An aged care development in Sydney’s inner west is looming as a key test of the New South Wales government’s plans to rapidly boost the housing supply.
The proposal for seniors housing at Junction Street in Forest Lodge, including a 12-bed aged care facility and 71 independent living units, is being assessed under the state significant development pathway after closing to public submissions in October last year.
But environmental and emergency agencies have warned the flood-prone location poses a serious risk to life.
The state significant pathway, under which the NSW government can fast-track large, expensive or environmentally sensitive developments, bypassing council approvals, has existed since 2005. But the number of projects subject to it has been supercharged by the Minns government as part of efforts to build 377,000 homes in the state by 2029 under the national housing accord.
There are now more than 1,000 state significant applications awaiting determination, from housing, schools and hospitals to datacentres, sewage treatment plants and coalmines.
Whether the planning minister, Paul Scully, approves Junction Street may point to the government’s willingness to override environmental and other concerns in its rush to build more houses.
‘An unacceptable risk to life’
The NSW planning department asked the developer, Corio, to respond to serious concerns about the flood risk by last month, before Scully makes a determination.
In its final letter to the department in February, the Conservation Programs, Heritage and Regulation (CPHR) group, part of the environment department, said it did not support the development, which was in “the most highly flood-constrained location in the area”.
“Design measures cannot adequately mitigate the high flood hazard … [which] would result in an unacceptable risk to life for a seniors living development.”
The NSW State Emergency Services (SES) said the plans introduced “significant risk to life … increasing both the population and vulnerability of people on the site”, which it said had “limited evacuation opportunities”. City of Sydney council has also raised concerns.
Junction Street is eligible for state significant status as its estimated development cost is more than $30m.
The site, which consists of car parks and a former federation-era hat factory that houses Corio’s offices, lies in a basin along a tributary of Johnstons Creek. The council’s flood risk assessment identifies it as storage for flood water under normal conditions and a floodway – a channel for overflowing waters – during a “probable maximum flood” (PMF) event.
The site was rezoned from industrial to mixed use in 2012.
But it is only since Corio began its application in 2024 for a six-storey building for 181 occupants, incorporating the existing structure at an estimated cost of $80m, that more serious concerns have been raised.
The 2022 NSW flood inquiry report, following that year’s “one-in-100-year” event, called for a strategy to minimise the number of people living below the flood planning level amid the likelihood that climate change would mean more dangerous floods.
One resident who lodged an objection described the site and surrounding streets as “one of the lowest parts” of the area, saying the flow of storm water was “ferocious in high rain periods”.
“Is building new high buildings for seniors in flood-prone areas a sensible response to climate change when more intense weather events are expected?” they said.
Corio has asked to increase the floor-to-land space ratio at the site, under a 25% bonus for seniors housing in the NSW planning act.
In its environmental impact statement in August last year, the developer said that during heavy rainfall the adjacent St Johns Road and Larkin Street functioned as “overland flow paths”, directing excess storm water on to the site, making it unsafe for “vehicles, children and elderly persons due to flood depths exceeding 3 metres and velocities above 2 m/s”.
During a PMF event, it said the site would become “completely inaccessible by vehicle”.
“Despite these conditions, the overall existing flood hazard is assessed as moderate and manageable through appropriate design responses.”
Mitigation measures include constructing the residences on top of an “undercroft” car park, which development controls for the site require to be elevated above the level of a one-in-20 year flood. The developer said its proposal complied.
The council said the developer was relying on rainwater modelling from 1987, which has been superseded by 2019 flood risk guidelines, and that the height of the car parks was below the recommended level, while the floor of habitable residences were below the PMF height.
In its response to submissions, the developer argued the use of older models remained “valid”, and that the council’s own flood risk assessment was yet to be updated to reflect newer guidelines.
Under development controls, the developer must provide three pedestrian flood evacuation points. Mark Fukuda-Oddie, another local resident who objected, told Guardian Australia he was concerned about the accessibility of the site, which he described as “at the bottom of the hill”.
“The roadway is about 6 metres wide. The footpaths, particularly on one side, are really bad and the slope and the incline leading up to the area where seniors are meant to evacuate is just not accessible for someone in a walker or a wheelchair.”
In its response to concerns raised by submissions, the developer said that while evacuation was possible during most flooding events, a shelter-in-place approach would be adopted in the event of a PMF, which it said had a “1 in 10,000,000 chance” of occurring.
It said the strategy would not rely on electricity, was “self-directing” and included “access to personal hygiene facilities (eg. toilets)”, stored drinking water and food, and a minimum of 2 sq metres per person above the maximum flood level.
But CPHR and the NSW SES have maintained their opposition, saying the site is unsuitable for sheltering in place or evacuation strategies.
Last week, the NSW planning department organised a meeting between the developer, CPHR, the SES and the council.
A spokesperson for the department said it was working with the developer, council, CPHR and NSW SES “to address flooding issues raised in relation to the proposal”.
“The applicant has indicated it is considering the matters raised and will respond in due course.”
Scully told Guardian Australia “all development proposals go through a full merit-based assessment”.
He said the Minns government had “strengthened the consideration of climate change and natural hazards in the planning system”, including proposed changes to the climate and natural disaster planning policy which closed to consultation in March.
Corio declined to comment.
