An independent planning panel has reversed a decision that would have allowed expansion of a retirement village on the edge of Sydney’s Garigal National Park, citing what it termed “unresolved bushfire risks”.
In a unanimous decision, a five-person strategic planning panel voted not to proceed with the proposal, which sought to double the size of the Lourdes Retirement Village, 15km north of Sydney’s centre.
The decision was described as deeply disappointing by the village operator, Levande.
The strategy group—part of the Sydney North Planning Panel—said there were key issues with the planning proposal that had been raised in 59 submissions from the neighbouring community.
“In particular, bushfire risks and density distribution, which remain unresolved, and the panel was not convinced that the solution for fire risk provided by the proponent was appropriate for a Special Fire Protection Facility (SFPF),” the panel wrote in its decision.
The panel will ask the NSW planning minister’s delegate “to determine the matter not proceed”.
Further, an “alteration” will be sent to the Department of Planning and Environment asking that a November, 2018 decision approving Gateway Determination be reversed.
Sydney-based retirement living providers Levande—owner and operator of 58 retirement villages across Australia—had wanted to double the size of the Lourdes Retirement Village, Killara.
Levande’s plans called for a $100-million upgrade of the 40-year-old facility. A series of buildings—ranging from three to six storeys—would include 141 independent living units, a new aged-care facility with 110 beds, and at least 63 townhouses as part of a purely residential development.
The facility would gain a new road network and about 1400sq m would be given over to internal communal space.
But Ku-ring-gai Council refused a planning proposal for the expansion plans, saying it could not be held responsible for loss of life or property because of bushfires.
Lourdes Retirement Home is largely surrounded by bushland and sits next to the south-western-most corner of the 2202ha Garigal National Park, popular with bushwalkers and mountain bike riders.
In a scathing submission to the Sydney North Planning Panel in July, Ku-ring-gai planning officers said the proposal failed to show how it would protect the increased population in the development—including vulnerable elderly—in “an environment of changing climate patterns and the expected increased incidence and severity of fire-related events”.
“This council does not want to be held in any way responsible in the event of a bushfire-related incident and any resulting coronial inquest on (the) increase of population at 95-97 Stanhope Road, Killara,” Ku-ring-gai then wrote in a further submission to the planning panel a month later.
“Nor for any loss of life or property elsewhere in the LGA that results from the setting of precedent through the approval of this planning proposal.”
The site is identified as “bushfire prone land”.
In last month’s decision the planning panel voiced similar concerns.
“There was uncertainty as to whether the mitigation of bushfire risks is at an acceptable level given the SFPF, the ‘human’ reaction to fire, and the likely age and fragility of residents,” the panel wrote of its decision.
However, the panel has left the door open for further modifications to Levande’s plans.
“The panel noted a consensus among meeting participants that the Lourdes Retirement Village provided a valuable community service but was in need of redevelopment,” it said.
“However, there was no consensus on the scale and form of any redevelopment.”
It suggested changes to the post-exhibition planning proposal, which it said “may significantly improve a planning outcome for the site”.
Those suggestions included the removal of a narrow environmental conservation zone—replacing it with a so-called Asset Protection Zone (APZ), altering the position of townhouses to provide better fire protection, and repositioning the density and height to achieve a better transition to neighbours to the west of the development.
Levande said the decision was “deeply disappointing”.
“We believe the village, which was built in the 1980s, is overdue for renewal,” a spokesperson said.
“Our proposal provided for every current resident to receive, free of charge, a new apartment, purpose-built for the specific needs of today’s retirees.
“We’ll take some time to examine the panel’s determination in detail before commenting further.”
