Prospect retirement village approved despite concerns

An artist’s view of the proposed Reed Estate, a new gated retirement village adjacent to Tyler Village in Prospect Vale. Drawing supplied by Respect Group Ltd

Sharon Webb

A $15m gated retirement village planned as an expansion to Tyler Village in Prospect Vale has been approved by Meander Valley Council.

The 64 home independent living estate proposed by Respect Group Ltd will be named the Reed Estate and located at 320 and 334 Westbury Road in the general residential zone.

Respect intends to develop the estate over three years, 18 homes and a community centre in the first year, 21 homes in the second year and 25 homes in the third year.

But a councillor has described the not-for-profit Respect organisation as being ‘greedy’ after they would not reduce the number of homes to 60.

Instead, Respect intends squeezing in the other four units by removing a privacy creating stand of trees on Tyler Village land, using an electricity infrastructure easement and encroaching onto a roadway they don’t own.

As has become common on planning applications at Meander Valley Council, the vote on the Reed Estate application was six to three, carried with Cllrs Bower, Cameron, Johnston, Kelly, King and Sherriff voting in favour, and Councillors Nott, Synfield and Temple voting against it.

Cllr Nott, who likes the plan’s concept, said, ‘I thought it was a bit greedy in the end. The proponents told the council meeting they weren’t prepared to lose any units in consideration of the neighbours.’

Cllr John Temple believes a lower density development would have been a better outcome.

‘With developments generally there’s too much push for maximum benefit of the developer and less consideration of neighbouring residents’, he said.

Neighbours in nearby Trafalgar Drive, while supporting the overall project, objected to removal of the trees and voiced concerns about the effects of increased traffic generated by residents of the 64 homes.

Cllrs Susie Bower and Stephanie Cameron said they were sympathetic to neighbours’ concerns but voted for the application because they were satisfied it complied with the planning scheme.

Neighbours David and Judy Wyness commented that the Westbury Road traffic survey used in the planning was from 2014.

‘Since this survey we have seen the incorporation of two new roundabouts plus the existing Casino Drive roundabout. New developments for Hadspen, the Blackstone Heights major development and the planning of the Casino retirement village will surely increase traffic flows on Westbury Road’, they wrote.

Cllr Nott, the only councillor who lives at the Prospect Vale end of the municipality, said he also believes not enough thought was given to increased traffic on Bimbimbi Avenue.

But Meander Valley Council planner Leanne Rabjohns responded that based on the expected growth of the area, the major road network will continue to operate at a reasonable level of service for at least 10 years.

‘Following recent discussion with the council concerning development in Blackstone Heights and Prospect Vale, council officers will be reviewing the broader traffic network and levels of service moving forward’, she wrote.

She said the development is considered to have a negligible impact on the road network in respect to safety and efficiency, approximately a 0.014 per cent increase to the Westbury Road network.

Six Trafalgar Drive residents, including Mr and Mrs Wyness, have also protested against the removal of trees on Respect’s land which create privacy for Tyler Village and Trafalgar Drive properties.

They believe Respect is squeezing four units into an inadequate space, cutting down the trees and incorporating an electricity infrastructure easement as the backyards of the units.

Mr and Mrs Wyness commented, ‘It seems wrong to sacrifice the tree belt in order to accommodate these four truncated units.’

Andrea and Brett Carlson said removing the trees would be a missed opportunity for Respect, emphasising the bird life and relaxing green space of the area.

Planner Leanne Rabjohns said neighbours of Tyler Village were relying on trees on the village’s land for their own privacy. The planning scheme entitles Tyler Village to manage the vegetation in their own gardens.

‘As such, the removal of the vegetation within an established residential area is considered acceptable’, she wrote.

On Respect’s plan to build units on a roadway they don’t own and an electricity easement, Ms Rabjohns implied that these problems may be resolved by the time the four controversial units are built in the development’s third stage.

She wrote, ‘The applicant is currently pursuing the acquisition process to gain ownership of this title and to address the easement on the title.

‘Works on or associated with this title (including tree removal) cannot commence until such time as the ownership and easement on the title has been addressed.’