2 - 6 Tweed Coast Road, Cabarita Beach NSW 2488

Demolition of existing structures, construction of a four (4) storey residential flat building with basement carpark, swimming pool and landscaping

External link Read more information

We found this application for you on the planning authority's website 2 months ago. It was received by them 5 days earlier.

(Source: Tweed Shire Council, reference DA21/0517)

23 Comments

Have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. Helen Quagliata commented

    As residents since 1999 we strongly oppose the proposed building of a multi-residential 4 story building .
    We feel that breaking the existing code of minimum three storey height on dwellings in Cabarita Beach ,especially beachfront area would be detrimental to the township and the environment.
    The proposed block of land borders on the very small parcel of remaining protected natural fauna and flora.
    In years past seeing Wallabies and other native animals was a regular occurrence.
    with the continued spreading of housing and structures they are no longer seen.
    There is also the issue of congestion of traffic in and out of Cabarita Beach.
    Building multi living dwellings before addressing the existing traffic congestion is counterproductive.
    We urge council to consider not turning Cabarita Beach into another extension of the Gold coast.
    The draw to the town and It's tourism popularity is because of its remaining small beachside town ambience.
    In the current climate people need & are seeking holidays in nature such as existing tent park or a campground/ caravan park.
    We strongly urge council to not approve this development.
    Sincerely
    Helen Quagliata
    Robert Quagliata
    Andre Quaglia
    Tia Quagliata

  2. lynette derrick commented

    I would not like to see this application go ahead as this area is a large wildlife area & human & car traffic would be a detriment to them. The height is another issue, we are on the verge of loosing our village feel

  3. Robyn Jorgensen commented

    I oppose this proposal on a number of grounds
    1. Current regulations are for 3 storey buildings. There is no need to go to 4. This sets a precedence that is likely to go to more 4-storey buildings and then 5 then 6.
    2. The construction of multi-storey dwellings will destroy the feeling of the village - something that needs to be preserved for social, environmental, tourism, and visual reasons.
    3. Having such a building at the entrance to Cabarita Beach will create even more congestion in the traffic flow. This will be a serious, perhaps dangerous/fatal situation.

  4. Pam Fuller commented

    I oppose this proposal as it breaks the existing code and also this land is adjacent to natural land and home to a variety of wildlife . Cabarita beach was once a quiet seaside village which was the attraction to many residents that have been living here 20+years..Over the past 10 years it has become very busy with traffic & people holidaying and new residents.The roads cannot sustain more traffic. Cabarita does not need any more highrises.

  5. Rodaan Kleejara commented

    Four stories is simply too high for the area.
    Isn’t that obvious?
    Please don’t let Cabarita Beach heading the same direction as the Gold Coast.

  6. Deirdre O’Donnell commented

    I oppose this proposal on a number of grounds
    1. Current regulations are for 3 storey buildings. There is no need to go to 4. This sets a precedence that is likely to go to more 4-storey buildings and then 5 then 6.
    2. The construction of multi-storey dwellings will destroy the feeling of the village - something that needs to be preserved for social, environmental, tourism, and visual reasons.
    3. Having such a building at the entrance to Cabarita Beach will create even more congestion in the traffic flow. This will be a serious, perhaps dangerous/fatal situation.

  7. Louise White commented

    I oppose this application for development for 2-6 Tweed Coast Road, Cabarita Beach. This application does not comply with the zoning of this land as Residential Tourist with a maximum three storeys. Furthermore, this application is not in keeping with the existing character of the precinct.

    The storey height and number of units within this application are too high density and would negatively impact on the surrounding bush land and the residential properties. It is most certainly not in keeping with the character of this traditional beach village.

  8. Jessica commented

    I oppose this proposal on a number of grounds
    1. Current regulations are for 3 storey buildings. There is no need to go to 4. This sets a precedence that is likely to go to more 4-storey buildings and then 5 then 6.
    2. The construction of multi-storey dwellings will destroy the feeling of the village - something that needs to be preserved for social, environmental, tourism, and visual reasons.
    3. Having such a building at the entrance to Cabarita Beach will create even more congestion in the traffic flow. This will be a serious, perhaps dangerous/fatal situation.

  9. Jennifer OBrien commented

    Introducing a 4 story complex goes against all other buildings in the village I understand it is now within the 13.6m height limit but if allowed it will set a new unwanted precedent for the town

  10. Melissa Kent commented

    Development Application DA21/0517 – demolition of existing structures, construction of a four storey residential flat building with basement carpark, swimming pool and landscaping on Lot 26 DP1253093, 2-6 Tweed Coast Road, Cabarita Beach.

    I am writing to object to the Development application above, on the grounds that it is in contradiction to the objectives for this site detailed under the Tweed Development Control plan 2008. Also it personally negatively affects our property located directly opposite at 12 Cypress Crescent.

    The Tweed Local Environment Plan 2014 (TLEP 2014) and the Tweed Development Control plan 2008 in particular B19- Bogangar/Cabarita Beach Locality Plan (DCP B19) and Section A1- Residential and tourist code, are the two documents I have used to detail my argument that this development fails to comply with code in a number of areas.

    I understand that the TLEP 2014 document is the overruling document, and it states a maximum build height of 13.6m applies to this parcel of land which is zoned R3 medium density. It is the DCP B19 however which deals directly with how the zoning of this parcel of land applies and details in no uncertain terms the additional regulations applicable to this site.

    Whilst the TLEP 2014 is a broader document encompassing the whole Tweed Shire, the Tweed development control plan B19-Bogangar/Cabarita Beach Locality Plan is specific to Cabarita, our unique coastal village and as such details how to incorporate these broader statutory controls into the Development Control plan for the Cabarita township itself. An excerpt from The Vision Statement for Bogangar/Cabarita Beach (B19.2.1):

    “The major outcome expected from this document is the development of a planning framework that provides strategies and outcomes which will guide Council in managing various urban pressures and land uses (development form and function) within Bogangar/Cabarita Beach. It is intended to provide clear direction through desired outcomes that are supported by development and design codes and policies for the study area.” 


    I now refer to B19.8 Residential Tourist Precinct. This section maps out objectives, policies and preferred outcomes for the precinct applicable to the DA in question.

    B19.8.1 Background:

    Describes the parcel of land identified by this precinct:

    “A smaller parcel of land zoned for tourist accommodation is also at the corner of Tweed Coast Road and Cypress Crescent. This site currently contains a small, privately-owned caravan park and small-scale retail facilities, which may be subject to development pressure or change in the foreseeable future.
    Any development in this precinct should reflect the existing character of the precinct, being three storey tourist accommodation.”
    THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THIS STATEMENT

    Furthermore, design guidelines stated under:
    B19.8.2 Precinct Objectives
    “Ensure that an appropriate density of development is retained, which reflects the existing development in the precinct and surrounding residential areas.”

    I refer now to the DA Appendix 3 - Architectural Plans Drawaing DA1209 Shadow Diagram. The picture is about the only visual scale drawing supplied by the proponent showing the proposed building in relation to a neighbouring residential property. The pentagonal prism shown here alongside the proposed development, dwarfed in comparison, could be confused with a shed, but is actually the neighbouring home. It is not surprising they have not supplied anything that includes the existing homes in their renders, as it would be blindingly obvious that the scale of this development does NOT reflect the existing development in the precinct and surrounding residential area.
    DOES NOT COMPLY WITH PRECINCT OBJECTIVES

    Additionally, B19.8.3  Strategic Policies
    
“The sites identified within the Tourist Residential Precinct are intended to be developed as integrated tourist facilities consisting of predominantly accommodation units with attendant facilities to cater for the needs of short-stay guests.
    
