the population group proposed as buyers. I am very concerned about raising the ground level and the enormous impact it will have on flooding in the immediate area.

6836

New South Wales 2487

01/11/2025

Object

Website

I object to the bulk, scale, size and height of the Uniting Church redevelopment at Kingscliff. Relocating from NW Sydney I have first hand experience of witnessing overdevelopment in a suburb and the impact it has on the neighbourhood and nearby community. Traffic is my main concern; with the proposed 100plus units and the construction work required for the redevelopment will put strain on the existing road network. The Beach St Kingscliff Rd round about intersection will be a major traffic chokepoint and will also affect adjoining local road networks. Additionally the quality of the road deteriorates with rain events - consider adding a potential 100 vehicles every day. Traffic congestion increases over time not just at a projected time at completion of the development. I have experienced this living in Sydney for the past 25 years. As a result the vibe, feel, lifestyle of Kingscliff and the quality of life for the proposed aged care residents will diminish when navigating through increased traffic. The second issue is that of the potential for flooding. I understand that Kingscliff is in a flood zone area. The Uniting Redevelopment will increase flood run off due to construction on natural flood barriers. The proposed size, scale, bulk and height of the redevelopment will impact the Kingscliff community in the years to come if it proceeds as planned. Sincerely Rommel Ledesma

6841

New South Wales 2487

01/11/2025

Object

Website

I object to this development proposal. Not only are there issues as noted above, it is taller than any surrounding property, an eyesore and limits the privacy of surrounding citizens.

6846

New South Wales 2487

01/11/2025

Object

Website

I object to this proposal for several reasons notwithstanding the design is an eyesore and not in keeping with the community area, significantly limits the privacy of surrounding citizens, and is well above the height of buildings in the area.

6851

New South Wales 2487

01/11/2025

Object

Website

I object to the proposal for the reasons included here. It is an eyesore, not in keeping with the area and will create significant noise, traffic and privacy issues in the community.

6871

New South Wales 2487

01/11/2025

Object

Website

I object to this development. It contravenes the building height requirement. It will adversely impact flooding which is already an issue in the area around the site. It changes the amenity of the village.

6876

Kingscliff Beach Retirement Village

New South Wales 2487

01/11/2025

Object

Website

I object to the building heights of the proposed development. The four-storey height for Block B will severely impact the quality of living for a number of our units and the indoor/outdoor community area in Kingscliff Beach Retirement Village, which is located 1-9 Blue Jay Circuit, Kingscliff and runs adjacent to building B. The four-storey height (council building limit 13.6m) of the proposed building on top of the 3.8 m land fill planned for the development site leaves the proposed building at a 17.4 metre height. This will result in many of our back courtyards, clotheslines and community BBQ areas being shaded from sunlight for the majority of the day, especially in the winter months. This will severely affect the quality of life for our owners who enjoy spending a lot of their day in their private courtyard areas. In addition to the sunlight, the size and height of the proposed building will also block any natural breezes into our Retirement village. I object to the overall size of the development and land usage due to the increased flooding risk. Flooding and water retention are major concerns for neighbouring residents. I object to the increase in traffic produced by such a large development. The current road system will not cope with the significant increase in traffic conditions this development will bring to the neighbouring streets. The inevitable noise and traffic chaos that will result from this severe increase in dwelling density is contrary to the current lifestyle of existing homeowners.

6881

New South Wales 2487

01/11/2025

Object

Website

I object as a development this size and shape = it is NOT of special significance rather because staffing a facility like this will be a disaster, (no room now and unaffordable for low paid staff. The army had to evacuate a place like this in Brisbane during floods (Regis Yeronga and staff lived miles away as priced out, same down here) . This is greed and corruption - please disclose all benefits for those who approved this, shame in the Uniting church for approving a development like this and shame on the state government for bullshitting their way through this. Keep out of our community state govt. Flood rescue, water waste electricity grid all stretched now here - The state Govt needs to pay for the upgrade for all these if approving this development. Hard to get a carpark now, lifesavers stretched - more pressure on so many points of our community. Height restrictions ignored, a joke. WE DO NOT WANT TO BE LIKE THE GOLD COAST THAT IS WHY WE LIVE HERE.

6886

New South Wales 2487

01/11/2025

Object

Website

Please find attached three files: my written submission, and two PDF files of email correspondence to Uniting. Thank you

SSD 47105958 written submission.pdf (PDF, 474.93 KB)

email to AskUniting_Redacted.pdf (PDF, 1.46 MB)

email to John Martin_Redacted.pdf (PDF, 254.67 KB)

6891

New South Wales 2487

01/11/2025

Object

Website

Please find my submission in the attached file below.

IPC_Submission_SSD-47105958 1_11_25 copy_Redacted.pdf (PDF, 907.24 KB)

6896

New South Wales 2487

01/11/2025

Object

Website

I object to this overdevelopment, we need aged care beds not additional residential appartments. The proposal does not meet community needs but instead a developers need for a commercial return. Please reduce the light pollution, bulk and scale of the buildings to ensure it does not destroy liveability for existing residents on neighbouring streets and the wider community. Please further consider flooding implications.

6901

New South Wales 2487

01/11/2025

Object

Website

I believe there is to much development in kingscliff with traffic and old infrastructure of roads that should be planned before massive development

6906

Redacted

01/11/2025

Object

Website

I don't believe this should go ahead due to road and traffic infrastructure

6916

Redacted

01/11/2025

Object

Website

I object to this developments overdevelopment, we need aged care beds not more residential appartments. The proposal does not meet community needs but instead a developers need for a commercial return. In addition we know that all development adds to flood waters being moved further along towards North Kingscliff. Something we should look at closely.

6921

New South Wales 2487

01/11/2025

Object

Website

• I object to the proposed Uniting Kingscliff redevelopment, in its current iteration. • I am supportive of a redevelopment of the site, particularly the updating of the residential aged care facility. I cannot support the current proposal which is a yield driven gross overdevelopment of this site, in a small coastal town. The exceedance in height limits, the number of buildings being squeezed onto the site, the lack of articulation and the resultant long, linear street views, and the amenity impacts resulting from a lack of any real transition between the four storey buildings and the surrounding one and two storey homes all add to the incompatibility between what is being proposed for the site and the surrounding streetscape and character of Kingscliff. • Seeing our town change is not, as has been suggested by the applicant, the reason for community angst around this proposed development. The current spate of infill developments was planned for via our local planning frameworks, are being constructed in alignment with our local planning frameworks, are beginning to provide more diversity in housing (which will in turn create more diversity to our community) and even at 4 storeys manage to fit comfortably within our 13.6m height limit, lift overruns and all. These new infill developments are not only compatible with our town’s character they are enhancing the character. • The proposed Uniting Kingscliff redevelopment will do the opposite. In its current iteration it will irrevocability change the character, fabric and liveability of our town. Again, I stress the point, it is not the infill development that is currently happening in Kingscliff bringing concern to the community. It is the gross overdevelopment of this site that is bringing concern to our community and the impact on the future vision for not only our town but the other towns and villages along the Tweed Coast. • Reduce the size of this proposed development – swap out four storey buildings for two and three storey buildings – and many of the amenity, traffic and construction issues will be reduced to something that would be at least liveable for the surrounding neighbours. Give us something that is compatible with the envisaged character of our area as outlined in our community driven Kingscliff Locality Plan – not something that is envisaged by Uniting, DPHI or the next speculative developer that rides into town. • A reduction in the size of the development would also reduce the number of vulnerable people being placed on our high risk floodplain, something that must be given more weight in this decision. Lived experience tells us flood modelling is no guarantee against future events. Water can’t read, it doesn’t know where it’s supposed to go, it follows its own path. The Pollyanna response to evacuation of the ILUs, sheltering in place for the most vulnerable, and then somehow thinking everything returns to normal once the water recedes would be laughable if not so serious. The NSW Flood Inquiries recommended a retreat from the floodplain. That’s obviously been replaced with the next priority. • Having listened to the speakers at the Public Meeting and read many of the written submissions already lodged, there is nothing that I can add that will better inform the Commission of the anxiety and genuine concerns held by our community. We truly are as one on this. Even those in support of the project, generally express the same view as those opposed – the current residential aged care facility has reached end of life and needs redevelopment to bring it up to contemporary aged care standards; we need more aged care beds in the Tweed shire; our elderly residents deserve the highest levels of care. • The dilemma is that this Trojan Horse does not meet the needs or expectations of our community. Kingscliff is not metropolitan Sydney. We don’t need to create a community so that seniors feel safe and can ‘age in place’ – we are a community, we look out for each other, many of the most affected by the amenity impacts of this overdevelopment bought where they did thinking it was somewhere to age in place. Dreams destroyed by an over the top, incredibly dense apartment complex masquerading as aged care being developed by an organisation whose representatives keep telling us they can do pretty much whatever they like because of exemptions and bonuses for social housing providers. • We do not need 3 bed/2bath apartments – we have plenty of those being constructed and selling for prices well out of reach of anyone other than those in capital cities who can cash out. We need the missing middle of one and two bed apartments for our seniors of more modest means. We most certainly need more 1 bed apartments which might be in reach of single, senior women. We need more than an additional 8 aged care beds. As a ratio to the number of ILUs, this is simply not enough beds and the rest of the community will effectively lose a RAC facility if this development goes ahead as currently planned. • The community has expressed all of this to Uniting during community consultation to no avail. We suggested alternatives which for Uniting would mean replacing what is proposed for Kingscliff with designs already used in other Uniting developments – to no avail. Those who could, followed up with detailed objections as part of the DPHI public exhibition process – again to no avail. Our Council voted unanimously to not support the development as presented for public exhibition. Again, to no avail with even the simplest recommendations (eg opaque balcony glass) not considered necessary by DPHI}. The SES has consistently and vehemently warned of the issues of adding more vulnerable people to a high risk flood plain and the shelter in place strategy – again to no avail. • I am left not knowing what else I can say that would convince the Commission that this proposal is not in the public interest. It is a gross overdevelopment of this site completely out of context with the surrounding built environment and the character of Kingscliff. The DPHI assessment report and the reasons given as to why this project is acceptable are skewed too much in favour of the applicant. • At a reduced size and scale, and with some reconfiguration of the offerings (more aged care beds and a better representation of one and two bed units) the NSW Government’s housing priorities will still be supported but without the unimaginable impacts on the adjoining neighbours and the irrevocable damage to the planned character of our small town. Thank you for considering my submission. I am very appreciative of the time taken by the Commission to truly interact with the local community and the transparency of the process.

6776

New South Wales 2487

31/10/2025

Object

Website

This proposed property development is way too big - 199 apartments for over 60’s but also including lots of large dwellings. The size and density of this development is way out of character with what “Kingscliff” is as a suburb. We welcome new development but not like this!! The height of the buildings 17mt is over the zoning limit of 13.6mt so should not be allowed - I object too on this ground. There is a definite and proven flood risk. That area of land takes in water all the time and not even when there is a big down our of rain or high tides. This flood risk will impact the homes already established around the area and is a safety and health issue to those living in the area. The coastal village vibe of Kingscliff is wanted to be maintained. We love it here This will bring over development and ugliness and traffic congestion. We don’t want Gold Coast vibes. As I said before more home development is welcomed but in line white what “Kingscliff Village” is already. Keep the village charm and the traffic impact low. I love the area and don’t want to see it spoilt by large, invasive and obtrusive buildings. Thankyou [REDACTED]

6781

New South Wales 2487

31/10/2025

Object

Website

I object to the development in its current form. My key objection is regarding the extremely high number of independent living units being proposed (199) versus the very low incremental number of assisted living units (+8). The proposed development will not improve the level of aged care in the Kingscliff area. It will in fact make the situation worse as the older people who come into the area through the purchase of the independent living units in time require assisted living facilities, that won’t be available. Independent living units will bring a considerable increase in the traffic using the already congested section of Kingscliff Street, traffic it is not designed to accommodate. Finally, the NSW government has mandated against the development of flood plains for housing. This is a flood area and while building up the land may ensure the proposed development is out of flood, the surrounding land will be worse off. The residents will be isolated on their own island and the burden will fall on stretched emergency services to support them.

