Residents in 16 retirement villages latest to dispute council rates

Victorian retirement village residents are leading a determined push to ease cost-of-living pressures.

The Weekly SOURCE reported on 11 May that four retirement villages within Victoria’s City of Greater Geelong had united to ask for a discounted dedicated retirement village rate category.

Now representatives from 16 retirement villages in the City of Casey have lodged a formal submission to council on 8 May seeking a “Retirement Village Differential Residential Rate” for the 2026-27 financial year.

The submission is backed by a petition signed by 1,818 retirement village residents and was tabled at Casey Council’s April meeting by Councillor Scott Dowling.

The proposal asks for retirement village units to receive a rate set at 75% of the standard residential rate – a 25% discount.

Keyton’s Woodlands Park Retirement Village resident and Residents Advisory Committee chairman Ken Ardley said retirement village residents were being “unfairly” charged for services they largely funded themselves.

“Because we run private property, the council doesn’t provide us with very many services, so we pay full rates for services that we don’t obtain or don’t receive,” Ken said.

“The only real service we receive from the council is the collection of garbage, recycling and green waste.”

The submission argues retirement villages are fundamentally different from standard residential developments because they privately maintain roads, footpaths, drainage, street lighting, community centres, recreation facilities and landscaped areas that would normally fall under council responsibility.

Across Casey’s 16 retirement villages, residents maintain about 35km of roads, up to 65km of pedestrian pathways, more than 675 streetlights and over 90km of drainage and guttering infrastructure.

Residents also pay ongoing village maintenance fees averaging almost $6,000 annually, covering maintenance, staffing, insurance, utilities and emergency response systems.

Supporters of the proposal say this amounts to double costs, with residents paying both village levies and full municipal rates.

Ken said many residents were retirees living on fixed incomes who were increasingly struggling with rising costs.

“In Woodlands Park, I’ve got one of the biggest units and mine are about $2,200 a year,” he said.

“That’s just virtually paying for them to collect our garbage.

“We do have a lot of residents that struggle. They’re living virtually on their pension and it makes it difficult.”

The submission states many retirement village residents experienced council rate increases of between 25 and 30% over the three years to June 2025, driven by rising property valuations, higher municipal rates and increased levies.

Residents say retirement villages also reduce pressure on council-funded services because many communities provide their own amenities such as gyms, pools, bowling greens and wellness programs onsite.

“We don’t rely on the council,” Ardley said.

“We’ve got a gymnasium, tennis court, library, and a heated swimming pool. Most residents don’t need to use the council’s facilities.”

The submission cites Victorian Government differential rating guidelines, which specifically identify retirement village land as a category councils should consider for reduced rates where residents experience different service levels.

Under these guidelines, while local councils are required to consider setting a reduced differential rate for retirement village land, offering a discount is not strictly compulsory, and the decision to implement or determine the rate percentage rests with individual councils.

Woodlands Park and another retirement village had made a prior submission for the 2025-26 financial year. This also requested the council consider differential rates for retirement villages.

The council rejected their submission at the time.