The built form is to be low to medium rise, and is to respect the topographical features of individual sites. Where established native vegetation exists, development should be designed to integrate with the identified vegetation.”
    
DOES NOT COMPLY WITH STRATEGIC POLICIES
    
And finally B19.8.4  Preferred Outcomes
    
“Development in the Residential Tourist Precinct may be supported where the proposal does not detract from the amenity of the area and is consistent with:
    -The Vision for Bogangar/Cabarita Beach. 
-This Precinct Objectives and Strategic Policies outlined above. 
-The development design guidelines stipulated within Clauses B19.14, B19.15 and B19.16 of this Section.”

    It is my opinion, the DA in question does not meet any of these desired outcomes that are supported by development and design codes and policies for this precinct detailed in the excerpts above.
    DOES NOT COMPLY WITH PREFERRED OUTCOMES

    I will now draw your attention to the last sub heading in italics in the paragraph above, under B19.8.4 Preferred outcomes. It states that in addition to the above desired outcomes we must also address the “development design guidelines stipulated within clauses B9.14, 15 and 16 of this section" of the Tweed Development Control Plan 2008 B19. Being, B19.15 Residential design and B19.16 Building Height.

    B19.15 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES
    “This section applies to residential buildings and residential components of mixed- use buildings. Residential buildings are taken to include both multi-dwelling units and tourist accommodation. It is intended to ensure consistency by applying the same development design guidelines to both multi-dwelling units and tourist development. Tourist development is to comply with those development standards managing multi-dwelling units. Reference to multi-dwelling units in this section is taken to include tourist accommodation as well.”
    “All multi-dwelling development must comply with the provisions of Section A1 - Multi-Dwelling Housing of this DCP. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section A1 the following design guidelines are to be observed as well.”

    Before I continue with the controls detailed in DCP B19, let me just cross now to this Section A1 -Residential and Tourist Code of the Tweed Development control plan to examine the additional provisions that must apply to this precinct. Part C refers to to multi dwelling Housing in the forms of Residential Flat buildings or Shop Top Residential Buildings in Chapter 1 - Building Types.
    Residential Flat Buildings
    “Residential Flat Buildings are buildings with three or more dwellings and 3 storeys. In exceptional circumstances such as where a site has extreme topography a greater number of storeys may be permissible.
    The residential flat building types identified in this Part are designed to suit three scenarios; small sites, large sites and sites within commercial centres.”
    Small sites are described as those less than 2000m2 and Large sites are more than 2000m2. On the other hand:
    Shop top Residential buildings are described as
    “a building type with residential dwellings above commercial, in most cases retail space. Generally this building type occurs on land zoned for commercial purposes. Shop-top accommodation can be either:
    -  Shop-top housing; 1 or more dwellings over two levels associated with a ground level commercial space or
    -  Shop-top Residential Flat Building; 4 or more dwellings and 3 or more storeys associated with a ground level commercial space. “

    
There can be no confusion then that the envelope applicable to this proposed development is that of Residential Flat top building (Large) and not a Shop top residential building. It is important to make this delineation as we continue further to Chapter 2, Site and Building Design Controls. To follow through this train of thought, I will proceed down to;
    Design Control 6 -Height
    Building Height
    “Height is an important control to ensure that future development responds to the desired scale and character of the street and local area and to allow reasonable daylight access to existing developments.
    The height controls are intended to work with existing buildings in the street. Height controls on individual sites are to be further refined by decisions about daylight access, roofs, residential amenity, setting and topography of particular locations and streets.
    Objectives
    To design new development appropriate to the existing building scale in the street and the local area.
    To ensure new development maintains an appropriate residential character. 

    Controls 

    13.6m is the maximum overall building height for Shop-top Housing and Shop-top Residential Flat Buildings.
    11m is the maximum wall plate height for Shop-top Housing and Shop-top Residential Flat Buildings.
    12.2m is the maximum overall height building height for Residential Flat Buildings.
    9.6m is the maximum wall plate height for Residential Flat Buildings.” 

    In following this thread it is evident to me that despite the TLEP 2014 zoning this precinct as a maximum building height allowance of 13.6 m, the more detailed control objectives of the Tweed DCP B19 state that the allowable building envelope is further controlled by building type. If this development was a shop top residential building, then its maximum allowable height of 13.6m would apply. It is however NOT, and therefore the applicable building envelope according to the precinct controls are as stated in the paragraph above at 12.2m with a maximum wall plate height of 9.6m. I might also add that in its current proposed form, even if building type were somehow being disregarded, the maximum wall plate height for a 13.6m high building is still only 11m, and the proposed development also exceeds that Design control height regulation. It is also relevant to point out the reference to 3 storey’s as part of the description of Residential flat buildings in Chapter 1.
    DOES NOT COMPLY WITH HIEGHT CONTROLS

    I continue now to:
    Design Control 11 – Floor Space Ratio (FSR)

    “Floor space ratio (FSR) control provides a guide as to the allowable densities for an area.
    FSR is not to be the sole determinant of future built form; it needs to be linked with all other building envelope controls to support the desired building-massing outcome.
    FSR is an absolute maximum, which may not be wholly achievable on all sites due to other design considerations.

    Objectives
    To match building scale with the capacity of the site and the local area.
    To define the allowable development density for sites.
    
 Controls
    a.Shop-top housing and Shop-top Residential Flat Buildings 2:1 maximum FSR.
    b.Residential Flat Buildings is 1.2:1 maximum FSR.”

    The applicable FSR for Residential Flat Buildings is 1.2 : 1. The proposed development exceeds this with a, FSR of 1.53 : 1 and therefore does not comply. Whilst the TLEP 2014 FSR for this precinct states maximum FSR of 2 : 1, the controls described in the Tweed DCP B19 determines under what circumstances this maximum FSR applies. As such given that this is not a shop top Residential Flat building the applicable FSR is 1.2 :1.
    DOES NOT COMPLY WITH FLOOR SPACE RATIO

    I apologise for not following the order these points appear in these documents, but I felt it pertinent to address the items I feel are more important first. Moving on to the rest of the Design controls I believe the proponent fails to comply with.There is a number of items I would like to discuss that fall under the :
    Design control 2- Site Configuration

    1) Deep Soil Zones
    Controls
    “Deep Soil Zones must be provided for all new developments and existing development, except on non urban land with site areas greater than 5000m2 and development with ground level commercial floor space.
    All sites are to provide two Deep Soil Zones, one to the rear and one to the front of the property.
    Rear Deep Soil Zones are to have minimum width of 8m or 30% of the average width of the site whichever is the greater and a minimum depth of 18% of the length of the site up to 8m but not less than 4m. Greater than 8m may be provided if desirable.” 


    2) Impermeable site area
    “The impermeable site area is the total area of impervious surfaces within an allotment following completion of the development. Excessive impermeable areas on a lot can increase the volume of stormwater discharged off the site as it reduces the lands capability to infiltrate water in storm events.
    Objectives
    “To promote residential development that is sympathetic with the existing topography, water cycle and amenity of the site and neighbourhood.
    To retain the lands ability to infiltrate stormwater.

    Controls
    An allotment’s runoff shall be dispersed onto grassed, landscaped or infiltration areas, of the allotment, unless this is inconsistent with the geotechnical stability of the site or adjacent/downstream land.
    The concentration, collection and piping of runoff to the street gutter or underground stormwater system shall be minimised unless this is inconsistent with the geotechnical stability of the site or adjacent/downstream land.
    Rain water shall be collected in tanks and reused.
    Site surface depressions in landscaping are to be utilised for on-site detention and infiltration unless this is inconsistent with the geotechnical stability of the site or adjacent/downstream land.
    Runoff is to be minimised, delayed in its passage and where possible accommodated within the landscape of the development site unless this is inconsistent with the geotechnical stability of the site or adjacent/downstream land.
    A schedule of the breakdown/calculation of impermeable site area must be submitted with the development application. 