6786

New South Wales 2487

31/10/2025

Object

Website

I attended the public meeting on Tuesday 28/10 and the second speaker, a local resident and architect, raised some points i had not considered - the visual impact of this gargantuan building will be greater than that of the Tweed Valley Hospital - only plonked right in the middle of an existing low-rise residential area. The elevations he showed were horrific. The proposed development visually appears as a solid block, and towers above the existing homes. I was also disgusted to learn that only 84 or 86 of the current 112 licensed aged care places are currently being operated by Uniting. If they're not operating to their licensed capacity now, what makes you think they're going to suddenly provide 8 more aged care placed (i.e. the 120 they propose) if this monstrosity is approved? Please, PLEASE do not give this SSD status and allow it to ruin our town under the false pretence that they're helping provide aged care spaces. They won't. They're not even using all the places they currently have license for. And by building 199 independent units, all they're going to do is attract more older people to our town, which will in turn ADD to the pressure on aged care places here. This is not a SSD, it's a greedy profit agenda. And if you allow them SSD status, every other greedy developer will follow suit and we'll be like the Gold Coast, which is everything we have worked to avoid.

6791

New South Wales 2486

31/10/2025

Object

Website

I am writing as one of the owners of Units at 24 B Kingscliff Street - Uniting’s address is 24 A Kingscliff Street. Ours is a small group of three units at this address, and for some of us these are not just units but they are and have been our homes. The homes here at 24B Kingscliff Street, all face directly on to the lane way that is the main entrance to Uniting and runs right past our front doors. One of my concerns is the ramp to the underground car park - the proposed ramp runs directly along the fence line behind us and despite Uniting reporting that there is a 9 m buffer all around the development, there is absolutely NO buffer between our property and the car park ramp. It is going to be built right on our fence line - please see attachment 1. As this is to be the main car park and the entrance runs off the laneway off Kingscliff Street, right past our front doors, this driveway and car park directly on our back fence will continue to be used constantly day and night. We already have all services, trades, emergency vehicles and staff 24 hours. I also have a major concern for the structural safety of our homes whilst the development and in particular the underground car park and Building E directly on our fence line behind us, is being built. I also agree with other objectors on the grounds of massive over development, building and height – the intrusion of light and noise from all the units & people looking into our back yards, the overshadowing, loss of sunlight, the loss of privacy and the over use of such a small restricted parcel of land and the flooding risk to our neighboring properties. The buffer of trees is not a solution but a cause for concern as trees crash into houses, knock over fences, cause damage to pipes and plumbing with their roots and drop leaves and muck into yards and pools. They also harbor termites which have already been a problem in our homes. Thank you for allowing me this submission.

Uniting Car Park Ramp.pdf (PDF, 253.8 KB)

6796

Redacted

31/10/2025

Object

Website

I object to the proposed Uniting Kingscliff Seniors Housing Development at 24A Kingscliff Street and 27, 29, 31, and 33 Lorien Way, Kingscliff. A Lifelong Connection to This Place I am a married man in my 60s, and my connection to Kingscliff runs deep through the years of my life. Some of my earliest and most treasured memories are of standing on the sand beside my father as a young boy, beach fishing together in the early morning light. The sound of the waves, the salt air, the feel of the sand beneath my feet—these experiences imprinted themselves on me in ways I did not fully understand as a child but have carried with me ever since. There was something about this place that felt right to me, even then. A sense of belonging, of peace, of harmony between the built environment and the natural world. The land and sea spoke to something deep within me—a spiritual connection that is difficult to put into words but impossible to deny. Throughout my working life in the city, I always felt the pull to return here. When my wife and I began planning our retirement and visited numerous coastal communities up and down this coast, I knew in my heart where we needed to be. Kingscliff was calling me home. Why We Chose Kingscliff My wife and I explored many options for our retirement. We looked at places along the Gold Coast, but immediately felt overwhelmed by the high-rises, the traffic, the commercialisation, the disconnect between people and place. We wanted somewhere that still honoured the natural environment, where community mattered, where the scale of development remained human and respectful. Kingscliff offered all of this. The village feel is palpable when you walk these streets—neighbours greeting each other by name, low-rise buildings that allow sun and breeze to pass freely, tree-lined streets where you can still hear the ocean, a genuine sense of connection between people and the land they live on. What drew us here was not just the beauty of the coastline but the way this community has managed to grow sustainably over the years without losing its soul. Unlike so many coastal towns that have been overexploited and overdeveloped, Kingscliff has maintained a balance—honouring both growth and preservation, both progress and character. The house we purchased for our retirement is only a stone's throw from this proposed development site. We chose this location deliberately, believing that the village character we loved would be protected by local planning controls that the community had carefully developed together. We trusted that our retirement years would be spent in a place that valued harmony, sustainability, and respect for this pristine coastal environment. The Threat to Our Village Spirit What makes Kingscliff special is something that cannot be measured in economic terms or housing supply targets. It is the spirit of this place—the gentle, human scale of the streetscapes, the connection people feel to each other and to the land, the way the built environment sits lightly on the landscape rather than dominating it. Once this proposal is built, the higher-level buildings will loom large over the surrounding streets, including ours. From our home, we will no longer see sky and trees where we now look north—we will see concrete and glass rising up to 17 metres high, towering over the single and two-storey homes that currently define this neighbourhood. This is not just about views or property values. This is about the fundamental character of this place being irreparably damaged. Over 68% of public submissions raised concerns about inappropriate building height, and 37% specifically mentioned adverse impacts on local character. When I walk through our neighbourhood—along Lorien Way, Beach Street, Drift Court—I see a village that has found balance. The buildings are modest, the gardens are generous, the streets feel human in scale. You can sense the connection people have to this place, the care they take, the pride they feel in having created something sustainable and beautiful. This proposal threatens to shatter that delicate balance forever. Why This Development Is Not Sustainable True sustainability is not just about environmental credentials or energy ratings. It is about development that can be sustained—by the land, by the infrastructure, by the community, and by the spirit of a place. This proposal fails the test of sustainability on multiple grounds: Scale and Height Completely Out of Character The proposal includes buildings up to four storeys and 17.05 metres high, breaching the local height limit of 13.6 metres by up to 25.4%. These buildings will tower over a neighbourhood built for single and two-storey dwellings. This is not sustainable development—this is overdevelopment that disrespects the character and context of the existing community. As one community member eloquently stated in their submission: "Development of this scale is not in keeping with the coastal village atmosphere which has attracted many residents and visitors to the area". Another resident wrote: "The overall design and plan is completely over the top and will absolutely destroy the character and context of the surrounding streets". Community Opposition Cannot Be Ignored With 291 public objections, the message from this community is unmistakable and overwhelming. We are not opposed to all development. We understand that communities need to evolve and grow. But we are saying loudly and clearly that this development is too big, too dense, too high, and too out of character for Kingscliff. When a community speaks with such a unified voice, that should carry weight. Sustainable development requires community consent and social licence. This proposal has neither. Traffic and Infrastructure Impacts The local streets in our neighbourhood were designed for a low-density village, not for a development of this magnitude. Over 71% of submissions raised concerns about traffic impacts, yet the Department's assessment dismisses these concerns based on traffic modelling that predicts only 58 additional vehicle trips during peak periods. As someone who lives here and drives these streets daily, I can tell you that this modelling does not reflect reality. The proposal includes 322 car parking spaces because the developers know full well that residents will have cars. Independent living units are for active, mobile seniors who drive to shops, medical appointments, and social activities. Add in staff vehicles, visitor vehicles, service vehicles, and deliveries, and the true traffic impact will be substantial. The relaxed, unhurried pace of life that drew us to Kingscliff will be replaced by congestion, parking shortages, and the stress that comes with overdevelopment. We will become what we deliberately chose not to be—another crowded coastal suburb pushing towards the commercialised chaos of the Gold Coast. Flood Risk to Existing Homes In 2022, we watched with real fear as floodwaters rose in nearby streets during the floods. The natural basin on the Uniting site has historically provided important stormwater absorption and drainage. This proposal wants to fill in that basin and raise ground levels by over three metres in some locations. The Assessment Report acknowledges that in a Probable Maximum Flood event, the site could experience flooding depths of up to 8 metres. Over 69% of submissions raised serious concerns about flooding impacts on adjoining properties. My wife and I are deeply concerned that altering the natural drainage patterns could direct floodwater towards our home and our neighbours' homes during future flood events. We cannot simply move if our home becomes flood affected. This is where we have chosen to spend our retirement years, and the thought that we could face flooding because of this development fills us with genuine anxiety. Not Genuinely Addressing Aged Care Needs The proposal is presented as meeting the needs of an ageing population, but the facts tell a different story. The current facility has 112 aged care beds. The proposed development will have 120 beds—an increase of just 8 beds. This is not a meaningful contribution to addressing aged care shortages. This is a commercial development of 199 independent living apartments with aged care as a token addition to justify the project under State planning policies. If Uniting were genuinely committed to serving community needs, they would be proposing a development that significantly increases aged care capacity, not one that adds 8 beds whilst building a luxury apartment complex. The Connection to Place That Will Be Lost When I returned to Kingscliff for my retirement, I felt that same sense of connection I had experienced as a boy fishing with my father. I sensed that the land and sea still spoke to me. The village still honoured the natural environment. The community still valued harmony and balance. That connection—that sense of place—is fragile and precious. It cannot be rebuilt once it is destroyed. It cannot be recreated through landscaping plans or design guidelines. It exists in the relationship between people and place, in the scale and rhythm of daily life, in the way a community has chosen to live lightly and respectfully on this coastal land. This proposal threatens to sever that connection. Four-storey buildings looming over modest family homes. Hundreds of additional cars crowding village streets. The gentle, village scale replaced by institutional bulk and density. The peaceful, spiritual quality of this place drowned out by the noise and pressure of overdevelopment. Many others in this community feel the same profound concern. As one neighbour wrote in their submission: "I chose to live in Kingscliff precisely because of its relaxed coastal village character, friendly community, and open spaces—not the congestion and density of large coastal developments". Another stated: "The character of Kingscliff's coastal village vibe will be impacted and lost to overdevelopment". This Is NOT in the Public Interest The Department concludes that this development is "in the public interest," but I fundamentally reject this conclusion. The public interest must encompass more than housing supply targets and economic metrics. It must consider the quality of life, the character of communities, the sustainability of development, and the voices of those who actually live in and love these places. This development is not in the public interest because: It violates the trust of residents who chose to live in Kingscliff because of its village character and who relied on local planning controls to protect that character. We followed the rules. We made major life decisions based on the expectation that our community's vision for sustainable growth would be respected. It will set a dangerous precedent that will open the floodgates for further overdevelopment throughout Kingscliff. If this proposal is approved despite 291 objections and substantial height breaches, every developer will know that community opposition means nothing and that local planning controls can be ignored. It fails to genuinely address aged care needs whilst bringing approximately 300 additional seniors into the area, potentially worsening the shortage of aged care services in the Tweed. It imposes severe and unacceptable impacts on existing residents who will suffer loss of privacy, sunlight, outlook, amenity, and potentially increased flood risk—not for some genuine public benefit, but so that Uniting can maximise profit on a prime coastal site. It will destroy the very qualities that make Kingscliff attractive and liveable. The village character, the connection to place, the harmony between built and natural environment, the spiritual quality of life here—all of this will be lost. A Heartfelt Plea My connection to Kingscliff spans decades—from childhood memories of fishing with my father, through working years spent dreaming of returning, to retirement years finally realised. This place has been a constant thread through my life, calling me back, offering peace and connection. My wife and I did not make the decision to retire here lightly. We explored many options. We thought carefully about what mattered to us. We chose Kingscliff deliberately because it offered something increasingly rare and precious—a coastal village that still honours the land and sea, that still values community and connection, that has grown sustainably without losing its soul. We understand that communities must evolve. We are not opposed to appropriate development. But development must fit the place and the people. It must be sustainable in the deepest sense—environmentally, socially, spiritually. This proposal is simply too big. Too high. Too dense. Too wrong for Kingscliff. I am urging the Independent Planning Commission to refuse this application or to require substantial modifications that respect the scale and character of Kingscliff. A more modest development—perhaps two-storey villas similar to existing retirement villages in Kingscliff, with a genuine and substantial increase in aged care beds—would actually serve the community and honour this place. The 291 residents who objected are not obstructionists or NIMBYs. We are people who love Kingscliff deeply, who have chosen to make our lives here, who feel a profound connection to this land and community, and who are fighting to preserve something precious before it is lost forever. Please listen to our voices. Please honour the connection we feel to this place. Please protect the village character that has been carefully nurtured over years of sustainable, respectful growth. Please ensure that development serves the community rather than destroying what makes the community worth living in. This is not just about planning regulations or building heights. This is about protecting a way of life, a quality of place, and a spiritual connection to land and community that, once lost, can never be recovered. Please do not approve this overdevelopment. Please substantially reduce its scale, height, and magnitude. Please respect what Kingscliff is and help preserve what it can remain—a genuine coastal village where people and place exist in harmony.

