Delayed approvals and poor planning: Report card shows we’re not retirement ready

Retirement village development applications are facing unnecessarily long assessment timeframes with the Retirement Living Council calling for practical planning reforms from state and territory governments.

Key points

• Two-thirds of development applications for retirement villages take more than 12 months to receive a determination, while 23% take more than two years
• Higher upfront costs, design complexities and poor strategic planning by governments mean retirement villages are often under-recognised as impactful housing solutions
• The Retirement Living Council (RLC) has put forward several recommendations, including establishing minimum land allocations for the development of retirement communities in under-supplied areas and zoning or development bonuses to incentivise development

The retirement sector is legislated at state and territory levels. Each jurisdiction has its own Retirement Villages Act alongside other relevant regulations and legislative instruments. 

However, outside of New South Wales, retirement living is missing from key strategic planning documents. Legislative and regulatory reviews in all states bar Tasmania could change this in the near future. 

Until then, the RLC said that even though we’re in a race to house the nation, retirement living faces many obstacles that could see Australia fall further behind its housing target goals. 

“Governments at all levels need to ensure they are ‘retirement ready’. We now know that 67% of retirement village development applications take more than 365 days to complete assessment, while 23% take more than 730 days,” RLC Executive Director Daniel Gannon said. 

“Given the number of Australians aged over 75 will increase by 85% over the next decade and a half and retirement villages are effectively operating at full capacity, this is alarming and unacceptable.”

Jurisdictions are not retirement ready

The RLC views effective planning systems as a key enabler of housing. But its national planning report card, Retirement Ready, reveals that no single jurisdiction performs consistently well across all planning outcomes.

“In many ways, this report card represents a ‘fail’ for most jurisdictions that are seemingly ignoring Australia’s demographic changes and what it means for housing supply,” Mr Gannon said. 

“It’s now clear that planning systems aren’t ‘retirement ready’ at the same time that 710,000 Australians are preparing to retire within the next five years. This is frankly contemptuous at a time when the country is ageing, housing supply is in deficit and as the aged care sector breaks under the weight of increasing demand.”

With scores attributed to each jurisdiction out of 100, South Australia (58.8), New South Wales (51.2) and the Australian Capital Territory (50.9) lead the way in the report card. 

New South Wales is the only jurisdiction with a state-based planning policy, putting it head and shoulders above the rest for ‘Retirement and policy direction’. Yet the state also faces some of the longest development approval waiting times. 

While 23% of applications wait for over two years to receive a determination nationally, the figure jumps to 33% of applications in New South Wales alone.

South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory rate highly for legislative frameworks, consistency and certainty. Tasmania joins South Australia as one of the most progressive states. 

Victoria, Queensland, Tasmania and Western Australia round out the rankings in that order. A major concern is that all states, except South Australia, rank poorly for efficiency. 

A clear lack of understanding of the retirement housing product, limited flexibility in planning systems and no recognition of consumer needs are among the other key issues highlighted. 

“More red tape and complexity in planning systems won’t help build the homes that older Australians need, but they can dampen supply very easily,” Mr Gannon said. 

“Given the proven benefits that age-friendly communities deliver for older Australians, governments should be throwing the kitchen sink at approving more of them – and fast.”

Recommendations for progress

Retirement living finds itself on the back foot compared to other land uses as the complexity of design and upfront costs result in lower financial returns. The RLC hopes their report will help governments introduce legislation and reform that positively impacts retirement living providers and developers. 

The report puts forward 12 practical recommendations to make planning systems across the country ‘retirement ready’ and provide more age-friendly housing supply. These include: 

• Establishing minimum land allocations for the development of retirement communities in under-supplied areas. 
• Significant zoning or development bonuses should be offered to incentivise the development of retirement villages, akin to those given to social and affordable housing. 
• State governments to establish clear policies for increasing age-friendly developments through the introduction of targets in strategic regional and metropolitan plans. 
• Planning authorities should work with industry to identify high-need locations and ageing hot spots.

Urbis Associate Director, Kylie Newcombe, said planning needs to improve as retirement living plays a crucial role in providing age-friendly housing and enabling older residents to remain integral parts of their communities. 

“As our ageing population continues to grow, it’s more important than ever that retirement living is addressed in strategic plans and policies by state and local governments,” she said. 

“A promising starting point could be setting explicit targets for retirement living, backed by a consistent set of controls and design guidance for application across the state.”