    The maximum areas for impervious surfaces are:
    -  70% of the allotment - On lot sizes less than 500m2.
    -  65% of the allotment - On lot sizes between 500m2 and 750m2 inclusive”.
    -  60% of the allotment - On lot sizes greater than 750m2.”

    The maximum allowable impermeable surface is 60% for this site. The proponent advises their plans exceed this limit with 75.9% of impervious surfaces. The Deep soil zones are also not adequate to comply with requirements. There is no front deep soil zone and instead of the 2802 m2 of current deep soil the proposed plan only allows for 673.9m2 of permeable surfaces, a mere 24%, falling well short of the required 40%. This is very concerning as a neighbour, I am fully aware that the street consistently suffers from flooding in periods of heavy rain due to the existing stormwater drains in the street being unable to evacuate the water effectively. The depth of this flooding is typically a foot deep and there are a number of homes in the immediate vicinity of this drain at the northern bend of Cypress cres who are threatened with water infiltration on each occasion. We have personally experienced water infiltration into our home a number of times from this stormwater backup problem and council is fully aware as complaints have been directed towards them on numerous occasions. This reduction in permeable surfaces will increase run off and apply increased pressure on our already inadequate storm water capacity.
    DOES NOT COMPLY WITH DEEP SOIL ZONE CONTROLS.
    DOES NOT COMPLY WITH MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS SURFACE LIMITS

    3) Communal Open Space
    “Communal open space is an area within the development for the use of all residents. This can include swimming pools, barbeque areas, landscaped relaxation areas, clothes drying areas or a gym. Generally only larger development with more than 6 dwellings will have communal open space. Communal open space is not to be made up of unusable spaces left over from building siting but rather to be designed to provide a useable and attractive space.
    Analysis of the usability and appropriateness of the communal open space design, location and size relative to the number of persons it services is a requirement for any development application.
    Objectives
    To provide a space where residents can participate in shared activities. • To enhance the lifestyle of residents.
• To be functional and attractive.”

    I have not been able to locate the method of calculation for communal open space requirements. So I shall work off the proponents reported “minimum required” 25%, equating to 700m2 for this site. They claim to have achieved that with 722.21m2. However using the description of what a communal open space is, and with reference to drawing DA1600 in appendix 3 Architectural plans, I fail to see how an entrance path and ensuing internal corridor and some garden beds can claim to fit this description. I believe they have not achieved 25% of actual communal open space.

    DOES NOT COMPLY WITH COMMUNAL OPEN SPACE MINIMUMS

    DESIGN CONTROL 3 – Setbacks
    Front setbacks (building lines)
    Controls
    “On corner sites in new and existing areas the setback along the secondary street (the street to which the dwelling has its secondary frontage) is 3m.
    In established areas Residential Flat Buildings are to be setback from the street boundary by 6m with a variance of up to plus or minus 1m (ie. between 5m to 7m).
    Basement garages cannot be located forward of the building footprint.”
    *Calculation rules:
    “A setback is the distance between a building and a lot boundary. It is the measurement of the horizontal distance between the property boundary (or other stated boundary) measured at 90 degrees from the boundary and:
    -  a building wall or load bearing columns used instead of a wall
    -  the outside face of any balcony, deck or the like or
    -  the supporting posts of a structure or
    -  the outer edge of an eaves gutter, 
If either the boundary or the structure is irregular then the shortest distance is the setback distance. 
Setbacks are measured at 90 degrees to the lot boundary and include any articulation to the buildings elevation as well as including roofed or enclosed external living areas. 
This setback is not a minimum or maximum distance from the street but rather the building is to be built along the alignment of the front boundary setback.” 

    According to DA appendix 3 - Architectural plans, drawings DA1201 through to DA1205, that depict floor plans, there are areas along the secondary street frontage where the required 3m setback has not been achieved on multiple storeys. Similarly the 6 m setback has not been achieved on the primary street frontage, (nor the 5m allowed with the variance) also over multiple storeys. In addition the basement garage line extends forward of the building footprint which is expressly in contradiction to the setback control.
    FAILED TO COMPLY WITH SETBACK ON THREE FRONTS

    DESIGN CONTROL 4 - Carparking and Access
    Basement Carparking
    Controls
    “The walls of basement carparks are best located in line with the buildings footprint. Basement carparking is not to extend outside the external line of terraces, balconies and porches.”
    
Not only does the basement carpark extend forward of the building line, but additionally beyond the external line of the terraces, balconies, porches as well, which again is another non compliance.
    FAILED TO COMPLY WITH BASEMENT CARPARKING CONTROL

    Design Control 7 - Building amenity
    Sunlight access
    I find it hard to establish from the few diagrams provided, the actual impact this massive structure will have on sunlight access to neighbouring properties. Undoubtedly, adjacent property at 8 Cypress will be cast in shadow for several hours every afternoon and many of those, 100% direct sunlight deprived. The winter afternoon diagram suggests my property directly opposite the development will suffer 100% sun blockout to our living areas and adjacent outdoor entertaining area for most of our winters afternoons which will severely impact our lifestyle and enjoyment of our home. To this I object. Clearly the Proponent is aware that they are non compliant on this as they have not marked that they Comply with this regulation.

    Before I return to the Tweed DCP B19 document to where we skipped across to follow the relevant section of A1 section Residential and Tourist Code. Let me just add to that Section A1 where we looked at Building Types. The Residential Flat top building(large) is subsequently referred to as Block edge Residential Flat Building, and the DA refers to this point in Appendix 20 page 1. Confirming their non compliance with regards to the maximum building and elevation along the street requiring 35m maximum. They advise they have exceeded this maximum on both street frontages by approximately 35% with 47m of building length. A gross breach and disregard for the building envelope and density required to comply with the code that applies to this parcel of land and the whole purpose of the Development Control Plan for Bogangar/Cabarita Beach Locality
    So now we continue with the Residential Tourist Precinct specifications. (DCP B19)

    B19.15.3 RoofLines
    “Roofs are strong visual elements in residential design.
    Purely functional, flat roofs, with protruding lift over-runs or service plant rooms have little visual interest and do not contribute to the streetscape. Imaginative roof structures are encouraged, to produce a visually interesting skyline while retaining important views from adjoining developments.
    Lift over-runs and service plants should be concealed within well designed roof structures that are integrated with the overall design of the building.
    New development must maintain diversity in the design of roofed areas and avoid the construction of a “monotonous” roofscape. Roofed areas should not adversely impact on neighbouring properties and not detract from the existing roofline character.
    Potential impacts include ancillary structures such as solar heating panels, satellite dishes and kitchen exhaust shafts/cowls; and the intended uses of the area for activities such as viewing platforms and outdoor recreational areas.
    Development, to comply with the goals set by the roof design performance criteria, will:
    Combine roofing elements including gable, flat, hipped and/or curved roof forms.” 

    The roof in the DA proposal does not fit with any of the criteria detailed in this code. It is a basic monotonous flat roof with a slight gradient, precisely the type of roof as recommended to be avoided.
    TLEP2014 5.6 Architectural roof features states the objective in this clause to “promote architectural merit and visual interest”.

    Again I believe the roof, not being visual at all fails to meet the outlined objectives.
    DOES NOT COMPLY WITH ROOFLINE CRITERIA

    The final points I shall address in this DCP B19 are:

    B19.16.1 BuildingHeight
    All buildings are governed by the maximum building height limits set under Tweed LEP 2000*. All proposed developments must comply with:-
    The building envelope controls contained in this section of the DCP.
    The maximum height limits imposed under Tweed LEP 2000. 