6801

Redacted

31/10/2025

Object

Website

This building does not fit in with the local surrounds and will place unwanted burdens on infrastructure. It is an eye sore to the region and goes against the grain of the locals and other developments within the area.

6806

New South Wales 2487

31/10/2025

Object

Website

Please see attached both Attachments

My home vs Uniting 07.pdf (PDF, 2.19 MB)

IPC Objections Matthew Sands_Redacted.pdf (PDF, 2.34 MB)

6811

Residents of Kingscliff

Redacted

31/10/2025

Object

Website

See attached letter.

Public Submission - 24A Kingscliff Street KINGSCLIFF_Redacted.pdf (PDF, 1.88 MB)

6816

Redacted

31/10/2025

Object

Website

31/10/25 Subject: Objection to Proposed Uniting Age Care Development in Kingscliff Dear Sir/Madam, I am writing to formally object to the proposed Uniting Aged Care Development adjoining my property at [REDACTED]. Our property shares a 34-metre boundary with the site, and the proposed development will significantly impact our privacy, amenity, and well-being. 1. Privacy Intrusion: The proposed height of four storeys and above will allow direct views into our yard, alfresco, pool area, and main living spaces, severely compromising our family’s privacy and safety. This is particularly distressing with teenage children using our pool area. 2. Previous Privacy Breaches: We have previously reported incidents of aged care residents accessing the area behind our fence and undressing nearby, yet no action was taken by Uniting. This raises serious concerns about resident supervision, privacy management, and accountability, particularly with the addition of balconies overlooking private homes. 3. Overshadowing and Loss of Natural Light: The scale of the proposed buildings will substantially reduce natural light to our living areas, master bedroom, and pool, affecting both physical and mental health. We have requested shadow diagrams to assess this impact but have received no response. 4. Noise, Light, and Construction Impacts: Existing operational noise, deliveries, and alarms already disturb the area. The proposed expansion will increase traffic, light pollution, and construction disruption, further compromising residents’ peace and well-being. 5. Flooding and Water Runoff: Raising ground levels may redirect stormwater onto neighbouring properties, including ours, heightening flood risk and potential property damage. 6. Traffic and Safety: Traffic congestion at the Kingscliff Street and Drift Court roundabout is already problematic. Increased traffic from staff, residents, and visitors will worsen safety concerns unless mitigation measures are implemented. 7. Scale and Suitability: While I support improved aged care facilities, the bulk and height of this proposal are out of character with the surrounding residential area and will significantly affect local amenity and property values. In summary, I urge authorities to reassess the design, scale, and height of this project to protect the privacy, safety, and quality of life of neighbouring residents. I request that these concerns be formally recorded and considered in the assessment process. Yours sincerely, [REDACTED]

6821

Redacted

31/10/2025

Object

Website

31/10/2025 Uniting Age Care Development Kingscliff – LETTER OF OBJECTION I am writing to strongly object to the proposed Uniting Aged Care Development adjoining my property at [REDACTED]. Our property shares a 34-metre boundary with the site, and the proposed development will significantly impact our privacy, amenity, and well-being. There are many objections I have to this development, the main issue being privacy. 1. Privacy Intrusion: The proposed development, with buildings reaching four storeys and above, poses a severe and unacceptable intrusion into our family’s privacy. From these elevated positions, residents and staff will have a direct line of sight into our backyard, pool, alfresco, dining, living areas, and even our master bedroom, which are currently private and intended for family use. This level of visual exposure will make it impossible for us to enjoy our outdoor spaces without feeling constantly observed. The pool area, in particular, raises significant safety and privacy concerns, as it would be clearly visible from multiple vantage points within the proposed facility. As parents of teenage children, the idea of aged care residents, visitors, contractors or staff being able to overlook such a sensitive and personal area is deeply distressing. Privacy in our own home and yard is not only a matter of comfort but a fundamental right to personal security and dignity. The development’s height, proximity, and orientation show little regard for our neighbouring residential boundaries, and no adequate or acceptable screening, setbacks, or design measures appear to have been proposed to mitigate these privacy impacts. The current plans would permanently alter our ability to feel safe and comfortable in our home environment. Regards [REDACTED]

6641

New South Wales 2487

30/10/2025

Object

Website

I object on the grounds firstly, it does not comply with the current height restrictions that Kingscliff has set in place for many years and for reasons already documented “this is not the Gold Coast”. Secondly, the amenity is not in keeping with the local community and will override the surrounding properties imposing air, light and temperature restrictions to those properties already in place. Third, the description of this as an aged care facility is a deliberate misnomer given that there are more spaces allocated for independent living than for the pretentious aged care aspect which underpins this application which is really a high end grab for upper crust suburban living and does not provide true support for the needs of the community. Fourth this facility will bring more bring with more cars and thereby more traffic congestion to the local shopping precinct, which this application fails to adequately provide for. The council’s regulations have been in place for good reason and any attempt to change the height limit in return for such a massive overdevelopment is unacceptable in the Kingscliff community. This is the thin edge of a wedge that provides for further overdevelopment and will likely lead to the demise of Kingscliff as a relaxed coastal town and the beginning of a Mecca for rich suburbanites without adequate infrastructure or care facilities for the aged, as this development proposes but nonetheless hides behind, as it tries to steal second base by changing the rules that are in place to protect the community from exactly this type of development. The rules and regulations are in place for a reason and no amount of misrepresentation by developers to gain favour and change them should be entertained.

6646

New South Wales 2487

30/10/2025

Object

Website

I object to the proposed development in its current form for a range of reasons. 1) Primarily bulk and scale is inappropriate for this location. There is limited buffer between the neighbouring residences (including my own) and a significant loss of amenity, shading, airflow, and privacy as a result. 2) I am also very concerned about the claims that the southern portion has been previously 'excavated', made by one of the consultants. One of my attached photographs compares the 1991 site with present and the north south drainage line is clearly evident - showing that this actually IS natural ground level. This is therefore the level that should be used at the base level for the building heights - not the assumed 'natural' level that has been used in the assessment and design. This casts doubts on the truthfulness of this information (and what else?). 3) Flooding and drainage is a concern for me as a neighbour, given how inundated we were in the 2022 flood when this area was available as a catchment basin. The development will have a significant percentage of impervious area, resulting in a corresponding increase in runoff to neighbours, such as us. 4) We have existing light and noise spillover from the existing aged care home and its corresponding carpark. It is an existing operation and one which I support (the need for aged care has never been in question - I support this), but an increase to this size and scale such has been proposed will result in a significant increase in light and noise for us as a close neighbour. 5) Point 4) links closely to the loss of privacy that we will experience with the number of floor to ceiling windows and balconies that will look east - directly across and into our back yard (refer to attached orange highlights figure). This will create a direct visual and light connection with our living space 6) Traffic on local roads such as Lorien Way will be unacceptable not only for the development phase but also when in operation. Currently if there is a car parked on both sides of the road, local buses have to give way as there is only room for a single lane in some spots - what will this be like with construction traffic lining each side all day every day? The increase in traffic from the ingress/egress point on Kingscliff St will also be difficult (as it is already an difficult access point). In summary, I do not oppose the increase in aged care beds for the elderly, but the proposal in its current form with so many independent living spaces at the bulk and scale of the submission in its entirety is too much for Kingscliff.

Image 1.jpg (JPG, 68.54 KB)

Image 2.jpg (JPG, 152.18 KB)

Image 3.jpg (JPG, 388.88 KB)

6651

New South Wales 2487

30/10/2025

Object

Website

Parking is at a premium in Beach Street and Lorien way now so there is really no room for vehicles in this locality. Residents privacy must be taken into consideration. Waste management will increase which means more heavy vehicle movements in our already crowded streets. Is it possible to allocate land north of the sporting grounds at North Kingscliff. More room for expansion and there is already an aged care facility operating in the area. This submission for the current aged care operation to expand on this site is not acceptable. Please reconsider.

6661

Kingscliff Beach Retirement

Redacted

30/10/2025

Object

Website

See Speech from Meeting 28th October at Tweed Council Chambers below pdf Thank you

Speech redevelopment 3 redacted.pdf (PDF, 60.04 KB)

6676

Queensland 4034

30/10/2025

Object

Website

I object to such a large development going ahead, so close to existing properties. The proposed building is too high and out of character with the adjacent neighbourhood. I believe it will also lead to traffic and parking problems in adjacent streets, including my property in Beach Street. Additionally, it has the potential for invasion of privacy for adjacent buildings.

