Caleb Bond: Life Care’s decision to shelve aged care developments victory for common sense

AN aged-care provider’s decision to scrap plans for three suburban high-rise developments was a victory for common sense, writes Caleb Bond.

• Got a question about aged care? Put it to the experts here
• Caleb Bond: Adelaide risks its beauty by building monstrosities
• Life Care scraps proposal to upgrade three aged-care facilities
• Fury as Life Care’s project upgrade applications bypass council
• Fight is on to stop high-rise retirement villages in the east

MONDAY’S decision by aged-care provider Life Care to scrap plans for three suburban high-rise developments was a victory for common sense.

It’s an embarrassing blow to Planning Minister John Rau — his grand plans to make development in Adelaide’s suburbs easier having blown up in his face.

When it comes to development — particularly in the suburbs — people give a damn. They feel an emotional connection to their home and, by extension, their suburb.

They want to preserve a feeling or way of life they bought into. So when a developer rolls in with millions of dollars and wants to put up a nine-storey nursing home on your street, people naturally arc up.

The developments across Joslin, Norwood and Glen Osmond were to be worth a combined $250 million. Residents opposite Life Care’s Portrush Rd home at Glen Osmond were originally faced with a nine-storey building. People in First Ave, Joslin, were going to have a seven-storey home go up behind them.

The proposals spawned two community groups — Caring about Joslin and Play Fair Life Care — to protest against the impending towers on their streets.

They letterboxed thousands of people, held public meetings and drummed up media coverage. The message was clear — we’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take this any more.

Their campaign wasn’t without hiccups.

Life Care CEO Allen Candy at the Joslin aged care centre the company wants to redevelop. Picture: Campbell Brodie

In an ironic twist, Joslin resident Peter Holmes was told by Norwood, Payneham & St Peters Council that he had to take down an “inflammatory and insulting” sign from his front yard — that read “No High Rise for Joslin” — because it required development approval. Yet the $75 million nursing home planned to go up behind him was set to sail through. Go figure.

This has turned into a David and Goliath battle — local residents taking on the State Government, which has slowly changed development laws. And for the moment, they appear to be winning.

The government has systematically ripped the guts out of councils’ powers to assess developments. In 2014, it changed planning laws to allow developments worth more than $3 million — deemed to be of economic significance to the state — to go before the government’s own assessment panel, completely bypassing the existing council procedures.

This has caused angst over a great many developments local residents have objected to, from service stations to shopping centres.

Someone in the Planning Department writes up a report, decides whether the development needs to go to public consultation (which it often doesn’t) and sends it down to the State Commission Assessment Panel for a verdict.

This assessment panel — which has approved 98 per cent of applications in the past five years behind closed doors — is awash with former public servants and board members, hand-picked by Mr Rau.

One of the two planned Life Care developments at Joslin.

The panel of seven includes Prospect Mayor and failed Labor candidate for Adelaide, David O’Loughlin, and Simone Fogarty, who was the Planning Department’s policy director under the Rann government.

In the case of Life Care’s developments, it didn’t even have to go before a panel. The government this year created new rules that meant any aged-care development worth $20 million or more could literally be sent straight to Mr Rau’s desk for approval.

Life Care chief executive Allen Candy recently told a parliamentary committee that he lobbied Mr Rau for the expedited aged-care rules in order to bypass existing approval laws.

All these new development laws were designed by Mr Rau to improve suburbs. But residents have instead told him to jam it. The rules designed to make his job easier have made it so much harder.

It’s not that people are opposed to development. They want sensible development. People are fiercely protective of their homes and when they feel under threat, they fight.

Suburban development should be encouraged — but sensibly. If Mr Rau continues on his path to stripping the community of any say over developments, he will be hit by an almighty backlash. Monday was only the beginning.