    (*The current TLEP 2014 replaces TLEP 2000 and its reference is yet to be updated here)
    Let it be noted that this section states notwithstanding the maximum height limits imposed by the TLEP 2014, all proposed developments MUST comply with the building envelope controls contained in this DCP, being Tweed DCP B19 and Section A1-Residential Tourist Code.
    B19.16.3 BuildingEnvelopeObjectives 
“The objectives of the building envelope control are to:
    Ensure the maximum building height provisions for the area are observed.
    Ensure that building setbacks to property boundaries increase relative to any increase in building height.
    Minimise the visual and physical impact and apparent bulk of buildings on adjoining developments and public streets and spaces.
    Facilitate adequate sunlight access to and minimise shadow impact on adjoining properties and public streets and spaces.”

    The building envelope control standards for the precinct in question are clearly defined in the above objectives. It is clear they have failed to comply with these objectives
    
B19.16.4 MaximumBuildingHeight 
“The height and scale of development within the study area is generally limited to three storeys. To maintain the character and amenity of the region it is encouraged that these height limits continue. FAILS TO COMPLY
    
New development should minimise the visual and physical impact and apparent bulk that it has on adjoining development and public streets and spaces. New development should also not detrimentally impact on identified important view corridors. FAILS TO COMPLY
    
Development, to comply with the goals set by the building height performance criteria, will measure the height in relation to a building to the uppermost ceiling or top plate of the highest external wall in accordance with provisions of the Tweed Local Environmental Plan.” FAILS TO COMPLY

    As I come towards the end of my submission I would like to touch on traffic and pedestrian safety, and express my concern on this front. I refer to the Traffic Impact Statement as submitted (Appendix 11) Page 13. I don’t accept the notional calculations relating to vehicle trips based on Peak Hour demands.

    The comparison being made here infers existing 23 campsites and 10 car parks being replaced by a proposed 23 apartments of 3+ to 4+ bedrooms and 45 carparks will result in only minimal increase in vehicles per hour. Statistically this comparison should show an increase of at least double if not triple the movements as a conservative estimate. This is a significant increase in traffic. for a quiet residential street and the impact on local residents should not be underestimated.

    In addition to this Cypress Cres is a popular pedestrian thoroughfare and major pedestrian access point to the beach for surfers, fishermen, families and children. It is also the point where the northern bicycleway ends and commences sharing the roadways with local traffic. Increasing the vehicular traffic to the vicinity is a real danger to this pedestrian activity.

    It should also be noted that exit onto Tweed Coast Road from Cypress Crescent is often hindered by parked vehicles on Tweed Coast road that block line of sight of northbound traffic, resulting in exiting vehicles having to drive beyond the confines of Cypress onto the Tweed coast road in order to see oncoming traffic from the south thereby encroaching into the lane of traffic from the north. Combine this with the speed transition of the 50/80kmh and now additional vehicular moment and it is a recipe for disaster. I disagree with the proponents statement that “no further operational assessment is considered to be warranted”.

    In summary, there are a multitude of non compliance issues associated with this DA and I strongly object to the proposal going ahead in its current form. I also believe there are many other possible short comings in terms of meeting control criteria in areas I have not addressed where the proponent has been unable to report that the development complies and has instead suggested “generally complies” .Due to time constraints I have been unable to investigate these.

  11. Terry Joslin commented

    Why four storey...you have a limit of three.... we are not the GoldCoast and do not want to be .... is there money being involved to allow four stories.... are you in the process of drawing up rules and regulations just to break them.... l think this is a “greed” move by someone...$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
    Next it will be seven eight stories.

  12. Margot Ricketts commented

    Development Application DA21/0517 – demolition of existing structures, construction of a four storey residential flat building with basement carpark, swimming pool and landscaping on Lot 26 DP1253093, 2-6 Tweed Coast Road, Cabarita Beach.
    As a resident of the town of Bogangar /Cabarita Beach for 59 years i have seen many changes in the area and some are in keeping with progress and the area has benefited from these changes .
    The above development is detrimental to the town as it should be kept to the stated allowed 3 story height limit, this should not be changed.
    The ambience and essence of the village should be maintained , i feel the plans for this development don't reflect the best interests of this.
    No one can stop progress but it can be managed to reflect the community it is built in.

  13. Kathryn Cleland commented

    As a resident since 1994, I most strongly oppose this ugly, greedy development that goes against everything our small laid back coastal village stands for.
    This area is also well habited with native animal species, not to mention flora.
    It is also an area where black tail cockatoos like to congregate.

    After campaigning many years ago for a building height limit in the village, which at the time was successful, I don’t understand how a 4 story development is even being considered.
    This kind of development being allowed into our small village makes my heart ache. It will unequivocally change our village forever and my greatest fear is that once that is in, the floodgates will open for similar developments to swamp our village.

    Development Application DA21/0517 – demolition of existing structures, construction of a four storey residential flat building with basement carpark, swimming pool and landscaping on Lot 26 DP1253093, 2-6 Tweed Coast Road, Cabarita Beach.

    I am writing to object to the Development application above, on the grounds that it is in contradiction to the objectives for this site detailed under the Tweed Development Control plan 2008. Also it personally negatively affects our property located directly opposite at 12 Cypress Crescent.

    The Tweed Local Environment Plan 2014 (TLEP 2014) and the Tweed Development Control plan 2008 in particular B19- Bogangar/Cabarita Beach Locality Plan (DCP B19) and Section A1- Residential and tourist code, are the two documents I have used to detail my argument that this development fails to comply with code in a number of areas.

    I understand that the TLEP 2014 document is the overruling document, and it states a maximum build height of 13.6m applies to this parcel of land which is zoned R3 medium density. It is the DCP B19 however which deals directly with how the zoning of this parcel of land applies and details in no uncertain terms the additional regulations applicable to this site.

    Whilst the TLEP 2014 is a broader document encompassing the whole Tweed Shire, the Tweed development control plan B19-Bogangar/Cabarita Beach Locality Plan is specific to Cabarita, our unique coastal village and as such details how to incorporate these broader statutory controls into the Development Control plan for the Cabarita township itself. An excerpt from The Vision Statement for Bogangar/Cabarita Beach (B19.2.1):

    “The major outcome expected from this document is the development of a planning framework that provides strategies and outcomes which will guide Council in managing various urban pressures and land uses (development form and function) within Bogangar/Cabarita Beach. It is intended to provide clear direction through desired outcomes that are supported by development and design codes and policies for the study area.” 


    I now refer to B19.8 Residential Tourist Precinct. This section maps out objectives, policies and preferred outcomes for the precinct applicable to the DA in question.

    B19.8.1 Background:

    Describes the parcel of land identified by this precinct:

    “A smaller parcel of land zoned for tourist accommodation is also at the corner of Tweed Coast Road and Cypress Crescent. This site currently contains a small, privately-owned caravan park and small-scale retail facilities, which may be subject to development pressure or change in the foreseeable future.
    Any development in this precinct should reflect the existing character of the precinct, being three storey tourist accommodation.”
    THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THIS STATEMENT

    Furthermore, design guidelines stated under:
    B19.8.2 Precinct Objectives
    “Ensure that an appropriate density of development is retained, which reflects the existing development in the precinct and surrounding residential areas.”

    I refer now to the DA Appendix 3 - Architectural Plans Drawaing DA1209 Shadow Diagram. The picture is about the only visual scale drawing supplied by the proponent showing the proposed building in relation to a neighbouring residential property. The pentagonal prism shown here alongside the proposed development, dwarfed in comparison, could be confused with a shed, but is actually the neighbouring home. It is not surprising they have not supplied anything that includes the existing homes in their renders, as it would be blindingly obvious that the scale of this development does NOT reflect the existing development in the precinct and surrounding residential area.
    DOES NOT COMPLY WITH PRECINCT OBJECTIVES

    Additionally, B19.8.3 Strategic Policies
    
“The sites identified within the Tourist Residential Precinct are intended to be developed as integrated tourist facilities consisting of predominantly accommodation units with attendant facilities to cater for the needs of short-stay guests.
    