6691

New South Wales 2487

30/10/2025

Object

Website

My objection is the scale of the proposal. Completely out of character for a small seaside village. The concerns of the neighbouring residents regarding shade & privacy is a genuine concern. Secondly the development will bring about 300 more aged people to the area And provide only 120 aged care beds up from 86 as now And lastly access to the Uniting site is via a narrow road off a busy road that is the only legal access to the site

6701

New South Wales 2487

30/10/2025

Object

Website

Loss of privacy is a large concern due to height of building

6706

New South Wales 2487

30/10/2025

Object

Website

Submission Against the Proposed Nursing Home Development – Kingscliff I object to this proposal on the following grounds: Loss of Village Character and Scale The proposed nursing home development is completely out of proportion with the scale and character of Kingscliff. This project would introduce a population equivalent to that of a small town into a neighbourhood prized for its relaxed, low-rise village atmosphere. Kingscliff is not the Gold Coast, and we do not want it to become one. The village charm and human scale that make Kingscliff unique would be lost under the weight of such an oversized institutional complex. Demographic Impact This proposal would dramatically alter the demographic balance of our community. Kingscliff has always been a place where all age groups coexist — families, workers, retirees, and young people. Concentrating such a large elderly population in one facility risks turning the town’s identity into a “retirement enclave” rather than a diverse, intergenerational community. This shift would reduce local vibrancy, discourage younger families from settling here, and change how Kingscliff is perceived and functions. Amenity The impact on local amenities would be severe. Neighbouring homes would lose privacy, sunlight, and quiet enjoyment of their properties. The sheer height and bulk of the proposed buildings would overshadow existing residences, dominate the landscape, and destroy the peace and open feel that residents currently enjoy. Kingscliff’s coastal charm relies on modest, well-spaced buildings — not large-scale, high-density institutional blocks. Built Form and Design The proposed built form flagrantly breaches established planning controls designed to protect Kingscliff’s character. The height of up to 17.05 metres exceeds the 13.6-metre limit by as much as 3.45 metres — a 25% overreach that cannot be justified as a “minor variation.” The scale and massing of seven buildings totaling 27,565 square metres of floor area are entirely inconsistent with the surrounding one- and two-storey homes. Such an overdevelopment would visually dominate the area, set a dangerous precedent for future high-rise proposals, and erode the low-rise character that defines Kingscliff. Floodwater and Stormwater Concerns The site is well known to be highly flood-prone. Filling in the existing stormwater basin and regrading the site will fundamentally alter natural drainage patterns, increasing the risk of flooding for nearby properties. During major rainfall or coastal storm events, the removal of a natural flood absorption area will worsen inundation and endanger residents. Underground detention tanks cannot replicate the flood mitigation function of a natural basin. With climate events intensifying, this proposal poses unacceptable safety and environmental risks. Traffic and Parking Impacts The traffic and parking impacts have been grossly underestimated. A development of this magnitude — 199 independent living units and a 120-bed aged care facility — will generate hundreds of daily vehicle movements by residents, staff, visitors, and service vehicles. Many local streets, particularly Kingscliff Street, Marine Parade and Moss Street, are narrow and not designed for this level of traffic. Congestion, parking overflow, safety hazards for pedestrians, and access issues for emergency services are inevitable. The claim of only 58 additional peak-hour trips does not reflect the true impact of daily operations in a facility of this scale. Conclusion I chose to live in Kingscliff precisely because of its relaxed coastal village character, friendly community, and open spaces — not the congestion and density of large coastal developments. Approving this oversized, high-density aged care complex would permanently damage the character of our town and the lifestyle that residents value so deeply. I urge the Department to reject this proposal and protect the scale, charm, and integrity of Kingscliff’s built environment and community life. Jan Burns [REDACTED]

6711

New South Wales 2487

30/10/2025

Object

Website

Submission Opposing the Proposed “State Significant” Nursing Home Development – Kingscliff I am writing to strongly oppose this development, and to question how a project of this scale — so clearly out of step with its surroundings — can be considered a “state significant” benefit when its local impacts would be so severe. Questionable “State Significance” — and Loss of Kingscliff’s Village Scale Kingscliff has long been valued for its low-rise, human-scale village character. This proposal — effectively the size of a small town inserted into one neighbourhood — would overwhelm that character entirely. Kingscliff is not earmarked as a high-density coastal hub like the Gold Coast, nor do its residents want it heading in that direction. If this is what counts as “state significance,” then whose interests are really being prioritised? Demographic Disruption Our town is proudly intergenerational. Families, workers and retirees contribute equally to Kingscliff’s identity and vibrancy. Concentrating such a large number of aged residents in one institutional complex risks shifting Kingscliff’s diversity toward a single demographic group. That is not healthy planning — socially, economically, or culturally. Is it truly of state importance to reshape the demographic balance of an existing coastal community without local support? Amenity and Neighbourhood Impact This oversized institutional development would substantially reduce the amenity of surrounding properties. Residents will lose sunlight, privacy, views, and quiet enjoyment — solely to accommodate a development that exceeds anything previously contemplated here. Kingscliff’s appeal lies in its openness and coastal charm, not in monolithic, high-density building clusters. Why should a “state significant” label override the protections normally afforded to local residents? Built Form Breaches — and a Dangerous Precedent The proposal flagrantly breaches height and bulk controls that exist to safeguard Kingscliff’s unique character. A height of 17.05 metres exceeds the 13.6-metre limit by approximately 25% — a clear indication that this project does not fit the intended scale of the local planning framework. Seven large buildings totalling 27,565 m² of floor area would visually dominate an area of mainly one- and two-storey houses. If this were allowed simply because it has been called “state significant,” what would stop even larger projects from following? Flood and Stormwater Risk Ignored This site has well-documented flooding issues. Removing a natural stormwater basin and attempting to replace it with underground tanks ignores the natural function of the land. In a time of increasing severe weather events, increasing flood risk to existing homes is not responsible planning. Shouldn’t a so-called “state significant” project demonstrate best-practice resilience — not create more hazards? Traffic, Access and Safety The traffic and parking implications have been underestimated to an unreasonable degree. Kingscliff’s streets were never designed to support the increased vehicle movements generated by 199 independent living units plus a 120-bed aged care facility. Congestion, overflow parking and reduced emergency access are inevitable. How can this be considered in the state’s interest when it compromises basic safety and mobility for the current community? Conclusion Kingscliff’s future should not be shaped by a project that prioritises scale over suitability. I chose to live here for the peaceful coastal village lifestyle — not the density and stress that large institutional developments bring. This proposal would permanently change the town’s character, diminish local amenity, and undermine planning controls that exist for a reason. I respectfully request that the Department reject this proposal and uphold the village identity, community balance, and environmental integrity that make Kingscliff special — qualities that are genuinely worth protecting at a state level. Sincerely, Allan Burns [REDACTED]

6716

New South Wales 2487

30/10/2025

Object

Website

I write as a resident of [REDACTED], Kingscliff, directly adjacent to the proposed Uniting Kingscliff redevelopment, to lodge a submission on the above development. I welcome the concept of the site being revitalised and the community benefits that a thoughtful redevelopment might bring. However, I strongly object to the proposal in its current form because I believe it constitutes a gross over-development of the site and raises serious concerns both in terms of amenity (bulk, scale, height, density) and flood-risk / stormwater impacts on our neighbourhood. Objections in principle Bulk, scale, height & density The proposal includes approximately 199 residential units plus ~120 residential aged-care places. For a site embedded within an existing residential context this is extremely dense and results in a form and massing that is at odds with the prevailing heights, building scale and character of the surrounding neighbourhood. The scale of the proposal means it will dominate the streetscape, reduce amenity for neighbouring homes (sunlight / overshadowing / privacy) and change the character of the area from low-/medium-density residential to a near-“large apartment estate” feel in a zone of detached/medium-density homes. The redevelopment should be reduced in density and height to better match the local context, provide smoother transition to adjoining properties, respect local built form and protect the liveability of existing residents. In short: the site capacity should be reconsidered, so as to align with the character of the area and avoid an overbearing form of development. Flood risk, stormwater and adjacent properties My street and neighbouring properties were significantly impacted in the last major flood event. The site is directly adjacent to our homes and any development that intensifies land use, reduces buffer/flood storage, increases impervious surfaces, or alters floodpaths poses a direct risk to our flood resilience. Under the Tweed Shire Council’s policies: land development in flood-prone areas must comply with the DCP section A3 – Development of Flood Liable Land. TSC’s flood planning controls note that new buildings must meet minimum floor levels above flood planning levels and should not impede flood flows, storage or increase hazard for adjacent land. Given the history of flooding in our street, and given the scale of the proposed development (both in number of dwellings and aged-care places, which will intensify occupancy and traffic), the risk to our homes (and ability to evacuate/access during a flood event) is heightened. I therefore request that the proposal be subject to rigorous flood modelling (including climate change allowance, sea-level rise, freeboard) and demonstrate no worsening of flood heights, velocities or storage loss for neighbouring properties. The development should also provide sufficient on-site flood storage or mitigation to offset additional impervious area and stormwater run-off. Request for modifications / conditions Given the above, I submit that the IPC (and the proponent) should consider the following modifications or conditions to make the development more acceptable: Reduce the number of residential units and aged-care places so that the overall density is lower and more compatible with the surrounding residential context. Reduce the maximum heights of the buildings and carefully step or transition the heights down toward adjoining residential zones. Provide adequate setbacks, landscaping, and visual screening / transition to protect the amenity of neighbouring homes (privacy, overshadowing, access to sky). Ensure the redevelopment fully complies with, and ideally exceeds, the flood planning and stormwater management requirements in the Tweed DCP Section A3, including: Minimum floor levels above the defined flood planning level (including freeboard). No net increase in flood levels or velocities on adjacent properties. On-site detention/storage for stormwater run-off from the new development to avoid increasing flood risk downstream. Clear evacuation, access and emergency management plans for aged-care occupants in flood/evacuation conditions. Undertake a peer review of the flood modelling to reassure residents and the community that the proposal will not worsen our flood vulnerability. Commit to an ongoing monitoring regime for stormwater/flood performance after construction, with community access to the data. I support the concept of redevelopment of Uniting Kingscliff in principle, recognising the potential benefits. However, as presently designed, the proposal’s bulk, scale, density and associated flood/stormwater risks render it unacceptable in its current form for the surrounding residential neighbourhood. I respectfully request that the IPC either require significant modifications (as outlined above) or decline the proposal unless these matters are satisfactorily addressed. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment. I trust that the IPC will give proper weight to the concerns of immediate neighbours and ensure any approved development delivers an appropriate outcome for both the site and the broader community.

