Cardinal Freeman Aged Care Facility – Project Mod 5 and Concept Plan Mod 3

I am a resident of the Cardinal Freeman Village, living in one of the independent living apartments.
I support the redevelopment of Building 1. That is, I support the building being redeveloped. However, I do not support the change of purpose from Assisted Living apartments to Independent Living apartments.
The idea of the Village owner, Levande, is to provide any services required within the home. A noble idea but flawed. The sense of community that the existing purpose provides for the residents is invaluable. For example, the gathering together for meals is the only social interaction that some residents experience. Importantly, this opportunity is available to all residents of the Village but at an additional cost to those from the Independent Living apartments. This will be lost if meals are delivered to the home.
If the project had been started from scratch and Levande were not trying to gain advantage from an existing DA a much better outcome could result. But I can understand that Levande would not wish to risk the 'can of worms' that process could open up. Also, architecturally, the existing plans do result in a reduction in amenity for residents in the Jacaranda and Magnolia buildings, loss of natural light and privacy. A factor that could also be improved if starting from scratch.
The change of purpose has been presented to residents as a fait accompli. My feeling is if a vote was taken the majority of residents would vote against. A compromise might be to make the building a mix of serviced and independent living apartments.
I fear that the project is being driven primarily by economics, understandable but unfortunate for this type of community. I would like to think that the interests of current (and future) residents and could be the primary driving force. There can be a happy compromise between the two but I don't think we are at that point because we are working within the constraints of the existing DA.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment.

I have lived in the Cardinal Freeman Village for 8 years and seen much beautiful development of the Village with its fantastic club house, village green and gardens enhancing its heritage buildings.
In this environment the Serviced Apartments are an eyesore and are long overdue for replacement. I think they would have been demolished years ago except that Stockland, the former owner of the Village, seemed to lose interest in retirement living and preferred to do a cheap and nasty renovation of the old building instead of building new and modern seniors' accommodation suitable for the 21st century.
The gardens around the new building seem to be in keeping with the attractive gardens elsewhere in the Village, which is another reason why I support the project.
My support for the project is tinged with regret that there are no serviced apartments because I know that some residents were hoping to be able to move into a serviced apartment in their twilight years. During the many consultations with residents, Levande promised alternatives to serviced apartment living, including having some one bedroom apartments in the new building, a communal dining area and service offerings such as cleaning, linen and meals.
Levande are new to the Village but so far they have made a good impression on me because the CEO and senior staff have visited frequently and their development engineers have listened to residents' views about the design of the common areas in the new building. So, I'm fairly confident they will deliver on their promised alternatives to serviced apartment living.
They are also providing new accessible accommodation for the hair salon and medical practitioners which are important to me and many other residents.
In a nutshell I support the project because it's a contemporary building with good facilities and well planned landscaping and gardens which will enhance the Village overall.

I am a resident of the Cardinal Freeman Village living in a unit on the third floor on the western side of Building 3 (Magnolia 3304), immediately adjacent to the eastern side of the proposed Building 1. As such my wife and myself are directly impacted by the proposed new building.
I support the project in principle but, despite consultation with Levande, I have reservations which I outline in my comments below.
1. Consultation
Levande has consulted widely with interested residents and made some changes to its proposal as a result of residents feedback.
I have had several meetings with members of the development team, Nathan Donn and Talia Rappoport. They have provided lots of information about the proposed new building and have taken action to alleviate some of my concerns. I appreciate their commitment to genuine consultation.
2. My concerns.
My concerns are about privacy and noise. In the original approval the distance between my building and Building 1 was less than than the distance between most other buildings in the complex. That distance has been further reduced in the proposed modification (from 11m to 10m and 9.5m). This makes privacy and noise issues particularly acute. Therefore, in my discussions with Levande I have focused on measures to minimise noise and preserve privacy between proposed Building 1 east side and existing Building 3 west side. The proposal as lodged has several features to maintain privacy between my level 3 and level 3 in the new building. Levande is to be commended for these measures.
However, I am less satisfied that the proposal protects my privacy and minimises noise in relation to level 4 east in the new building which overlooks my apartment. Unlike the lower floors, level 4 has two long east facing balconies which overlook my balconies and my apartment's interior. In its SEPP 65 Design Statement in relation to Objective 3F-!.1 Levande notes that it has provided a privacy barrier on ONE of these east facing balconies but not the other. Moreover, while this sole barrier will assist privacy it will not reduce noise from the balconies. My apartment runs the full length of of Building 1 east side and thus is affected by both the overlooking eastern balconies.
3. What Levande should do next.
While I am not formally objecting to the project Levande should be encouraged to review whether the single level 4 east side apartment really needs two east facing balconies when it already has a north and a south facing balcony. Removal of the east facing balconies would eliminate all noise and privacy concerns. If the balconies are retained Levande should as a bare bare minimum add a balustrade to the south east balcony which is opposite my living area similar to the balustrade on the north east balcony which is opposite my bedrooms.
Martin O'Connell

Submission name and number: Cardinal Freeman Aged Care Facility – Project Modification 5 and Concept Plan Modification (MP08_0260-Mod-5 and MP08_0245-Mod-3)
I object to the proposals.
As considerable time has passed since the original permission to demolish Building 1 (the Serviced Apartments), and the circumstances surrounding its continuing existence are very different from those pertaining in January 2011, I ask that permission to demolish this building be rescinded, until the whole situation has been reconsidered.

