The Amendment to SEPP (Seniors Living) 2004 may only amount to a few words, however to developers that had obtained sites adjacent to urban land for developing retirement villages this change amounts to a lot. Amendment No 1 which was gazetted on 16th December 2005 effectively stops the development of serviced self-care housing (a.k.a retirement villages) on land adjoining urban areas. However senior’s hostels and cared facilities on this land are still allowed.

Comments by the Planning Minister attribute the amendment to the numbers of applications to develop large villages on rural land, especially around rural townships, that had been received.

This change effectively makes development of larger villages, especially lifestyle villages, even more difficult. Lifestyle villages are one of the more popular development types as they tap into retirees demand for additional facilities. However lifestyle villages require larger amounts of land and this land is now even harder to obtain.

Cost pressures and site availability have virtually driven lifestyle retirement village developers out of the Sydney basin, now these changes preclude development on fringe areas to existing urban development, either on the metropolitan fringe, coastal areas or inland regional localities.

While the Amendment is designed to prevent “residential by stealth” development on urban fringe areas, especially in less urbanised areas lacking the necessary infrastructure, it also limits the ability of operators with established villages in lifestyle locations to expand onto surrounding land. .

Analysis by Landsburys has revealed a number of larger village projects in non urban areas that are still at the preliminary stage. These developments are spread across localities including the metropolitan fringe, the coastal areas and inland towns. The developers of these include some recognised industry operators plus a number of less familiar names.

Some of this flurry of applications can be attributed to developers anticipating the legislation as under the transitional arrangements applications lodged but not determined are still to be assessed under the earlier legislation. Several of these proposals could be considered to be of the speculative type that the Amendment is intended to prevent. Certainly a number were noted around country towns, which if fully developed, would have overloaded the existing medical, retail and social facilities. However this situation would mitigate against their financial feasibility which would preclude development faster than any change in legislation.

Any legislative changes have a “shotgun” effect and this Amendment is no exception. It will prevent village developments in inappropriate localities; however retirement village development and operation is not a simple business and these changes make it even less so.