6731

Redacted

30/10/2025

Object

Website

Written Submission: Objection to SSD-47105958 Uniting Kingscliff Seniors Housing Development I object to the proposed Uniting Kingscliff Seniors Housing Development at 24A Kingscliff Street and 27, 29, 31, and 33 Lorien Way, Kingscliff. Our Dream Retirement Now Under Threat My husband and I purchased our home just 100 metres from this proposed development eighteen months ago. After decades of hard work and careful saving, we chose Kingscliff specifically because it represented everything we had dreamed of for our retirement years. This is not just another coastal town to us—it is the place where we planned to spend the rest of our lives, where we hoped to grow old surrounded by the peace, community spirit, and natural beauty that drew us here in the first place. Had we known that a development of this enormous scale was likely to proceed, we would have seriously reconsidered our purchase. Now, barely settled into the home we saved all our working lives to afford, we face the prospect of watching the very qualities that made Kingscliff special disappear beneath concrete and construction. This is deeply distressing. We are not wealthy people. This house represents our entire life savings, our security, and our future. The thought that the peaceful retirement we worked so hard for could be destroyed by this overdevelopment fills me with genuine heartbreak and anger. Why We Chose Kingscliff When we were researching where to retire, we visited dozens of coastal towns. We looked at the Gold Coast, but immediately ruled it out—too crowded, too commercialised, too many high-rises blocking the sky and the breeze. We wanted somewhere that still felt like a real community, where people greet each other in the street, where you can walk to the shops without navigating through hordes of tourists, where the scale of buildings respects the landscape rather than dominating it. Kingscliff felt different. It felt like a village. Single and two-storey homes with gardens. Tree-lined streets. Neighbours who actually know each other's names. A sense of calm and connection that is increasingly rare in our modern world. That is what we paid for. That is what we believed would be protected by local planning controls. That is what we thought we were entitled to expect when we made the biggest financial decision of our lives. Now, we discover that all of this can be swept aside by a State government that prioritises housing numbers over community character, and by a developer who sees profit where we see home. The Department's Claims Do Not Reflect Reality The Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure argues that this development is acceptable, but their justifications do not match the reality that my husband and I—and 291 other objectors—can see with our own eyes. This Is Not Really About Aged Care The Assessment Report claims this development will "meet the changing needs of an ageing population," but this is fundamentally misleading. The current facility has 112 aged care beds. The proposed development will have 120 aged care beds. That is an increase of just 8 beds. Eight beds. For a development costing $219 million and bringing approximately 300 additional seniors into our small community. The remaining 199 units are Independent Living Units—essentially private apartments for wealthy retirees who are still fully independent. These are not people who need care; these are people who will be driving cars, using local services, filling car parks, and adding to traffic congestion. Many supporters of this proposal have been misled into thinking this will provide more aged care for the community, but it simply will not. If Uniting genuinely cared about addressing aged care needs in the Tweed, they would be proposing a facility that meaningfully increases residential care capacity, not one that adds a token 8 beds whilst building a luxury apartment complex. The Scale Is Completely Wrong for This Location The Department claims that buildings up to four storeys and 17.05 metres high would be "compatible with the envisaged character of the area". This statement is so disconnected from reality that it makes me question whether the assessors have actually visited our neighbourhood. I walk these streets every day. My husband and I chose to retire here specifically because the buildings are low-rise—one and two storeys at most. Our street, Lorien Way, Beach Street, Drift Court—they all have the same gentle, human scale. You can see the sky. You can feel the breeze. You can see over your neighbour's fence and wave hello. Now we are being told that buildings up to four storeys—some exceeding the local height limit by over 25%—will somehow "fit in". This is absurd and insulting to those of us who actually live here. Moreover, 218 submissions (68.6% of all submissions) specifically raised concerns about inappropriate building height, and 118 submissions (37.1%) raised concerns about the adverse impact on local character. We are not a vocal minority. We represent the overwhelming majority of the community, yet our voices are being dismissed. Flooding: A Real and Present Danger The Department claims that flood risks have been adequately addressed, but those of us who lived through the 2022 floods know better. In February 2022, floodwater came to the end of our street. We watched in terror as the water rose far higher and far faster than any prediction suggested it would. Neighbours were evacuated. Some properties were inundated. The official flood models and emergency plans proved woefully inadequate when faced with the reality of a major flood event. Now, this proposal wants to fill in the natural stormwater basin on the Uniting site and raise ground levels by over three metres in some areas. The Assessment Report acknowledges that in a Probable Maximum Flood event, the site could experience flooding depths of up to 8 metres. The developers and their engineers tell us that their modelling shows this will not increase flood risk to surrounding properties. But we have seen how wrong the modelling can be. We have lived through the reality of water that does not follow predicted paths, that rises faster than anticipated, that finds every weakness in flood defences. Over 69% of public submissions raised concerns about flooding. These concerns are based on lived experience, not theoretical calculations. When 221 residents are worried about flooding impacts on adjoining properties and evacuation, that should carry weight. If this development proceeds and flooding increases in our street—if water that once drained into the Basin is diverted towards our homes—we will have nowhere to go. We cannot afford to move. This is our home, and the thought that it could be flooded because of this development keeps me awake at night. Privacy, Amenity, and Quality of Life The Department dismisses concerns about privacy, overshadowing, and loss of outlook, but these impacts are very real for those of us who will have to live with them every single day. Buildings up to four storeys will directly overlook our backyard, our living spaces, potentially even our bedrooms. We will go from living in a quiet neighbourhood where we can sit in our garden in privacy to being constantly observed from dozens of windows above us. Our northern outlook—which we valued when we purchased—will be dominated by these massive buildings. Where we once saw sky and trees, we will see concrete and glass. The winter sun that currently reaches our garden and living areas will be blocked for hours each day. These might seem like small things to planners reviewing documents in an office, but they represent fundamental aspects of what makes life liveable and enjoyable. We chose this location specifically for its amenity, and now that amenity will be destroyed. Traffic and Parking Chaos The Traffic Impact Statement claims that the development will only generate 58 additional vehicle trips during peak periods. This figure is so far removed from common sense that it borders on fantasy. This development includes 199 Independent Living Units for active, mobile seniors, plus 120 aged care beds with staff, plus visitors, plus service vehicles, plus deliveries. The proposal includes 322 car parking spaces because the developers know full well that residents will have cars. Anyone who has lived in Kingscliff knows that our local roads are already congested during peak times and holiday periods. Kingscliff Street, Beach Street, and the surrounding network were designed for a low-density residential area, not for a development of this scale. Over 71% of submissions raised concerns about traffic impact. This is not because we are all wrong. It is because we actually live here and understand how traffic moves through our streets. The models and predictions might look acceptable on paper, but the reality will be far worse. Construction Impacts: Two and a Half Years of Disruption The proposal involves 2.5 years of construction—19 months for Stage 1 and 11 months for Stage 2. For those of us living within 100 metres of this site, this means two and a half years of noise, dust, heavy vehicles, disruption to traffic, and general chaos. My husband and I are in our late sixties. We retired to Kingscliff to enjoy peace and quiet, not to live next to a massive construction site. The stress and disruption of such prolonged construction work will significantly impact our health and wellbeing. We have neighbours who are even older and frailer than us. How will they cope? And at the end of those two and a half years, what will we have? Not a facility that meaningfully contributes to aged care, but a massive apartment complex that has fundamentally changed the character of our neighbourhood forever. This Is NOT in the Public Interest The Department concludes that this proposal is "in the public interest," but I fundamentally reject this conclusion. The public interest must encompass more than just housing supply targets. It must consider quality of life, community character, environmental sustainability, and respect for local planning frameworks. This development is not in the public interest because: It betrays the trust of residents who chose to live in Kingscliff because of its village character and who believed that local planning controls would protect that character. We followed the rules. We purchased in good faith. Now we are being told that State policies can override everything we were promised. It sets a dangerous precedent that will encourage further overdevelopment throughout Kingscliff. If this proposal is approved despite 291 objections and substantial height exceedances, every developer in the region will know that community opposition means nothing and that local planning controls are meaningless. It does not genuinely address aged care needs. Adding just 8 aged care beds whilst bringing 300 additional independent seniors to the area will actually worsen the shortage of aged care services in the Tweed. It imposes unacceptable impacts on existing residents who will suffer loss of privacy, overshadowing, increased traffic, construction disruption, and potential flooding impacts—not for some great public benefit, but so that Uniting can maximise profit on a prime coastal site. It will destroy the very qualities that make Kingscliff attractive to retirees in the first place. If this type of overdevelopment is allowed to proceed, Kingscliff will become just another overcrowded, over-built coastal suburb. The village we fell in love with will cease to exist. A Heartfelt Plea I am not a professional advocate or a planning expert. I am simply a woman who has worked hard all her life, who saved carefully with her husband for decades, who dreamed of a peaceful retirement in a beautiful village by the sea. We chose Kingscliff because it felt special. Because it felt like home. Because it represented everything we had worked for—peace, community, connection to nature, and a slower, gentler pace of life. The thought that this could all be taken away—that the retirement we have planned for and saved for could be destroyed by a development that prioritises profit over people—is genuinely devastating. My husband and I feel betrayed, frightened, and powerless. We understand that communities need to grow and change. We are not opposed to all development. But development needs to be appropriate to its location. It needs to respect the character and scale of the existing neighbourhood. It needs to genuinely serve community needs rather than developer profits. This proposal is simply too big. Too dense. Too high. Too out of character. Too wrong for this location. I am urging—pleading—with the Independent Planning Commission to refuse this application and to insist that Uniting returns with a proposal that is genuinely appropriate for Kingscliff. A more modest development—perhaps two-storey villas similar to what Uniting has built elsewhere, with a genuine and substantial increase in aged care beds—would be far more appropriate and would actually serve the community rather than exploiting it. The 291 people who objected to this proposal are not NIMBYs or obstructionists. We are residents who love our community and who are fighting to preserve something precious and increasingly rare. We are asking you to stand with us. To protect the village character of Kingscliff. To uphold the principle that local communities should have a meaningful say in their own future. Please do not let this development proceed in its current form. Please do not allow Kingscliff to become another Gold Coast. Please protect the village that we—and so many others—have chosen as our home. This is not just about planning regulations or housing targets. This is about people's lives, their dreams, their security, and their wellbeing. Please listen to our voices. Please consider our lived experience. Please make a decision that puts community ahead of profit and people ahead of development targets. We are begging you to substantially reduce the scale of this development or to refuse it entirely. Our future—and the future of Kingscliff as a liveable, sustainable village—depends on your decision.

6736

New South Wales 2487

30/10/2025

Object

Website

I object to the proposed redevelopment of the existing aged care facility between Kingscliff st, Drift CRT, Bluejay circuit and Lorien Way. The proposal for 199 apartment style dwellings up to 17 metres high represents severe overdevelopment that breaches the 13.6 metre height limit and conflicts with Kingscliff’s coastal village. The site is a high flood risk area, making such a dense development unsafe. The main site entry will directly impact my home. The central kitchen, loading dock, bus and ambulance bay and visitor parking are located directly behind my property, causing unacceptable noise, odour and privacy impacts. It should be refused.

