Pathways Residences, please do not build seniors units on our playfields at Lane Cove

image of Pathways Residences, please do not build seniors units on our playfields at Lane Cove

The Lane Cove Council (LCC) and Pathways Residences (PR), propose to build a 7 storey, 90 unit seniors complex on the recreation play fields at 266 Longueville Rd. These playfields with beautiful views of North Sydney skyline, have been enjoyed by the local primary school and neighbourhood for recreation and sporting activities. The proposal is unnecessary, has been rejected by various authorities and is strongly opposed by the public, but has progressed in a highly questionable manner driven by a $32M profit to LCC.

The proposal was first rejected by Commissioner Eric Armstrong at the public hearing (Mar 2014) for ...

The Lane Cove Council (LCC) and Pathways Residences (PR), propose to build a 7 storey, 90 unit seniors complex on the recreation play fields at 266 Longueville Rd. These playfields with beautiful views of North Sydney skyline, have been enjoyed by the local primary school and neighbourhood for recreation and sporting activities. The proposal is unnecessary, has been rejected by various authorities and is strongly opposed by the public, but has progressed in a highly questionable manner driven by a $32M profit to LCC.

The proposal was first rejected by Commissioner Eric Armstrong at the public hearing (Mar 2014) for re-zoning the land. Within a week of the report, 6 Liberal councillors who held a majority at the time, voted to ignore its recommendations, shutdown the public hearing process and proceeded to re-zone the land.

In Nov 2016, Lane Cove Council signed a lease with Australian Unity (AU), where payment of $32M is made ONLY on DA approval, where LCC is the assessing authority and Sydney North Planning Panel (SNPP) the consent authority. Australian Unity takes no risk until whatever DA they present is approved; and had an inherent leverage of $32M over LCC to gain approval.

In July 2017 AU lodges a grossly incompatible DA. The proposal was rejected by the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) based on safety and traffic efficiency issues (1/11/ 2017) and then by Rural Fire Services (RFS) due to lack of asset protection zones required for bushfire prone land.

In May 2020, the Sydney North Planning Panel (SNPP) rejected the Australian Unity DA by issuing a Site Compatibility Certificate (SCC) which imposed a height compatibility clause which deemed the DA incompatible. AU then backs out and does not seek SNPP consent jeopardizing the $32m profits to Lane Cove. It states,

"Effectively, this determination is tantamount to a refusal or a total redesign, potentially rendering the project non-viable.”

Planning integrity had prevailed. The unviable proposal scrapped, protecting the surrounding 46 families and conservation zone.

With $32M in jeopardy, the LCC Executive Manager Environmental Services resigns and is immediately appointed by LCC to the SNPP, the very body that had just rejected the DA. Shortly after Australian Unity reapplies for the SCC with the very same DA. Despite LCC's previous documented concerns of bulk and scale, it states that,

“Council supports the amendment proposal and raises no objection to the issue of an amended SCC, which should include deletion of 1(a), 1(b) and 1c and any other amendments to facilitate the development as proposed." (where 1(a), 1(b) and 1c are the height compatibility clauses).

In an alarming manner, the SNPP revoked their SCC of May 2020 that rejected this very DA, and proceeded to give consent (6/9/2021).

Compatibility is well understood by the SNPP, Planning NSW and LCC, because they specified it in their own SCC (May 2020), SCC assessment report and DCP respectively. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that all 3 parties in full knowledge, colluded to approve an incompatible DA, to enable LCC to profit $32M in a context where the public has no right of Merit appeal on SNPP determinations. In such a context it is paramount that the public have confidence in the integrity of the panel. Furthermore, when there is evidence that suggests compromise, it is held accountable through a public enquiry.

On the 16/5/2022, Australian Unity was 8 months in default and in dispute with LCC for reasons concealed from the public. Council notifies the public that the lease had been assigned to Longueville The Village Pty Ltd (associated with Pathways Residences), a private company registered 6 weeks earlier, and the payment made. A $32m transaction concealed from the public till after the event, with no vendor selection/ tender process, independent due diligence, council resolution or specific delegated authority to the council executive manager to sign.

At every stage of this proposal, the community gave a clear unanimous message opposing the sale of these play fields to build units; with over 1300 formal submissions (refer to “Public Opposition” on menu).

This proposal to house 250 seniors in a 7 storey building on high inclined highly contaminated land which is, rejected by the RMS and RFSs, with devastating impact to the surrounding environment is purely driven by profiteering, and lacks social conscience and due care for its future residents and surrounding families.

Please join us save these play fields for posterity, protect the 46 adjacent families; and call out unjust collusion and corporate / council greed. There is no rationale for building a grossly non-compliant and redundant seniors development on scarce recreation land, with devastating impact to the amenity of the area and the surrounding residents.

There are two separate actions which will be presented to you in sequence

Submission to Chairman of SNPP and Ministers of planning to have the new DA modification go through a full and unfettered DA application process (action shown on this page).
Sign petition to the Governor NSW, to setup a Public Inquiry into unjust determinations by the SNPP, collusion between the SNPP and LCC to realise a $32M profit, and the concealed assignment of the lease from AU to Pathways Residences. (action 2 will be presented to you on completion of action 1, or you may access it directly by selecting option "Compromised SNPP" from the menu).

P.S. Please refer to Timeline page (from the menu) for more details on the sequence of events.

The SNPP SCC assessment reports and addendum can be accessed at https://www.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/site-compatibility-certificates/application-site-compatibility-certificate-266-longueville-road

The SNPP DA consent documents may be viewed at https://www.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/planning-panel/seniors-housing-development-3.

