Ethos Urban Director Daniel West is dismayed after reading a chapter in the NSW Housing SEPP containing the Transport Orientated Development (TOD) State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPP). 

“It can be seen in its full context with the various parts of the Housing SEPP,” said Daniel, who three weeks ago was praising the NSW Government for including senior housing in the new building zones around 37 railway stations. 

 “Whilst we commended Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure (DPHI) for applying the seniors housing bonus to the TOD chapter, the drafting has created legal doubt whether seniors housing can even utilise the TOD area uplift in Floor Space Ration (FSR) and height,” he said.   
 
“This is because the FSR and height uplift is tied to “residential flat buildings” (RFB) and “shop top housing” (STH) development. Seniors housing (including Independent Living Units and residential care facilities (RCF) however is a separately defined use to these uses.  
 
“For ILUs, this is the old debate whether ILUs in the typology of an RFB is in fact, an RFB. Even if this is accepted by a consent authority, it would not extend to RCFs because they do not contain dwellings.  
 
“So whilst we understand that Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure’s intent is for seniors housing to play in the TOD areas (by ensuring that seniors housing bonus applies), the reality of the current drafting is more complicated for ILUs, and most definitely exclusionary for RCFs.  
 
“Teething issues with new legislation is standard stuff, and this can be simply fixed up by a housekeeping amendment. However, with the TOD chapter now landed and every residential developer tripping over themselves in the acquisition bonanza, this uncertainty for seniors housing has put the industry on the sidelines and once again made it inadvertent collateral damage.” 

He added Ethos Urban had called for urgent clarification on the issue and a housekeeping amendment to the Housing SEPP.