A North Shore council has objected to expansion plans for a retirement village on the edge of Sydney’s Garigal National Park, saying it cannot be held responsible for loss of life or property because of bushfires.
In a scathing submission to the Sydney North Planning Panel, Ku-ring-gai Council 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”.
Ku-ring-gai has objected to zoning amendments to its 2015 Local Environmental Plan, sought by Sydney-based developer Levande—owner and operator of 58 retirement villages across Australia.
Levande has applied to double the size of the Lourdes Retirement Village, 15km north of Sydney’s centre.
The zoning amendment request, filed in 2018, has now become claim and counter-claim over the risk and severity of bushfires, how to guard against them, and protecting vulnerable populations.
The then-owner of the 5.2ha retirement village, publicly listed developer Stockland, wanted to rezone the site from low-density residential to R3 medium-density residential and increase the number of residents.
Stockland sought to amend building heights to up to six storeys, or 22m—more than double what the council’s planning controls allow—as well as changes to floor-space ratio.
Ku-ring-gai refused the planning proposal and in July of 2018 Stockland requested a review from the Sydney North Planning Panel. Again, the council objected, but in November the proposal was sent for Gateway Determination.
The issue was further complicated earlier last year when Stockland agreed to sell its retirement living business to Swedish investor EQT Infrastructure for $987 million, rebranding the assets as Levande.
In August last year the planning proposal was publicly exhibited for a month.
“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 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.”
Ku-ring-gai officers said if the site was a greenfield site in today’s environment, with climate change and the risk of more frequent and intense fire events, it would not be deemed suitable for seniors housing.
“This precedent will likely undermine this council’s exemplary work in bushfire protection measures continuing to be embedded in the planning system, which other council areas look to model,” Ku-ring-gai wrote.
Levande’s plans represent a $100-million upgrade of the 40-year-old retirement home.
There would be a series of buildings—ranging from three to six storeys—comprising 141 independent living units, a new aged-care facility with 110 beds, and at least 63 townhouses.
The facility would get a new road network and about 1400sq m will be given over to internal communal space.
Consultants File Planning and Development Services told the planning panel the existing housing was dated, had limited accessibility with much of the housing without lift access, and street and pathway gradients which provided poor pedestrian connectivity.
“To ensure the long-term viability of the village, respond to demand and to continue to attract residents a major renewal of the housing and infrastructure is required,” File Planning wrote.
Lourdes Retirement Home is largely surrounded by bushland and sits next to the south-western-most corner of the 2202-hectare Garigal National Park, popular with bushwalkers and mountain bike riders.
The site is identified as “bushfire-prone land.”
In a report for Levande, Corey Shackleton of Black Ash Bushfire Consulting concluded “the site is suitable for redevelopment and has the capability to provide appropriate bushfire protection measures”.
“The detailed design and compliance issues must be addressed through any future development and associated development application approval process,” Shackleton wrote.
But Ku-ring-gai commissioned its own bushfire peer review, which identified “serious failings” within the exhibited planning proposal.
“No full bushfire risk assessment is provided, the bushfire risk is significantly underplayed and the proposal relies on a technical solution which does not address firefighter and occupant safety, the detail of which is uncertain and unimplementable within future planning stages,” Catherine Ryland, of consultants CR Bushfire, said.
In a brief, three-page submission to the planning panel, the New South Wales Rural Fire Service said it could not comment on the zoning change without additional information.
“Further analysis will need to be undertaken to determine the maximum number of occupants that could be on-site and the adequacy/appropriateness of roadways for emergency egress and fire brigade access given reasonable worst-case bush fire scenarios,” the service’s manager of development planning and policy David Boverman said.
“Concerns associated with firefighting water supplies will need to be addressed as part of more detailed design development and approvals as water supplies are considered an engineering issue,” Boverman said.
“Noting failure to address water supply issues appropriately and adequately would be expected to preclude subsequent consents and approvals.”
The proposal remains with the Sydney North Planning Panel, and all parties will have to wait for a decision.
But for its part, and in written answers to questions by The Urban Developer, Levande said its proposal acknowledged concerns about the nearby bushland.
“This is why the proposal seeks to reduce the footprint of the retirement village away from the bushland, while retaining it as a use onsite and still resolving the existing accessibility issues for residents,” a spokesperson for Levande said.
“We believe that the planning proposal balances the need for improved long-term safety on the site for seniors’ housing, while also maintaining the importance of well-designed seniors’ housing and aged care that meets the needs of the surrounding community.”
