A proposed seniors housing development in Sydney’s inner west has become a focal point in the debate over the New South Wales government’s aggressive strategy to increase housing supply. The project at Junction Street in Forest Lodge is currently under assessment through a fast-track planning process.
The proposal by Corio Developments includes a 12-bed aged care facility and 71 independent living units. The six-storey building is designed for 181 occupants and has an estimated cost of $80 million.
Fast-Tracking Housing Targets
The project is being assessed via the state significant development pathway, a process existing since 2005 that allows the government to bypass council approvals for large or expensive projects. This pathway has been heavily utilized by the Minns government to meet a target of 377,000 new homes by 2029 under the national housing accord.
There are currently more than 1,000 state significant applications awaiting determination. These range from housing and schools to coalmines and data centres.
Warnings of ‘Unacceptable Risk’
Despite the push for housing, environmental and emergency agencies have issued stark warnings. The Conservation Programs, Heritage and Regulation (CPHR) group stated the site is the “most highly flood-constrained location in the area.”
The CPHR warned that design measures cannot adequately mitigate the high flood hazard, which could result in an “unacceptable risk to life” for seniors. Similarly, the NSW State Emergency Service (SES) noted that the plan increases the vulnerability of the population on a site with limited evacuation opportunities.
The site sits in a basin along a tributary of Johnstons Creek. According to the City of Sydney council, the area acts as storage for flood water and a floodway during a “probable maximum flood” (PMF) event.
The Dispute Over Safety Models
Corio Developments argues that the flood hazard is manageable. Their plan involves building residences on top of an “undercroft” car park elevated above a one-in-20 year flood level.
But, the City of Sydney council claims the developer is relying on rainwater modelling from 1987, which has been superseded by 2019 guidelines. The council asserts that the car park height is below recommended levels and habitable floors remain below the PMF height.
For extreme events, the developer proposed a “shelter-in-place” strategy, citing a “1 in 10,000,000 chance” of a PMF occurring. This plan includes stored food, water, and hygiene facilities, though both the SES and CPHR maintain the site is unsuitable for such a strategy.
What Happens Next
The final determination now rests with Planning Minister Paul Scully. A recent meeting was organized by the planning department between the developer, the council, the SES, and the CPHR to address these flooding concerns.
The outcome of this decision may indicate the government’s willingness to override environmental warnings to meet housing quotas. A possible next step involves the developer responding to the issues raised during these consultations before a final ruling is made.
Minister Scully has stated that all proposals undergo a full merit-based assessment and that the government has strengthened the consideration of natural hazards in the planning system.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the state significant development pathway?
It is a process that has existed since 2005 allowing the NSW government to fast-track large, expensive, or environmentally sensitive developments by bypassing local council approvals.
Why are emergency agencies opposing the Forest Lodge project?
The NSW SES and CPHR argue the site is highly flood-constrained and poses a significant risk to life, noting that limited evacuation opportunities craft it unsuitable for a seniors living development.
What is the developer’s plan for a “probable maximum flood”?
The developer proposed a “shelter-in-place” approach that does not rely on electricity and includes stored drinking water, food, hygiene facilities, and at least 2 square metres of space per person above the maximum flood level.
Do you believe housing targets should accept precedence over local environmental risk assessments?