The built form is to be low to medium rise, and is to respect the topographical features of individual sites. Where established native vegetation exists, development should be designed to integrate with the identified vegetation.”
    
DOES NOT COMPLY WITH STRATEGIC POLICIES
    
And finally B19.8.4 Preferred Outcomes
    
“Development in the Residential Tourist Precinct may be supported where the proposal does not detract from the amenity of the area and is consistent with:
    -The Vision for Bogangar/Cabarita Beach. 
-This Precinct Objectives and Strategic Policies outlined above. 
-The development design guidelines stipulated within Clauses B19.14, B19.15 and B19.16 of this Section.”

    It is my opinion, the DA in question does not meet any of these desired outcomes that are supported by development and design codes and policies for this precinct detailed in the excerpts above.
    DOES NOT COMPLY WITH PREFERRED OUTCOMES

    I will now draw your attention to the last sub heading in italics in the paragraph above, under B19.8.4 Preferred outcomes. It states that in addition to the above desired outcomes we must also address the “development design guidelines stipulated within clauses B9.14, 15 and 16 of this section" of the Tweed Development Control Plan 2008 B19. Being, B19.15 Residential design and B19.16 Building Height.

    B19.15 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES
    “This section applies to residential buildings and residential components of mixed- use buildings. Residential buildings are taken to include both multi-dwelling units and tourist accommodation. It is intended to ensure consistency by applying the same development design guidelines to both multi-dwelling units and tourist development. Tourist development is to comply with those development standards managing multi-dwelling units. Reference to multi-dwelling units in this section is taken to include tourist accommodation as well.”
    “All multi-dwelling development must comply with the provisions of Section A1 - Multi-Dwelling Housing of this DCP. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section A1 the following design guidelines are to be observed as well.”

    Before I continue with the controls detailed in DCP B19, let me just cross now to this Section A1 -Residential and Tourist Code of the Tweed Development control plan to examine the additional provisions that must apply to this precinct. Part C refers to to multi dwelling Housing in the forms of Residential Flat buildings or Shop Top Residential Buildings in Chapter 1 - Building Types.
    Residential Flat Buildings
    “Residential Flat Buildings are buildings with three or more dwellings and 3 storeys. In exceptional circumstances such as where a site has extreme topography a greater number of storeys may be permissible.
    The residential flat building types identified in this Part are designed to suit three scenarios; small sites, large sites and sites within commercial centres.”
    Small sites are described as those less than 2000m2 and Large sites are more than 2000m2. On the other hand:
    Shop top Residential buildings are described as
    “a building type with residential dwellings above commercial, in most cases retail space. Generally this building type occurs on land zoned for commercial purposes. Shop-top accommodation can be either:
    - Shop-top housing; 1 or more dwellings over two levels associated with a ground level commercial space or
    - Shop-top Residential Flat Building; 4 or more dwellings and 3 or more storeys associated with a ground level commercial space. “

    
There can be no confusion then that the envelope applicable to this proposed development is that of Residential Flat top building (Large) and not a Shop top residential building. It is important to make this delineation as we continue further to Chapter 2, Site and Building Design Controls. To follow through this train of thought, I will proceed down to;
    Design Control 6 -Height
    Building Height
    “Height is an important control to ensure that future development responds to the desired scale and character of the street and local area and to allow reasonable daylight access to existing developments.
    The height controls are intended to work with existing buildings in the street. Height controls on individual sites are to be further refined by decisions about daylight access, roofs, residential amenity, setting and topography of particular locations and streets.
    Objectives
    To design new development appropriate to the existing building scale in the street and the local area.
    To ensure new development maintains an appropriate residential character. 

    Controls 

    13.6m is the maximum overall building height for Shop-top Housing and Shop-top Residential Flat Buildings.
    11m is the maximum wall plate height for Shop-top Housing and Shop-top Residential Flat Buildings.
    12.2m is the maximum overall height building height for Residential Flat Buildings.
    9.6m is the maximum wall plate height for Residential Flat Buildings.” 

    In following this thread it is evident to me that despite the TLEP 2014 zoning this precinct as a maximum building height allowance of 13.6 m, the more detailed control objectives of the Tweed DCP B19 state that the allowable building envelope is further controlled by building type. If this development was a shop top residential building, then its maximum allowable height of 13.6m would apply. It is however NOT, and therefore the applicable building envelope according to the precinct controls are as stated in the paragraph above at 12.2m with a maximum wall plate height of 9.6m. I might also add that in its current proposed form, even if building type were somehow being disregarded, the maximum wall plate height for a 13.6m high building is still only 11m, and the proposed development also exceeds that Design control height regulation. It is also relevant to point out the reference to 3 storey’s as part of the description of Residential flat buildings in Chapter 1.
    DOES NOT COMPLY WITH HIEGHT CONTROLS

    I continue now to:
    Design Control 11 – Floor Space Ratio (FSR)

    “Floor space ratio (FSR) control provides a guide as to the allowable densities for an area.
    FSR is not to be the sole determinant of future built form; it needs to be linked with all other building envelope controls to support the desired building-massing outcome.
    FSR is an absolute maximum, which may not be wholly achievable on all sites due to other design considerations.

    Objectives
    To match building scale with the capacity of the site and the local area.
    To define the allowable development density for sites.
    
 Controls
    a.Shop-top housing and Shop-top Residential Flat Buildings 2:1 maximum FSR.
    b.Residential Flat Buildings is 1.2:1 maximum FSR.”

    The applicable FSR for Residential Flat Buildings is 1.2 : 1. The proposed development exceeds this with a, FSR of 1.53 : 1 and therefore does not comply. Whilst the TLEP 2014 FSR for this precinct states maximum FSR of 2 : 1, the controls described in the Tweed DCP B19 determines under what circumstances this maximum FSR applies. As such given that this is not a shop top Residential Flat building the applicable FSR is 1.2 :1.
    DOES NOT COMPLY WITH FLOOR SPACE RATIO

    I apologise for not following the order these points appear in these documents, but I felt it pertinent to address the items I feel are more important first. Moving on to the rest of the Design controls I believe the proponent fails to comply with.There is a number of items I would like to discuss that fall under the :
    Design control 2- Site Configuration

    1) Deep Soil Zones
    Controls
    “Deep Soil Zones must be provided for all new developments and existing development, except on non urban land with site areas greater than 5000m2 and development with ground level commercial floor space.
    All sites are to provide two Deep Soil Zones, one to the rear and one to the front of the property.
    Rear Deep Soil Zones are to have minimum width of 8m or 30% of the average width of the site whichever is the greater and a minimum depth of 18% of the length of the site up to 8m but not less than 4m. Greater than 8m may be provided if desirable.” 


    2) Impermeable site area
    “The impermeable site area is the total area of impervious surfaces within an allotment following completion of the development. Excessive impermeable areas on a lot can increase the volume of stormwater discharged off the site as it reduces the lands capability to infiltrate water in storm events.
    Objectives
    “To promote residential development that is sympathetic with the existing topography, water cycle and amenity of the site and neighbourhood.
    To retain the lands ability to infiltrate stormwater.