6741

Redacted

30/10/2025

Object

Website

I object to the proposed Uniting Kingscliff Seniors Housing Development at 24A Kingscliff Street and 27, 29, 31, and 33 Lorien Way, Kingscliff. My Connection to Kingscliff I am a single woman in my sixties, living on the aged pension, and Kingscliff holds a very special place in my heart. My two sisters have lived in this beautiful village for over a decade, and my brother has just recently purchased his retirement home there. I visit them regularly—it is where my family is, where I feel most at peace, and where I have long dreamed of one day retiring myself. Two of my siblings live within 100 metres of this proposed development. They are deeply worried and distressed about what this massive project will do to their neighbourhood and to the village they love. Seeing their anxiety and fear has been heartbreaking. They chose Kingscliff specifically because of its small village vibe, its friendly community feel, and its gentle, low-rise character. Now they face the prospect of four-storey buildings towering over their homes, blocking their sunlight, overlooking their private spaces, and fundamentally changing the peaceful neighbourhood they have called home for years. When I visit my siblings, I cherish the calm, relaxed, chilled environment that Kingscliff offers. It is in such stark contrast to the ritzy, glamorous, crowded big-city feel of the Gold Coast. The Gold Coast has its appeal for some people, but for those of us who value community, tranquillity, and authenticity, Kingscliff is precious precisely because it has not gone down that path. It has remained a genuine coastal village where people know each other, where the streets are walkable, where the buildings respect the landscape, and where life moves at a gentler pace. This proposal threatens to destroy all of that. If approved, it will set a precedent that will gradually transform Kingscliff into yet another overcrowded, overdeveloped coastal suburb. For my siblings who already live there, and for people like me who dream of retiring there one day, this is a devastating prospect. The Reality: This Development Does Not Serve People Like Me I need to be honest about my situation. I am an aged pensioner. I live alone. My income is modest, and I have limited savings. Like many older Australians, I am realistic about what I can afford. My dream of retiring to Kingscliff to be near my family has always been a modest one—perhaps a small one-bedroom unit within my budget, somewhere I could live independently whilst being close to my sisters and brother. This development completely fails to address the needs of people like me. Let me explain with the actual numbers from the Assessment Report: Out of 199 Independent Living Units proposed:  Only 39 are one-bedroom units (19.6%)  119 are two-bedroom units (59.8%)  41 are three-bedroom units (20.6%) This means that a staggering 80% of the units are two or three-bedroom apartments, clearly designed for affluent couples with substantial financial resources. Meanwhile, single pensioners like me—who desperately need affordable one-bedroom accommodation—are offered just 39 units from a development of 199. This is not just disappointing; it is genuinely heartbreaking and reveals the true nature of this development. It is not designed to meet community needs. It is designed to maximise profit by catering to wealthy retirees whilst ignoring the reality that most people in their seventies are single—particularly women, who statistically outlive their partners and often face financial hardship in old age. Moreover, the Assessment Report acknowledges that there is no requirement for affordable housing in this development. These units will be sold or leased at market rates, which in a desirable coastal location will be well beyond the reach of aged pensioners. The development will further inflate property prices in Kingscliff, making it even more unaffordable for ordinary people like me who simply want to retire near their families. Fifty-three public submissions (16.7%) specifically raised concerns about the affordability of the proposed senior’s accommodation. The Department's response? Essentially, that there is no legislative requirement to provide affordable housing, so affordability does not matter. This is cold comfort for those of us who will be permanently priced out of the community we love. If this development genuinely aimed to serve the ageing population of Kingscliff, it would include a substantial number of affordable one-bedroom units for single seniors. Instead, it offers luxury two and three-bedroom apartments for the wealthy few, whilst my dream of retiring to Kingscliff becomes nothing more than a fanciful fantasy. This Is Not Really About Aged Care The Department and Uniting claim this development is necessary to meet the needs of our ageing population, but the facts tell a very different story. The current Uniting facility has 112 residential aged care beds. The proposed development will have 120 beds. That is an increase of just 8 aged care beds. Eight beds, in a $219 million development spanning 2.5 years of construction. If Uniting were genuinely committed to addressing aged care needs in the Tweed, they would be proposing a facility that significantly increases aged care capacity. Instead, they are proposing a massive commercial residential development of 199 independent living apartments, with aged care as a token addition to justify the project. Furthermore, this development will bring approximately 300 additional independent seniors into Kingscliff. These people will be active, mobile, and living independently—which is wonderful—but they will also create additional demand for aged care services in the future. So rather than solving the aged care shortage, this development may actually worsen it by increasing the local population of seniors without providing corresponding aged care capacity. Public submissions from the community meeting on the IPC website confirm these concerns, with residents pointing out that Uniting has deliberately chosen not to staff or fill all the beds they currently have, and questioning whether conditions will be imposed to ensure all 120 beds are actually operational. The Scale and Height Are Completely Wrong My siblings who live near this development are genuinely frightened about what it will do to their neighbourhood. The proposal includes buildings up to four storeys and 17.05 metres high—well above the local height limit of 13.6 metres. When you walk through Beach Street, Lorien Way, and Drift Court (as I do regularly when visiting my family), you see predominantly single and two-storey homes with gardens, trees, and a gentle, village-scale character. The thought of four-storey buildings looming over these modest family homes is deeply disturbing. The statistics from public submissions are striking:  218 submissions (68.6%) raised concerns about inappropriate building height  118 submissions (37.1%) raised concerns about adverse impact on local character  103 submissions (28.6%) raised concerns about inappropriate bulk and scale These are not unreasonable objections from a small minority. This is the overwhelming majority of the community saying loudly and clearly: this development is too big, too high, and too out of character for Kingscliff. My sisters will lose sunlight to their gardens and living spaces. They will lose their privacy, with dozens of windows looking directly into their homes. They will lose their peaceful outlook, replaced by massive concrete and glass structures. The neighbourhood they love will be fundamentally and irreversibly changed. When I visit them now, we sit in their gardens, enjoy the morning sun, chat with neighbours over the fence, and feel grateful for the peaceful village life they have built. If this development proceeds, much of that will be lost forever. Traffic, Parking, and Practical Realities The proposal includes 322 car parking spaces because the developers know full well that residents will have cars. Independent living units are for active, mobile seniors who drive to shops, medical appointments, and social activities. Yet the Traffic Impact Statement claims this will only generate 58 additional vehicle trips during peak periods. This defies common sense and lived experience. Over 71% of public submissions raised concerns about traffic impact. Anyone who actually lives in or regularly visits Kingscliff (as I do) knows that parking is already challenging, particularly during holiday periods. The local roads were designed for a low-density village, not for developments of this scale. When I visit my family, I often struggle to find parking near their homes. Adding hundreds of additional cars to the area will make this problem significantly worse, affecting not just residents but also visitors like me who simply want to spend time with their loved ones. Why This Is NOT in the Public Interest The Department concludes that this development is "in the public interest," but I fundamentally disagree. As an aged pensioner who loves Kingscliff and dreams of retiring there, I can tell you that this development is very much not in my interest or in the interest of ordinary people like me. This development is not in the public interest because:  It serves wealthy retirees whilst excluding ordinary pensioners. With only 19.6% of units being one-bedroom and no affordable housing requirement, this development is designed for affluent couples, not for single pensioners who desperately need affordable accommodation near their families.  It will inflate property prices and make Kingscliff even more unaffordable. By bringing wealthy retirees into the area and creating a high-end development, it will drive up property values and rental costs, pricing out people like me who are on fixed incomes.  It does not genuinely address aged care needs. Adding just 8 aged care beds whilst bringing 300 additional seniors to the area is counterproductive and suggests this is a commercial development disguised as aged care.  It will destroy the village character that makes Kingscliff special. My family chose Kingscliff because it offers something increasingly rare—a genuine coastal village with community spirit and human-scale development. This proposal threatens to transform it into another Gold Coast-style overdeveloped suburb.  It imposes severe impacts on existing residents. My siblings and their neighbours will suffer loss of privacy, sunlight, outlook, and amenity so that Uniting can maximise profit on a prime coastal site.  It sets a terrible precedent. If this development is approved despite 291 objections and substantial breaches of local height limits, it will signal to other developers that community opposition and local planning controls mean nothing. Kingscliff will gradually be transformed beyond recognition. A Personal Plea I am not a wealthy person. I do not have the resources to hire lawyers or planning consultants. I am simply an aged pensioner who loves my family and who has a modest dream of one day retiring to be near them in Kingscliff. This development will make that dream impossible for me. The units designed for single people like me are limited in number and will be priced well beyond my means. Meanwhile, property prices in Kingscliff will continue to rise as wealthy retirees move into the area, making any alternative accommodation increasingly unaffordable. More broadly, I am heartbroken at the thought of what this development will do to the village my family loves. When I visit Kingscliff, I feel a sense of peace and belonging that is increasingly rare in our modern world. The calm, relaxed atmosphere is the complete opposite of the crowded, commercialised feel of the Gold Coast. It is a place where community still matters, where people still greet each other on the street, where the pace of life allows you to breathe. My sisters and brother chose to make Kingscliff their home specifically because of these qualities. Now they watch anxiously as a development that prioritises profit over people threatens to destroy the very characteristics that drew them there. I understand that communities need to grow and change. I am not opposed to all development. But development needs to be appropriate, proportionate, and genuinely responsive to community needs. This proposal fails on all counts. A more modest development—perhaps two-storey villas similar to the existing Kingscliff Retirement Village, with a genuine increase in aged care beds and a substantial number of affordable one-bedroom units for single pensioners—would actually serve the community. It would respect the village character, provide housing that people like me could afford, and meaningfully address aged care needs. Instead, we have a proposal that serves wealthy couples, ignores affordable housing, adds a token 8 aged care beds, breaches local height limits by up to 25%, and imposes severe impacts on existing residents. Conclusion I object to this development because it is fundamentally unjust. It serves the wealthy whilst excluding the poor. It prioritises profit over community. It disregards the wishes of 291 objectors. It threatens to destroy the village character that makes Kingscliff precious. And it will make my modest dream of retiring near my family an impossible fantasy. I am urging the Independent Planning Commission to refuse this application or to require substantial modifications including:  Reduction in height to comply with the 13.6-metre local limit  Substantial increase in one-bedroom units (at least 50% of total units)  Inclusion of genuinely affordable housing for aged pensioners  Genuine and meaningful increase in aged care beds (not just 8)  Redesign to respect the scale and character of surrounding low-density residential development This is about more than planning regulations. This is about people's lives, their families, their communities, and their futures. Please listen to the voices of ordinary people like me who simply want to grow old with dignity near the people we love, in communities that remain liveable, affordable, and authentically village-like. The Department may consider this development acceptable "on balance," but for people like me—single pensioners on fixed incomes who dream of modest retirement near family—there is nothing acceptable about it at all. Please refuse this application and insist on a development that genuinely serves the whole community, not just the wealthy few

6746

Redacted

30/10/2025

Object

Website

Overshadowing Flooding Loss of Privacy with buildings towering well above existing properties Out of character with area- Finished project will be an eyesore Four storeys are way taller than the single or double storey properties all surrounding Not keeping in with streetscaping and over-height Traffic and pedestrian concerns on Lorien way, Beach Street and Kingscliff Streets Lack of articulation – boring block style buildings Light spill and noise pollution in an otherwise quiet residential area Parking issues as limited parking onsite and in town

Uniting other concerns.pdf (PDF, 77.27 KB)