Past history since the 2011 permission

Stockland’s original 2011 request for demolition applied to a large proportion of the buildings then standing in Cardinal Freeman Village. The demolition of ILU units involved the rehousing within the village of the residents displaced, the ruling being that their replacement accommodation should be either equal to or better than the unit being demolished. All these residents were duly accommodated.
At that time there was a second, Government subsidised Assisted Living building, “The Lodge” which was demolished and all the residents were moved to the replacement Nursing home, even those who were still quite able. Subsequently the nursing home became Opal owned, so that Stockland no longer had a nursing home in the village. Village Residents were asked for their permission, and gave their permission for The Lodge to be demolished.
The residents in the Serviced Apartments could not be accommodated holus-bolus in the same way as they had bought their units and the purchase came with the provision of services such as meals, cleaning, laundry etc. The demolition of this Building 1 could not therefore immediately take place until a solution had been found to accommodate residents with their associated support. The Serviced Apartments therefore continued to be available throughout the whole process of demolishing and rebuilding all the other buildings cited in the permission given to do so by the NSW Department in 2011.
I do not have an exact timeline for the process that followed but this should be readily available.
First, Stockland no longer allowed village residents to buy into the Serviced Apartments. Instead they could rent a unit there. This disenfranchised them from Village affairs as they no longer owned anything within the village and could not vote on village affairs.
Later, because of a growing antipathy from residents within the village who had assumed they would be able to move to the Serviced Apartments should they require more care, Stockland once again allowed residents to buy a unit in the Serviced Apartments and commenced a process of gradually refurbishing and updating the units in it. This was therefore a tacit agreement that plans to demolish the building had been shelved.
There followed Covid19, and the sale of the entire village to Levande.

Levande.

Residents have been told that Levande is proceeding with plans to demolish the Serviced Apartments, using the permission given by NSW Planning in 2011, and claiming that they were just continuing with Stockland’s plan to demolish it. This, as explained above, is not entirely accurate as Stockland had begun the process of keeping the Serviced Apartments available to residents as before. Therefore it is not accurate to claim that to go ahead with demolition is simply a continuation of Stockland’s process.
We have been informed that the replacement Building 1 will NOT be Serviced Apartments. Services such as those to which current residents are entitled will only be available to current Serviced Apartments residents who may choose to move back into the new building. It is unlikely that ninety-year-old residents will want to move twice in the space of two or three years! All other residents of the new Building 1 will only be offered Services, such as currently provided by My Aged Care and facilitated by the Five Good Friends organisation which works closely with Levande. Thus it is stressed that the new Building 1 will NOT be serviced apartments, but services can be arranged just as the government offers in its Aged Care provisions. A nice distinction.

Current Building 1 residents have been told to find other accommodation by September 2024.
This has caused a great deal of anxiety and distress, since current residents are all aged in their nineties and had hoped to see out their days by having purchased Serviced Apartment units. Since no one has been allowed to move into Building 1 for many months now, and since it has been allowed to deteriorate without maintenance, the argument is that it is no longer suitable according to current standards for Aged Care. The leaking roof and the outmoded air-conditioning are cited, both correctable defects. The lack of a lift too is cited, yet there are many commercially available units readily available and plenty of room in the current building to instal one or even two. For example, Levande is currently organising an internal stairlift in the annex to Glentworth House. The standard of meals provided to current Serviced Apartments residents has deteriorated in recent months.
The building had been cleverly designed to that a resident can reach any floor right to the top without encountering any stairs. For those that find this tiring, the installation of a lift would solve the problem. Meanwhile, a resident with a mobility scooter could reach any part of the building unobstructed.
This is the moment to mention that the Serviced apartments is an impressive example of the bricklaying art and is architecturally of historic interest. In a different situation an application for heritage listing of such a remarkable building would have been appropriate.
I maintain that the current residents of Cardinal Freeman Village have not been given the opportunity to say whether they would like to keep the Serviced Apartments. No actual count has been made of those who moved into the village with an expectation that it included Serviced Apartments for them to move into as they aged. Anecdotally many residents have expressed their disappointment. I believe that the building should not be demolished until residents have had their say. Previously, Stockland Management was guided by the residents’ opinions and so of course should Levande be.
We have been assured throughout that we will be consulted at every phase of the design of the new building, and these ideas are being incorporated, such as the inclusion of a communal room to continue the current activities such as dining, Bingo, cards etc. We have been asked to comment on whether there should be awnings in the outdoor area, or wallpaper in the newly located Hairdressers Salon, for example. At no stage have we been asked whether we approve of demolishing the Serviced apartments in the first place.
I ask that permission to demolish the Serviced Apartments be rescinded until the current resident population of Cardinal Freeman has been properly informed, and has had the due process of giving their opinions on such a major change in the village. Stockland took advice on this matter by the residents and retained the Serviced Apartment; Levande must not proceed with demolition until they have express permission from the residents to do so.
I ask that NSW Planning Department rescinds permission to demolish this building unless and until due process has been followed with our residents.