    Controls
    An allotment’s runoff shall be dispersed onto grassed, landscaped or infiltration areas, of the allotment, unless this is inconsistent with the geotechnical stability of the site or adjacent/downstream land.
    The concentration, collection and piping of runoff to the street gutter or underground stormwater system shall be minimised unless this is inconsistent with the geotechnical stability of the site or adjacent/downstream land.
    Rain water shall be collected in tanks and reused.
    Site surface depressions in landscaping are to be utilised for on-site detention and infiltration unless this is inconsistent with the geotechnical stability of the site or adjacent/downstream land.
    Runoff is to be minimised, delayed in its passage and where possible accommodated within the landscape of the development site unless this is inconsistent with the geotechnical stability of the site or adjacent/downstream land.
    A schedule of the breakdown/calculation of impermeable site area must be submitted with the development application. 

    The maximum areas for impervious surfaces are:
    - 70% of the allotment - On lot sizes less than 500m2.
    - 65% of the allotment - On lot sizes between 500m2 and 750m2 inclusive”.
    - 60% of the allotment - On lot sizes greater than 750m2.”

    The maximum allowable impermeable surface is 60% for this site. The proponent advises their plans exceed this limit with 75.9% of impervious surfaces. The Deep soil zones are also not adequate to comply with requirements. There is no front deep soil zone and instead of the 2802 m2 of current deep soil the proposed plan only allows for 673.9m2 of permeable surfaces, a mere 24%, falling well short of the required 40%. This is very concerning as a neighbour, I am fully aware that the street consistently suffers from flooding in periods of heavy rain due to the existing stormwater drains in the street being unable to evacuate the water effectively. The depth of this flooding is typically a foot deep and there are a number of homes in the immediate vicinity of this drain at the northern bend of Cypress cres who are threatened with water infiltration on each occasion. We have personally experienced water infiltration into our home a number of times from this stormwater backup problem and council is fully aware as complaints have been directed towards them on numerous occasions. This reduction in permeable surfaces will increase run off and apply increased pressure on our already inadequate storm water capacity.
    DOES NOT COMPLY WITH DEEP SOIL ZONE CONTROLS.
    DOES NOT COMPLY WITH MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS SURFACE LIMITS

    3) Communal Open Space
    “Communal open space is an area within the development for the use of all residents. This can include swimming pools, barbeque areas, landscaped relaxation areas, clothes drying areas or a gym. Generally only larger development with more than 6 dwellings will have communal open space. Communal open space is not to be made up of unusable spaces left over from building siting but rather to be designed to provide a useable and attractive space.
    Analysis of the usability and appropriateness of the communal open space design, location and size relative to the number of persons it services is a requirement for any development application.
    Objectives
    To provide a space where residents can participate in shared activities. • To enhance the lifestyle of residents.
• To be functional and attractive.”

    I have not been able to locate the method of calculation for communal open space requirements. So I shall work off the proponents reported “minimum required” 25%, equating to 700m2 for this site. They claim to have achieved that with 722.21m2. However using the description of what a communal open space is, and with reference to drawing DA1600 in appendix 3 Architectural plans, I fail to see how an entrance path and ensuing internal corridor and some garden beds can claim to fit this description. I believe they have not achieved 25% of actual communal open space.

    DOES NOT COMPLY WITH COMMUNAL OPEN SPACE MINIMUMS

    DESIGN CONTROL 3 – Setbacks
    Front setbacks (building lines)
    Controls
    “On corner sites in new and existing areas the setback along the secondary street (the street to which the dwelling has its secondary frontage) is 3m.
    In established areas Residential Flat Buildings are to be setback from the street boundary by 6m with a variance of up to plus or minus 1m (ie. between 5m to 7m).
    Basement garages cannot be located forward of the building footprint.”
    *Calculation rules:
    “A setback is the distance between a building and a lot boundary. It is the measurement of the horizontal distance between the property boundary (or other stated boundary) measured at 90 degrees from the boundary and:
    - a building wall or load bearing columns used instead of a wall
    - the outside face of any balcony, deck or the like or
    - the supporting posts of a structure or
    - the outer edge of an eaves gutter, 
If either the boundary or the structure is irregular then the shortest distance is the setback distance. 
Setbacks are measured at 90 degrees to the lot boundary and include any articulation to the buildings elevation as well as including roofed or enclosed external living areas. 
This setback is not a minimum or maximum distance from the street but rather the building is to be built along the alignment of the front boundary setback.” 

    According to DA appendix 3 - Architectural plans, drawings DA1201 through to DA1205, that depict floor plans, there are areas along the secondary street frontage where the required 3m setback has not been achieved on multiple storeys. Similarly the 6 m setback has not been achieved on the primary street frontage, (nor the 5m allowed with the variance) also over multiple storeys. In addition the basement garage line extends forward of the building footprint which is expressly in contradiction to the setback control.
    FAILED TO COMPLY WITH SETBACK ON THREE FRONTS

    DESIGN CONTROL 4 - Carparking and Access
    Basement Carparking
    Controls
    “The walls of basement carparks are best located in line with the buildings footprint. Basement carparking is not to extend outside the external line of terraces, balconies and porches.”
    
Not only does the basement carpark extend forward of the building line, but additionally beyond the external line of the terraces, balconies, porches as well, which again is another non compliance.
    FAILED TO COMPLY WITH BASEMENT CARPARKING CONTROL

    Design Control 7 - Building amenity
    Sunlight access
    I find it hard to establish from the few diagrams provided, the actual impact this massive structure will have on sunlight access to neighbouring properties. Undoubtedly, adjacent property at 8 Cypress will be cast in shadow for several hours every afternoon and many of those, 100% direct sunlight deprived. The winter afternoon diagram suggests my property directly opposite the development will suffer 100% sun blockout to our living areas and adjacent outdoor entertaining area for most of our winters afternoons which will severely impact our lifestyle and enjoyment of our home. To this I object. Clearly the Proponent is aware that they are non compliant on this as they have not marked that they Comply with this regulation.

    Before I return to the Tweed DCP B19 document to where we skipped across to follow the relevant section of A1 section Residential and Tourist Code. Let me just add to that Section A1 where we looked at Building Types. The Residential Flat top building(large) is subsequently referred to as Block edge Residential Flat Building, and the DA refers to this point in Appendix 20 page 1. Confirming their non compliance with regards to the maximum building and elevation along the street requiring 35m maximum. They advise they have exceeded this maximum on both street frontages by approximately 35% with 47m of building length. A gross breach and disregard for the building envelope and density required to comply with the code that applies to this parcel of land and the whole purpose of the Development Control Plan for Bogangar/Cabarita Beach Locality
    So now we continue with the Residential Tourist Precinct specifications. (DCP B19)

    B19.15.3 RoofLines
    “Roofs are strong visual elements in residential design.
    Purely functional, flat roofs, with protruding lift over-runs or service plant rooms have little visual interest and do not contribute to the streetscape. Imaginative roof structures are encouraged, to produce a visually interesting skyline while retaining important views from adjoining developments.
    Lift over-runs and service plants should be concealed within well designed roof structures that are integrated with the overall design of the building.
    New development must maintain diversity in the design of roofed areas and avoid the construction of a “monotonous” roofscape. Roofed areas should not adversely impact on neighbouring properties and not detract from the existing roofline character.
    Potential impacts include ancillary structures such as solar heating panels, satellite dishes and kitchen exhaust shafts/cowls; and the intended uses of the area for activities such as viewing platforms and outdoor recreational areas.
    Development, to comply with the goals set by the roof design performance criteria, will:
    Combine roofing elements including gable, flat, hipped and/or curved roof forms.” 

    The roof in the DA proposal does not fit with any of the criteria detailed in this code. It is a basic monotonous flat roof with a slight gradient, precisely the type of roof as recommended to be avoided.
    TLEP2014 5.6 Architectural roof features states the objective in this clause to “promote architectural merit and visual interest”.