6756

Redacted

30/10/2025

Object

Website

I object to the proposed Uniting Kingscliff Seniors Housing Development at 24A Kingscliff Street and 27, 29, 31, and 33 Lorien Way, Kingscliff. Introduction: My Connection to Kingscliff I first began visiting Kingscliff in my late teens when my partner's two aunties moved there. From those early visits, my partner and I have made regular trips to Kingscliff on holidays, weekends, and for family gatherings including Christmas celebrations and birthdays. What began as occasional visits has grown into something much deeper over the years.​​ Since my partner's parents have also moved to Kingscliff and retired here, this connection to the local community has grown significantly stronger. Additionally, my father and step-mother have moved to a local community nearby and have called this beautiful and quaint village their second home. With so much family now settled in the area, Kingscliff has become central to our lives.​​ I now genuinely feel part of the community. The locals are so friendly and accommodating—there is a warmth here that you simply don't find in larger towns and cities. I like nothing better than visiting my favourite spot, Cudgen Creek, with my partner and my dog Molly, and swimming in the pristine waters. These moments capture what makes Kingscliff so special—the natural beauty, the relaxed atmosphere, and the sense of belonging.​ I feel part of the community because I mix with locals, use local facilities, and socialise at the local pub and various clubs and dining establishments. When I'm in Kingscliff, I'm not just a visitor passing through—I'm connected to this place and its people.​ As someone whose partner's parents live in Kingscliff, I find this proposal deeply worrying—not because I'm against new housing, but because the facts do not support that this massive project fits with what Kingscliff is supposed to be. I regularly visit Kingscliff with my partner, and I love the small village feel. This proposal, if it goes ahead, would irreparably destroy the very character that makes Kingscliff worth visiting and living in.​​ Housing Supply: Misleading Numbers The developers and Department say this is all about helping the ageing population, but the reality in the assessment report tells a different story. The current aged care facility has 112 beds, and the new proposal only adds 8 more—going to 120. That's not a real solution for aged care shortage. Eight additional beds in a $219 million development is token at best.​ Out of 199 new units being built, these are all independent living units, not assisted living ones. So instead of helping elderly people who need care, it's really bringing about 300 independent seniors into town, which could actually make the shortage of aged care beds in the Tweed area even worse.​​ Not in Line With Local Planning Even if this kind of project is allowed by State rules, it's at odds with what the local planning for Kingscliff says. Kingscliff is zoned mostly for low-density buildings—meaning small houses and units—because people want to keep that village look and feel. The community made it clear during extensive consultation that they wanted to maintain the 'village character' and generally low-scale coastal character buildings (3 storeys).​​ Most houses here are one or two storeys; this project wants to put up buildings as tall as four storeys—up to 17.05 metres high, way above the 13.6-metre local limit :​ Building B: 17.05m (25.4% over the limit) Building C: 16.62m (22.2% over the limit) Building G: 16.82m (23.7% over the limit)​ If you stand on Lorien Way or Drift Court—streets I walk regularly with my partner and Molly—it's obvious these huge buildings don't fit in. They'll block out sunlight, tower over neighbours, and be visible from everywhere nearby. Over 68% of objections said the height just isn't right for this area. It feels like planners are ignoring the community's wishes just because rules let them.​​ Flood Risk and Emergency Planning Flooding is a real risk in Kingscliff. The last big floods in 2022 proved that flood models can be way off. The assessment says the site could see up to 8 metres of water in an extreme flood, and the plan is to fill in the natural basin and raise large parts of the land by three metres. Still, over 69% of public objections talked about flood issues and evacuation.​ The plan for less mobile people in aged care is to "shelter in place" if a big flood happens—meaning they won't evacuate but stay put. As someone with family at risk in this area, that doesn't sound safe, especially if predictions are wrong or things get worse than expected.​ Traffic, Parking, and Local Pressure The report says there'll be about 322 cars on site and only 58 "new vehicle movements" at peak times, but anyone who visits here regularly knows parking and traffic are already tight. When I drive to Kingscliff to visit family, especially during weekends and holidays, finding parking can be challenging. When I want to take Molly down to Cudgen Creek or visit the local shops, the village streets are already busy.​​ Over 71% of objections said new traffic from this many people is too much for local roads. If most of the new residents still drive, it'll mean more congestion and more parking headaches for everyone, especially during weekends or holidays when families like mine visit.​ Other impacts from the report include: Loss of privacy for neighbours, with four-storey buildings overlooking their homes (35% of objections) Not enough parking (34%) Extra noise, construction for 2.5 years, and more crowding​ Public Benefit? Not Really Jobs during construction don't last, and the project will only add a net few new local jobs—nothing life-changing. These units also aren't affordable housing, and there's no guarantee new "public spaces" will actually benefit normal locals. Most of the "benefit" goes to the developer, not the wider community.​ Why It's Not in the Public Interest The plan goes against what locals want and what local plans say will keep Kingscliff liveable and unique​​ It will make traffic, parking, and flooding worse for everyone​ It barely helps with aged care, just adding eight beds, but might bring hundreds of new seniors needing future services​ It opens the door for other oversized developments to come and slowly change Kingscliff into another high-rise suburb rather than the village we love​​ The community consultation for the Kingscliff Locality Plan made it clear that residents value the outdoor and community life, the village character, and the coastal lifestyle. This development threatens all of that.​ Conclusion I object because the data shows this proposal is just too big and dense for Kingscliff. Development is fine, but it needs to suit the place and not change it for the worse. The numbers don't back up the claims that this is the right move for our town.​ Kingscliff has evolved into a vibrant beach destination without losing its wonderful beach village character. Unlike many coastal towns that have been overdeveloped—particularly the Gold Coast—Kingscliff has maintained its authentic character. This proposal threatens to destroy that balance.​ When I visit my partner's family, walk Molly down to Cudgen Creek, or enjoy a meal at a local restaurant, I'm experiencing something increasingly rare—a genuine coastal village where community still matters. Please listen to the data, to the hundreds of objections (291 in total), and keep Kingscliff the special and liveable place it is, before it's lost forever