+

Request for new DA to be addressed through full DA assessment process

127 emails sent

This action requests for the new DA by Pathways Residences, to be assessed through the full DA approval process because it does not satisfy the "is substantially the same development" test under s4.55(2) (a) for the following reasons.

SEPP 2021 section 87.2.(b) refers to additional floor space ratios (FSR) permitted for seniors living. This additional FSR permitted depends on the type of living, i.e. independent, residential care or a mixed. Removal of all 80 aged care beds and other supporting facilities, is therefore a significant change that even defines the permitted FSR. It cannot be substantially the same development.
Addition of a new level & configuration all other 7 levels changed
Addition of 10 new apartments, from 82 (over 10% increase).
Change in built form and increase in balconies overlooking backyards of single dwelling properties.
Site Compatibility Certificates (SCC) are non-transferable, and therefore the new applicant's new planning statement should be assessed for site compatibility and use of land, and issued a new SCC prior to being assessed for a DA.

The modification impacts every aspect of the developement, including traffic, accoustic, privacy and the emenity of the area.

Where do you live?

Compose your email

Name

Email

Subject:

to Chairman of SNPP Peter Debnam, Minister of Planning Anthony Roberts and Shadow Minister of Planning Paul Scully

I ask that the new DA presented by Longueville- The Village Pty Ltd (Pathways Residences) is not accepted as a modification and is taken through a full rigorous DA assessment, as it does not satisfy the "is substantially the same development" test under s4.55(2) (a) for the following reasons.

- SEPP 2021 section 87.2.(b) refers to additional floor space ratios (FSR) permitted for seniors living. This additional FSR permitted depends on the type of living, i.e. independent, residential care or a mixed. Removal of all 80 aged care beds and other supporting facilities, is therefore a significant change that even defines the permitted FSR. It cannot be substantially the same development.
- Addition of a new level and reconfiguration of all other 7 levels.
- Addition of 10 new apartments, from 82  to 92 (over 10% increase).
- Increase of car spaces by 50% from 121 to 180.
- Addition of swimming pool and auditorium which may contravene use of land constraints.
- Change in built form and increase in balconies overlooking backyards of single dwelling properties.
- Site Compatibility Certificates (SCC) are non-transferable, and therefore the new planning statements for the new applicant should be assessed for site compatibility and use of land.

The modification impacts every aspect of the development including traffic, acoustic, privacy, FSR, building height and the amenity of the area. Therefore it cannot be considered substantially the same development.

I ask that the panel / council seeks an independent legal opinion on this matter prior to making a determination.

Furthermore, in view of the highly questionable manner in which the existing DA gained consent; where the SNPP rejected it in May 2020 by issuing an SCC which imposed a height compatibility clause that deemed this DA rejected; which it then revoked when Australian Unity (AU) decided to back out and not seek consent; jeopardising a $32M lease agreement between AU and LCC.

50% of this DA is non-compliant with the built form defined in the DCP and SCC of May 2020. The extent of the gross incompatibility and devastating impact to the surrounding 46 families is documented in the SCC assessment report, and required the SNPP's own SCC to be revoked, before consent could be given.

Furthermore, It has been rejected by the RMS based on safety and traffic efficiency concerns (1/11/2017) and the RFS based on bush fire prone land requiring asset protection zones (4/6/2018).

It is reasonable to assume that the SNPP consent was unjustly based on a $32M benefit to LCC as opposed to planning criteria, in a context where the public has no right of merit appeal.

The Site Compatibility Certificate assessment report states that there are 3 other Seniors developments within 2 km of this site. This will create a gross oversupply of seniors living in Lane Cove. There is a need for open recreation spaces as stated in the Lane Cove Council Open Space and recreation plan. Therefore, there is no justification to build units on open space recreation play fields used by the local primary school and surrounding residents.

I ask that this DA goes through a full unfettered DA acceptance process where the determination is based on the integrity of planning rather than a $32M Lane Cove Council profit, thereby protecting the surrounding families and the environmental conservation zone. This will also help to build back the public confidence in the SNPPs ability to make determinations with integrity.

Finally, it is unacceptable that despite the modification application being lodged in mid October, the council held back the notification until the Christmas holiday period. Furthermore, LCC has a full list of residents who have opposed this proposal throughout its stages and widely across the whole of the LGA, and yet it has only notified a small group of residents that surround the site (approx. 150m from site), thus disenfranchising the Lane Cove residents by attempting to have these approved unnoticed, and preventing access to professional advice.

How we use the data you enter on this form

Do Gooder (the advocacy platform powering this online action) processes personal information from you that you enter on this form so that we can provide the functions and related services to you and The Campaigner (the organisation responsible for this online action) for their legitimate purposes, including possibly exporting it to other systems, and to effectively respond to enquiries and communications related to those services.

Specifically when you enter:

Your location data (residential address or postcode) it is used to locate your elected representative, to pre-populate your email signature and to provide The Campaigner with a visualisation of the location of the support for this campaign.
All other data you may enter, including your email address, name, telephone number, commentary and so on is used by The Campaigner to advocate for the campaign’s goals and where required may be sent to the target of the campaign.

The data collected by Do Gooder is also used by us in aggregate form to improve the service and may be held on your behalf outside your country of residence by our third party service providers. These providers are bound by contract to only use personal information on our behalf, in accordance with agreed terms. While the privacy laws of the country in which personal information is stored or transferred may be different from those in your country, we will always have safeguards in place when storing or transferring personal information. We will never sell, rent, loan or in any other way pass your information on to other parties other than to provide this service to you and The Campaigner.

The personal information collected by Do Gooder is held subject to a Data Processing Agreement between Do Gooder and The Campaigner in compliance with the EU's GDPR and Australian law.

Learn more about our privacy policy here

How is my data used?