    Again I believe the roof, not being visual at all fails to meet the outlined objectives.
    DOES NOT COMPLY WITH ROOFLINE CRITERIA

    The final points I shall address in this DCP B19 are:

    B19.16.1 BuildingHeight
    All buildings are governed by the maximum building height limits set under Tweed LEP 2000*. All proposed developments must comply with:-
    The building envelope controls contained in this section of the DCP.
    The maximum height limits imposed under Tweed LEP 2000. 

    (*The current TLEP 2014 replaces TLEP 2000 and its reference is yet to be updated here)
    Let it be noted that this section states notwithstanding the maximum height limits imposed by the TLEP 2014, all proposed developments MUST comply with the building envelope controls contained in this DCP, being Tweed DCP B19 and Section A1-Residential Tourist Code.
    B19.16.3 BuildingEnvelopeObjectives 
“The objectives of the building envelope control are to:
    Ensure the maximum building height provisions for the area are observed.
    Ensure that building setbacks to property boundaries increase relative to any increase in building height.
    Minimise the visual and physical impact and apparent bulk of buildings on adjoining developments and public streets and spaces.
    Facilitate adequate sunlight access to and minimise shadow impact on adjoining properties and public streets and spaces.”

    The building envelope control standards for the precinct in question are clearly defined in the above objectives. It is clear they have failed to comply with these objectives
    
B19.16.4 MaximumBuildingHeight 
“The height and scale of development within the study area is generally limited to three storeys. To maintain the character and amenity of the region it is encouraged that these height limits continue. FAILS TO COMPLY
    
New development should minimise the visual and physical impact and apparent bulk that it has on adjoining development and public streets and spaces. New development should also not detrimentally impact on identified important view corridors. FAILS TO COMPLY
    
Development, to comply with the goals set by the building height performance criteria, will measure the height in relation to a building to the uppermost ceiling or top plate of the highest external wall in accordance with provisions of the Tweed Local Environmental Plan.” FAILS TO COMPLY

    As I come towards the end of my submission I would like to touch on traffic and pedestrian safety, and express my concern on this front. I refer to the Traffic Impact Statement as submitted (Appendix 11) Page 13. I don’t accept the notional calculations relating to vehicle trips based on Peak Hour demands.

    The comparison being made here infers existing 23 campsites and 10 car parks being replaced by a proposed 23 apartments of 3+ to 4+ bedrooms and 45 carparks will result in only minimal increase in vehicles per hour. Statistically this comparison should show an increase of at least double if not triple the movements as a conservative estimate. This is a significant increase in traffic. for a quiet residential street and the impact on local residents should not be underestimated.

    In addition to this Cypress Cres is a popular pedestrian thoroughfare and major pedestrian access point to the beach for surfers, fishermen, families and children. It is also the point where the northern bicycleway ends and commences sharing the roadways with local traffic. Increasing the vehicular traffic to the vicinity is a real danger to this pedestrian activity.

    It should also be noted that exit onto Tweed Coast Road from Cypress Crescent is often hindered by parked vehicles on Tweed Coast road that block line of sight of northbound traffic, resulting in exiting vehicles having to drive beyond the confines of Cypress onto the Tweed coast road in order to see oncoming traffic from the south thereby encroaching into the lane of traffic from the north. Combine this with the speed transition of the 50/80kmh and now additional vehicular moment and it is a recipe for disaster. I disagree with the proponents statement that “no further operational assessment is considered to be warranted”.

    In summary, there are a multitude of non compliance issues associated with this DA and I strongly object to the proposal going ahead in its current form. I also believe there are many other possible short comings in terms of meeting control criteria in areas I have not addressed where the proponent has been unable to report that the development complies and has instead suggested “generally complies” .Due to time constraints I have been unable to investigate these.

  14. Judy Wagner commented

    I object to this development on the following grounds.

    1. It breaks the existing height limitation of 3-storeys, and would set a precedent if that limit was exceeded.

    2. It borders Cudgen Nature Reserve, which is already under threat from development.

    3. When I moved here 25 years ago, koalas and wallabies were regularly seen in Cudgen Nature Reserve, along Tweed Coast Rd. Not so any more. Tweed Shire Council has been enthusiastic in its support of the Tweed Koala population. Proceeding with this development would be hypocritical.

    4. TSC used to be committed to its Tweed Villages policy, whereby it supported the maintenance of the integrity of each individual Tweed village. I would hate to see Bogangar Cabarita Beach’s village atmosphere further eroded by this development.

    5. It’s right at the northern entrance to the village , and would give the wrong impression of what our village means to us and the Tweed coast in general.

    Thank you for rejecting this application for development.

  15. Michelle Mac Anally commented

    Development Application DA21/0517
    Lot 26 DP1253093 2-6 Tweed Coast Rd, Cabarita Beach NSW 2488
    This is an objection to the construction of a 4-storey residential unit building on the following grounds:
    1. Contravenes height restrictions
    2. Contravenes floor space ratio
    3. Contravenes roofline criteria
    4. Contravenes Deep Soil Zone controls
    5. Contravenes Communal Open Space minimums
    6. Contravenes Basement Carparking control
    7. Contradicts objectives for this site under Tweed Development Control Plan 2008
    8. Fails to comply with TLEP 2014 over ruling document
    9. Does not comply with preferred outcomes for this site
    10. Negatively affects Cypress Ave properties
    In addition, the extra traffic & noise from this proposed development and the changed aesthetic would alter the much loved coastal village aspect that us locals love and strive to preserve.

  16. Wayne Meredith and Leanne Cook commented

    Development Application DA21/0517 – demolition of existing structures, construction of a four storey residential flat building with basement carpark, swimming pool and landscaping on Lot 26 DP1253093, 2-6 Tweed Coast Road, Cabarita Beach.

    The following is an objection to the above mentioned Development Application on behalf of Wayne Meredith and Leanne Cook.
    We object to the fact that this appears to be a block of land with zoning that is not compatible with its surroundings. It would appear that this site has commercial zoning but is to be built as a residential flat building in a residential neighbourhood. Further to this the normal regulations regarding residential flat buildings are not being observed.
    Also we believe that the development is not in character with the existing structures in the neighbourhood, and does not conform to TLEP 2014-section A1 Part C. The entire point of a Bogangar/Cabarita Beach Locality Plan was to preserve the "unique coastal village" character, which seems to be ignored and overruled by whole of Tweed regulations.
    The non-compliances relate to impermeable site area, building mass including street frontages and building height in relation to residential flat buildings.
    Approval of this development, as proposed, would set a precedent for future residential unit developments, subsequently undermining the unique character of the village.
    The addition of 20, 3 and 4 bedroom units would increase traffic flow from Tweed Coast Road into Cypress Crescent, creating a serious safety concern for both pedestrians and cyclists using the existing cycle path. The traffic would also have to contend with a reduction in speed from 80 km/h to 50 km/h within a short section of road leading to the entrance to Cypress Crescent.
    Cypress Crescent currently has a beach access on both the north and south ends of the street. These points of access are used by large volumes of pedestrians who will be placed at greater risk.
    The development currently has a limit of 2 carparks per unit and limited visitor parking, meaning that overflow is inevitable. On street parking is already at saturation point and the addition of a further demand for car parking will increase congestion, adding danger for pedestrians and vehicle traffic.
    We understand development is inevitable however, we would like to see stronger adherence to the Bogangar/Cabarita Beach Locality Plan. The proposed development is not congruent with the character of the village and the existing street scape. But more importantly presents unacceptable safety risks.

  17. Anna and Dan Hurst commented

    We're writing with regards to Development Application DA21/0517 – demolition of existing structures, construction of a four storey residential flat building with basement carpark, swimming pool and landscaping on Lot 26 DP1253093, 2-6 Tweed Coast Road, Cabarita Beach.