6761

Redacted

30/10/2025

Object

Website

I object to the proposed Uniting Kingscliff Seniors Housing Development at 24A Kingscliff Street and 27, 29, 31, and 33 Lorien Way, Kingscliff. Introduction: My Deep Connection to Kingscliff I first began visiting Kingscliff when I was in my early teens, spending holidays and weekends with my aunty who lived here. Those visits shaped my love for this place—the relaxed coastal atmosphere, the friendly locals who knew each other by name, and the unspoilt beauty of the beaches and waterways. Since those early visits, Kingscliff has become central to my family. Another aunty moved here, and then my parents chose this beautiful and quaint village as their retirement home. Now, multiple members of my family call Kingscliff home, and I visit regularly throughout the year. I genuinely feel part of this community. The locals are so friendly and accommodating—there is a warmth and sense of belonging here that is increasingly rare. I like nothing better than visiting my favourite spot, Cudgen Creek, with my partner and my dog Molly, swimming in the pristine waters and enjoying the natural beauty that defines this special place. When I am here, I mix with locals, use local facilities, and socialise at the local pub and various clubs and dining establishments. Kingscliff is not just where my family lives—it has become part of who I am. The reason my family chose Kingscliff, and the reason I love being here, is because this place offers something genuinely special that you cannot find any more on the Gold Coast. Whilst the Gold Coast has become a sprawling concrete jungle of high-rises, traffic congestion, and endless crowds, Kingscliff has remained an authentic coastal village where you actually know your neighbours, where you can walk to the shops without fighting through masses of tourists, and where the scale of development respects the natural beauty of the coastline. I am not against development. I understand that communities need to grow and evolve, and I fully support sustainable development that meets genuine community needs whilst preserving the character that makes a place special. However, this proposal is not sustainable development—it is overdevelopment that prioritises profit over people and will fundamentally alter the fabric of Kingscliff forever. Response to DPHI's Seven Justifications The Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure (DPHI) has identified seven points to argue this proposal is acceptable. I will address each of these points to demonstrate why this development is, on balance, unacceptable. 1. Housing Supply and Meeting Community Needs DPHI's claim: The development supports State government priorities by delivering 199 independent living units (ILUs) and 120 residential care facility (RCF) beds to meet the needs of an ageing population. My objection: This argument is misleading and does not represent the true nature of this development. The existing facility currently has 112 RCF beds. The proposed development will have 120 RCF beds. This means the development is only adding 8 additional aged care beds to the community. Eight beds. That is not a meaningful contribution to addressing the aged care crisis in the Tweed Shire. What this development is really about is the 199 Independent Living Units—essentially self-contained apartments for over-70s who are still independent. These are not Assisted Living Units; they are not aged care. The proponent is effectively adding approximately 300 additional over-70s residents to Kingscliff, which will actually increase the demand for aged care services in the region whilst contributing almost nothing to the supply. Many of the submissions supporting this development mention the need for more aged care, but those people have been misled about what this development actually provides. If the community genuinely needs more aged care, then Uniting should be proposing a facility that meaningfully increases RCF capacity, not one that adds just 8 beds whilst building 199 luxury apartments. 2. Consistency with Zoning Objectives DPHI's claim: The development is permissible with consent and consistent with the objectives of the R1 General Residential and R2 Low Density Residential zones under the Tweed Local Environmental Plan 2014. My objection: Whilst the development may be technically permissible under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing SEPP), this does not mean it is consistent with the character and intent of local planning controls that were developed through extensive community consultation. The Kingscliff Locality Plan was adopted by Council in May 2020 after significant community input, and it clearly establishes a vision for low-density, village-scale development. Key community consultation feedback relating to the future growth and development of Kingscliff centred on maintaining the 'village character' and unique village feel. The community made it clear they wanted to maintain generally low-scale coastal character buildings (3 storeys) and preserve the village atmosphere that makes Kingscliff special. The R2 Low Density Residential zone is meant to provide for housing at a low density, yet this proposal has a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 0.96:1, which is approaching the maximum and is entirely inappropriate for a low-density residential area. The surrounding properties are predominantly single and two-storey detached dwellings and semi-detached homes. This proposal includes buildings up to four storeys and 17.05 metres in height—more than double the scale of the existing neighbourhood character. Simply because State planning policies allow the government to override local planning frameworks does not make it right or in the public interest. Local planning controls exist for good reason—they reflect the community's vision for their own area. 3. Building Height and Form Compatibility DPHI's claim: The proposed two and four storey building heights would be compatible with the envisaged character of the area and provide an appropriate transition to adjoining low-density development. My objection: This claim is fundamentally at odds with the reality on the ground and with the views of the 291 residents who objected to this proposal. The data from the Assessment Report shows that 218 submissions (68.6%) specifically raised concerns about inappropriate building height, and 118 submissions (37.1%) raised concerns about adverse impacts on local character. The Tweed Local Environmental Plan permits a maximum building height of 13.6 metres for most of the site. However, this proposal seeks approval for buildings that exceed these limits significantly: • Building B: 17.05m (25.4% over the limit) • Building C: 16.62m (22.2% over the limit) • Building G: 16.82m (23.7% over the limit) These are not minor variations; they represent a substantial departure from what the community has agreed is appropriate for this location. The surrounding residential properties are one and two storeys. When I visit my parents and walk through the streets around Beach Street, Lorien Way, and Drift Court—streets I know well from years of visiting—the entire area has a low-rise, village atmosphere. When I walk my dog Molly through these streets, or stroll down to Cudgen Creek, I see the gentle scale that makes Kingscliff special. Introducing buildings up to four storeys and over 17 metres high will loom over the existing homes, creating a precedent for further high-density development that will erode Kingscliff's character forever. There is a reason 291 people objected to this proposal—because it is visibly and obviously out of character with the neighbourhood. No amount of planning jargon about "appropriate transitions" can change the fact that four-storey buildings do not belong in a neighbourhood of single and two-storey homes. 4. Flood Management DPHI's claim: The development complies with flood planning levels, includes a Flood Emergency Response Plan (FERP), and results in an overall reduction in flood risk. My objection: I acknowledge that the proponent has engaged engineers and developed flood management plans. However, 221 submissions (69.5%) raised concerns about flooding impacts on adjoining properties, evacuation procedures, and cumulative impacts. These concerns reflect lived experience, not just theoretical modelling. Both my aunties lived through the 2022 floods. I was on the phone with them whilst water was rising rapidly in their street. The fear in her voice is something I will never forget. The official flood models and predictions did not adequately prepare the community for what actually happened. The streets flooded much more severely than anticipated, and the evacuation routes were compromised. The Assessment Report acknowledges that during a Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) event, the entire site could experience flooding depths of up to 8 metres. The proposal involves filling in the existing Basin (a natural stormwater depression) and raising the site by more than three metres in some locations. Whilst the proponent claims this will not adversely affect surrounding properties, residents are understandably sceptical given their lived experience of how water moves across this landscape during major flood events. Furthermore, the FERP proposes that less able-bodied RCF residents should "shelter in place" during extreme flood events. This means that elderly, vulnerable residents with mobility issues would be expected to remain in the building during a flood rather than evacuate. Whilst the proponent argues this is safer than attempting evacuation, it places these vulnerable people at significant risk if the flood modelling proves incorrect, as it has in the past. This is not an acceptable outcome and raises serious ethical concerns about the suitability of this location for a residential aged care facility of this scale. 5. Internal Amenity for Future Residents DPHI's claim: The development would provide a high level of internal and external amenity for future residents in line with design guidelines. My objection: This point is about amenity for future residents within the development, not about impacts on the existing community. Whilst I hope that any seniors housing provides good amenity for its residents, this does not justify the impacts on surrounding neighbours or address the fundamental question of whether this scale of development is appropriate for this location. The Assessment Report shows that the development includes some departures from the Apartment Design Guide, including room depths of up to 10 metres (compared to the recommended 8 metres) and building separation between Building F and Building G of only 10 metres (compared to the recommended 12 metres). Whilst DPHI has accepted these variations, they indicate that even for future residents, the development is pushing the boundaries of acceptable design standards in order to maximise density. 6. Impacts on Surrounding Properties and Traffic DPHI's claim: The development would not result in unreasonable overshadowing, view and privacy impacts on adjoining development or adverse traffic impacts. My objection: The data from the community submissions tells a completely different story: • Traffic impact: 226 submissions (71.1%) • Loss of privacy/overlooking: 112 submissions (35.2%) • Insufficient car parking: 108 submissions (34%) • Overshadowing: 91 submissions (28.6%) • Private view/outlook loss: 40 submissions (13%) These are not unreasonable concerns from a small minority; these are legitimate impacts identified by a substantial portion of the community. When over 71% of submissions raise traffic concerns, it suggests that DPHI's traffic modelling does not reflect the reality of how traffic actually functions in this area. I have experienced firsthand how congested Kingscliff Street and the surrounding roads become during peak times and holiday periods. My parents live nearby, and when I visit with my partner and Molly, finding parking can be challenging even now. When I drive to the local shops or to Cudgen Creek, I see how the village-scale streets already struggle with traffic during busy periods. The proposal will add 322 car spaces to the site, which means potentially 322 additional vehicles using the local road network. The proponent claims this will only generate 58 additional vehicle trips during peak periods, but this modelling seems unrealistic given the scale of the development and the demographics of the residents. Independent Living Units are for over-70s who are still active and mobile. Many will have cars and will regularly drive to shops, medical appointments, and social activities. Additionally, the facility will generate delivery traffic, service vehicles, staff vehicles, and visitor traffic. The cumulative impact on the local road network will be substantial, particularly given that Kingscliff's infrastructure was designed for a low-density village, not for high-density apartment developments. Regarding privacy and overshadowing, buildings up to four storeys will directly overlook the backyards, living spaces, and bedrooms of surrounding single and two-storey homes. The residents who live adjacent to this site will lose the amenity and privacy they currently enjoy. These are real people whose quality of life will be diminished so that Uniting can maximise the profitability of this site. 7. Public Benefits and Employment DPHI's claim: The development would deliver public benefits including provision of seniors housing and generate 260 construction jobs and 51 additional operational jobs. My objection: Whilst any development generates some employment, this does not constitute a unique public benefit that outweighs the negative impacts. Construction jobs are temporary by nature, and the 51 additional operational jobs must be weighed against the 64 existing jobs at the current facility. The net increase in long-term employment is modest and does not justify the scale of this development. Moreover, the "public benefit" of providing seniors housing must be examined critically. As I have outlined above, this development only adds 8 aged care beds. The 199 Independent Living Units are private apartments that will be sold or leased at market rates to wealthy retirees. The Assessment Report acknowledges that there is no requirement for affordable housing in this development. This is not social housing. This is not addressing housing affordability. This is a commercial development designed to generate profit for Uniting by maximising density on a site in a desirable coastal location. The "public benefit" argument is weak at best and misleading at worst. Why This Development Is NOT in the Public Interest DPHI concludes that this development is "in the public interest," but I fundamentally disagree. The public interest must consider more than just housing targets and economic metrics; it must consider the character, liveability, and sustainability of our communities. This development is not in the public interest because: It violates the social contract of local planning. The community of Kingscliff engaged extensively in developing the Kingscliff Locality Plan and local planning frameworks. These controls exist to protect the village character that makes Kingscliff special. The community made it clear during consultation that they wanted to maintain the village character and low-scale coastal buildings. Allowing State planning policies to override local controls undermines democratic planning processes and tells communities that their vision for their own area does not matter. It sets a dangerous precedent. If this development is approved despite 291 objections and substantial height exceedances, it will signal to other developers that community opposition and local planning controls can be ignored. This will open the floodgates for similar overdevelopment throughout Kingscliff, transforming it from a village into yet another high-density coastal suburb indistinguishable from the Gold Coast. It does not address the genuine need for aged care. By adding only 8 RCF beds whilst bringing approximately 300 additional over-70s to the area, this development will actually exacerbate the shortage of aged care services in the Tweed Shire. This is the opposite of "meeting community needs". It imposes unacceptable impacts on existing residents. The people who currently live adjacent to this site will suffer direct impacts including loss of privacy, overshadowing, loss of outlook, increased traffic, noise, and construction disruption for 2.5 years. These are not wealthy developers or corporations; these are families and individuals—including my own parents—who chose to live in a low-density neighbourhood and who have a legitimate expectation that the character of their area will be protected. It prioritises profit over sustainability. Sustainable development means development that can be sustained—environmentally, socially, and culturally. This proposal is environmentally questionable (located on a flood-prone site, removing 76 trees, filling in a natural stormwater basin), socially divisive (291 objections versus 22 in support), and culturally destructive (eroding the village character that defines Kingscliff). Personal Perspective: Why Kingscliff Matters to Me I need to be honest about why this matters to me personally. Kingscliff has been part of my life since I was a teenager visiting my aunty. Over the decades, it has become woven into my family's story. Multiple family members now call this place home. When I visit—which I do regularly—I am not just a tourist passing through. I am part of this community. I feel a sense of peace and belonging when I am here that I do not feel in many other places. After the stress of city life, arriving in Kingscliff is like coming home. The friendly locals at the pub, the familiar faces at the shops, the pristine waters of Cudgen Creek where Molly loves to swim—these are not just pleasant memories; they are part of who I am and what I value. When I walk through Kingscliff—whether it is along Marine Parade, through the residential streets where my parents live, or down to my favourite spot at Cudgen Creek—I see a place that has found balance. The buildings are low-rise and blend with the natural environment. The pace of life is slower. You can actually see the sky and feel the breeze. People say hello. It feels human-scale and authentic. I know this sounds sentimental, but I genuinely believe that places like Kingscliff are becoming rare and precious. The Gold Coast has been transformed beyond recognition by high-rise development and overdevelopment. Once that transformation happens, it cannot be undone. You cannot put the character back once it has been destroyed. My parents chose to retire to Kingscliff because it offered something the Gold Coast no longer provides—a genuine village atmosphere, a sense of community, a connection to the natural environment. My aunties love it here for the same reasons. And when I visit them, I understand exactly why they made this choice. This development threatens the very qualities that make Kingscliff worth living in and worth visiting. Not because I am opposed to seniors housing, but because the scale and density are simply wrong for this location. A more modest development—perhaps more single-storey villas similar to what Uniting has built in other locations, with a genuine increase in aged care beds—would be far more appropriate and would genuinely serve community needs. Conclusion I object to this development because it represents overdevelopment that is inconsistent with the character of Kingscliff, imposes unacceptable impacts on surrounding residents (including my own family), does not genuinely address aged care needs, and is not in the public interest. I urge the Independent Planning Commission to refuse this application and to send a clear message that local planning frameworks matter, that community opposition cannot be ignored, and that not every coastal site should be maximised for profit at the expense of liveability and character. If Uniting is genuinely committed to serving the community, they should go back to the drawing board and propose a development that is more modest in scale, that genuinely increases aged care capacity, and that respects the village character of Kingscliff. That would be sustainable development. That would be in the public interest. The current proposal is neither.

6686

Redacted

29/10/2025

Object

Email

I object to the current proposal, and I have already made a comment(6206). I attended a public meeting last night and was frankly left saddened and bewildered at what I witnessed. The scale of this project is too large and many people outlined their reasons for objecting. It would appear that we are going to have this foisted upon us. I witnessed bureaucrats dismiss claims with numbers, ratios and acronyms that would have made Sir Humphrey proud. Developers seemingly exploiting government policies for maximum gain, claiming to be caring benefactors. As I sit here on a quiet rainy morning in Lorien Way, I feel helpless and saddened by Govt. policies and procedures that try to tell me one thing but sadly appear to be something else. Maybe its a case of trying to shut the door as the horse is bolting, now we get the fruit of years of poorly planned development and inattention from all the major parties.

6491

New South Wales 2487

29/10/2025

Object

Website

I have attached document

IPC submission Anne Lane_Redacted.pdf (PDF, 114.4 KB)

6496

New South Wales 2487

29/10/2025

Object

Website

The developers of this property are not doing this to provide for elderly people who need care. That is who they should be providing for. If doing this, instead of only providing 9 more beds, they would not need to build 199 units in multi-level towers that clearly are over the height limit desired by pur community. Houses around the site are for sale because thos poor home owners do not want to be towered over by buildings that clearly will impact the amenity of their homes. We live on kingscliff street. 199 units will be 199 more cars minimum travelling past our home each day. These buildings will add a huge amount of extra servicing with deliveries, rubbish etc. All going past pur house. They are on low lying land. Houses near this site had flood water in their yards last flood. They will have to pump water put of their underground parking and storage. Where will that water go? Into our drainage systems in kingscliff street. Water was coming UP those systems in the last flood as there is no where else for the water to go when the tweed river is in flood. Allowing this development, which is totally against what our community wants in our town, would be a travesty. Our council knows what we need and want which is why we have a clear plan for our town's development. Ask the developers to add more age care beds, of which we have a shortage, and some supported units for older couples who will need care ongoing and fit within our height limits then no problems from me! If this was to go ahead then the people in those units would have nowhere to go when they needed supported living as there won't be beds for them anyhow. Stupid plan but i guess once they crack that height limit pur town will be lost! Let them go to the Gold Coast where they love this crap and it does not flood!

6506

New South Wales 2488

29/10/2025

Object

Website

Overshadowing Flooding Loss of Privacy with buildings towering well above existing properties Out of character with area- Finished project will be an eyesore Four storeys are way taller than the single or double storey properties all surrounding Not keeping in with streetscaping and over-height Traffic and pedestrian concerns on Lorien way, Beach Street and Kingscliff Streets Lack of articulation – boring block style buildings Light spill and noise pollution in an otherwise quiet residential area Parking issues as limited parking onsite and in town This area distinguishes itself from the gold coast and there overdevelopment, this building is just developer greed not housing that benefits community

6511

Redacted

29/10/2025

Object

Website

I object to this proposal for the following reasons among others not listed here : Overshadowing Flooding Loss of Privacy with buildings towering well above existing properties Out of character with area- Finished project will be an eyesore Four storeys are way taller than the single or double storey properties all surrounding Not keeping in with streetscaping and over-height Traffic and pedestrian concerns on Lorien way, Beach Street and Kingscliff Streets Lack of articulation – boring block style buildings Light spill and noise pollution in an otherwise quiet residential area Parking issues as limited parking onsite and in town