Council’s Refusal of Proposed Retirement Facility at Lota House Appealed

The development application for the proposed retirement village at Oceana St in Lota has already been refused by the Brisbane City Council, but developers are already appealing the case in court.

In August 2018, the Village Retirement Group and Anglicare submitted a proposal to develop a retirement facility at 162 Oceana Tce in Lota — the site includes the heritage-listed Lota House.

The initial proposal consisted of four new buildings containing a total of 104 units, integrated within the Lota Court-Manly Anglicare Retirement Community and Edwin Marsden Tooth Memorial Home.

Photo Credit: Brisbane City Council /

The proposed development would have Buildings 1 and 2 on the Oceana frontage at six storeys in height, and Buildings 3 and 4 on the Grace St frontage at seven storeys in height.

The plan was later amended, reducing the height to five and six storeys and removing one unit from the plan to provide an entry area that will connect the porte-cochere to the main lobby.

Photo Credit: Brisbane City Council /

Despite the changes, the Council rejected the development application last 3 April as the council believes that the proposal was not in keeping with the character of the area and that it negatively impacts the 150-year-old heritage-listed Lota House, the existing vegetation, and traffic.

In particular, the Council cited that the “5 and 6 storey retirement facility is not consistent with the 1 and 2 storey low density residential character of the area.”

The decision also said that “the proposed 5 and 6 storey development does not complement the prevailing 1 and 2 storey low density residential scale, built form and streetscape of the surrounding area.”

The refusal comes after the local community actively called for the rejection of the proposal and more than 160 submissions, objecting to the application, were received.

Photo Credit: Brisbane City Council /

The developers, however, appealed the case to the Planning and Environment court on grounds that the council did not provide sufficient basis for the refusal.

“The Development Application ought to be approved because the proposed development complies with all of the assessment benchmarks for the development. Alternatively, the Development Application ought to be approved if the proposed development does not comply with some of the assessment benchmarks.

“Further or in the alternative, the Development Application ought not to be refused as compliance with the assessment benchmarks can be achieved by the imposition of conditions,” the Notice of Appeal said.