    We strongly oppose this proposal for the following reasons:

    1. It breaks the existing three storey height on dwellings and is against the existing character of Cabarita which is essentially a laidback seaside village. It’s a popular weekend destination for people seeking natural beauty and much like Brunswick Heads it’s an alternative to built up places like the Gold and Sunshine Coast. Whoever wants to sit on a beach and look at buildings can do so at many other places, why spoil Cabarita?

    2. Any development in Cabarita should reflect the existing character of the area. Once the height change/development is approved it will change Cabarita forever as further inappropriate development will be hard to challenge.

    3. The land is adjacent to natural land and home protected natural fauna and flora. We all have a responsibility to look after this land and the local wildlife. Why must we always put people and money first, it’s greedy and short sighted.

    4. Having such a building at the entrance to Cabarita Beach will create even more congestion in the traffic flow. The township is already a parking lot on weekends. Having a development of this size at the entrance to the village will exacerbate the situation further.

    5. Families are seeking affordable places to holiday in a natural environment and Cabarita would benefit from an updated campground/ caravan park aimed at this market. The previous campground would have benefited immensely from upgraded facilities and perhaps a few more shade trees. The impact on the land would be minimal and many more people could experience an inexpensive holiday at Cabarita rather than the fortunate few who can afford the price tag of an apartment with beach access/views.

    We strongly urge council to not approve this development.

  18. Tim Smerd commented

    I am opposed to this proposed development for the following reasons:-
    * Located at the northern entry to village, it would be an ugly eyesore.
    * It exceeds existing height regulations.
    * It defies existing setback limits.
    * At 23 apartments of 3+ to 4+ bedrooms and 45 carparks, it is an over-density living.
    * It is not in keeping with surrounds.
    * Abuts Cudgen Nature Reserve and so threatens flora and fauna.
    * Increased traffic flow, congestion & hazard.
    * It would set a poor precedent.

    Bogangar is experiencing a shortage of affordable, low-cost housing. This proposed development does nothing to address that. In fact, appears to contradict this obvious, growing need.

    Whilst this is anecdotal: looking at a community, Facebook group called Bogangardians*, opinion is overwhelmingly opposed to this proposal.
    *over: 10,000 members… made up of a broad cross-section of residents, ratepayers, holidaymakers, visitors, friends and those just interested in the village lifestyle.

    Therefore the proposed development is:-
    * Not within regulations
    * Not attractive
    * Not in-keeping with surrounds
    * Not appropriate
    * Not affordable
    * Not needed
    * Not wanted

  19. Chelsea Webb commented

    Development Application DA21/0517
    Lot 26 DP1253093 2-6 Tweed Coast Rd, Cabarita Beach NSW 2488

    I wish to object to the construction of a 4-storey residential unit building on the following grounds.
    In essence the design is wrong. The developers are out of touch (despite their claims) with the majority of people that live here. A 4 storey concrete block is NOT the desired view as you walk back from the beach along Cypress Crescent. Neither is a 3 storey square concrete block as you arrive into Cabarita along Coast road. The photo montage in the glossy brochure suggests that these buildings would look fine outside Belgrade Central Station or on the Gold Coast but it's not a precedent that should be set for Cabarita Beach. In addition...
    1. Contravenes height restrictions
    2. Contravenes floor space ratio
    3. Contravenes roofline criteria
    4. Contravenes Deep Soil Zone controls
    5. Contravenes Communal Open Space minimums
    6. Contravenes Basement Carparking control
    7. Co to comply with TLEP 2014 over ruling document
    8. Fails to comply with TLEP 2014 over ruling document
    9. Does not comply with preferred outcomes for this site
    10. Negatively affects Cypress Ave properties
    Cypress Ave is already packed with traffic on a good beach day- we have had one fatality this year right next to where the development is due - and the car-parking and traffic projections are extremely conservative. We'd ask Urbex to think again and give us something the locals can tolerate, not this over dense money-grab next to the nature reserve.

  20. Beth Meehan commented

    Development Application DA21/0517
    Lot 26 DP1253093 2-6 Tweed Coast Rd, Cabarita Beach NSW 2488

    I wish to object to the above mentioned DA for the following reasons:
    1. Contravenes height restrictions
    2. Contravenes floor space ratio
    3. Contravenes roofline criteria
    4. Contravenes Deep Soil Zone controls
    5. Contravenes Communal Open Space minimums
    6. Contravenes Basement Carparking control
    7. Co to comply with TLEP 2014 over ruling document
    8. Fails to comply with TLEP 2014 over ruling document
    9. Does not comply with preferred outcomes for this site
    Bogangar needs affordable housing so as the locals can afford to stay here. This proposed development would be an eyesore at the entrance to the town which does nothing to ease the housing stress many residents are facing.

  21. Hannah Clarke commented

    DA21/0517- Lot 26 DP1253093, 2-6 Tweed Coast Road, Cabarita Beach.

    We strongly oppose this proposal for the following reasons:

    1. Height- . It’s a popular weekend destination for people seeking natural beauty and much like Brunswick Heads it’s an alternative to built up places like the Gold and Sunshine Coast. Whoever wants to sit on a beach and look at buildings can do so at many other places, why spoil Cabarita?

    2. Character - Any development in Cabarita should reflect the existing character of the area. Once the height change/development is approved it will change Cabarita forever as further inappropriate development will be hard to challenge.

    3. Ecology- The land is adjacent to natural land and home protected natural fauna and flora. We all have a responsibility to look after this land and the local wildlife. Why must we always put people and money first, it’s greedy and short sighted.

    4. Safety - Having such a building at the entrance to Cabarita Beach will create even more congestion in the traffic flow. The township is already a parking lot on weekends. Having a development of this size at the entrance to the village will exacerbate the situation further.

    5. Morality! -Families are seeking affordable places to holiday in a natural environment and Cabarita would benefit from an updated campground/ caravan park aimed at this market. The previous campground would have benefited immensely from upgraded facilities and perhaps a few more shade trees. The impact on the land would be minimal and many more people could experience an inexpensive holiday at Cabarita rather than the fortunate few who can afford the price tag of an apartment with beach access/views.

    We strongly urge council to not approve this development.

  22. wendy meehan commented

    D.A.21/0517 lot26 D.P.1253093 2-6 Tweed Coast Road, Cabarita Beach N.S.W. 2488
    I am strongly opposed to this proposal to this for the following reasons.1..
    It contravenes height ,and floor space as well as the roofline, 2..Is there enough Communal Open Space? 3..There does not seem to be enough Basement Carparking control ,leading to cars clogging nearby streets... 4.. this does not help in any way with affordable housing...5.. Most importunely this should reflect the very character of our small coastal village, but as it will be situated at the very entrance to Bogangar/Cabarita Beach, I think it would be a huge eyesore, and it should not be approved in it's currant form.

  23. Geoff Peck commented

    I oppose the proposal for this development on the following grounds:
    - it exceeds current floor limit for the town (3 floors maximum)
    - it is not aligned with the town character of a small coastal town - the location of the property is the first thing seen by visitors as they enter the town on the main road in from the north.
    - it will add to existing problems of insufficient on-street parking - especially during peak periods of weekends and school holidays
    - it is adjacent to a Nature Reserve and is at odds with this environment.

  1. Have you made a donation or gift to a Councillor or Council employee? You may need to disclose this.

  2. Please use your real full name if possible.

  1. We never display your street address. Why do you need my address?

This week

Find PlanningAlerts useful?

This independent project is run by a local charity, the OpenAustralia Foundation. PlanningAlerts is powered by small, tax-deductible donations from the people who use it to stay informed about changes to their local area. If you find it useful, chip in to support PlanningAlerts.

Back PlanningAlerts