Housing & planning · Ku-ring-gai Council
North Turramurra aged-care replacement refused; panel cites height, design and Clause 4.6 concerns
The Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel unanimously rejected eDA0184/26 for 34 Curagul Road, while saying modernisation of the site was supported in principle.
Reporting from public council minutes. How this article was prepared
A proposed replacement aged-care facility at 34 Curagul Road, North Turramurra, has been refused by the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel, which found the application’s Clause 4.6 variation requests insufficient to warrant support.
The unanimous decision on 28 September 2026 concerned eDA0184/26, which sought to demolish the existing aged-care facility and construct a new one. The panel refused consent for the reasons in Ku-ring-gai Council’s Development Assessment Report.
The panel said it supported modernisation of the site in principle, noting the existing-use-rights scenario. It also noted that the previous consent had lapsed and that applicants faced an onus to justify variations from statutory planning requirements under Clause 4.6, following changes since an earlier Sydney North Planning Panel decision.
Design was another obstacle. The panel said changes were likely to improve the proposal, including reconsidering the four-storey portion, overall height and interface with adjoining properties. It also identified lowering the building, increasing landscaped area across the site and changing plant species to maintain and enhance the landscaped character in accordance with KDCP.
Four community submissions were received and considered as part of the determination. Applicant representative Greg Boston addressed the panel, and the minutes state that his views were taken into account.
The panel said the applicant may use review rights under section 8.2 of the Act. It also noted that, if consent were granted, a management plan for evacuating residents and staff during a bushfire would be required. The minutes do not say whether the applicant will seek a review or submit a revised application.
What deserves a closer look
The minutes record support for modernisation in principle alongside refusal of the submitted proposal.
The recorded concerns cover both the statutory justification for variations and the proposal's physical relationship with adjoining properties and landscaped areas.
Questions for follow-up reporting
Will the applicant seek a section 8.2 review or lodge a revised development application?
What are the full reasons for refusal in the Development Assessment Report relied on by the panel?
Would a future proposal reduce the building height or change the landscaped area and plant selection?
What happens next
The applicant may seek a review under section 8.2 of the Act.
If the applicant pursues changes to the application, the panel's comments identify possible improvements to design, height, adjoining-property interfaces and landscaping. The panel encouraged the applicant to address the reasons for refusal in Council's assessment report.
If consent were granted, the panel said a management plan for evacuating residents and staff during a bushfire would be required.
Check the record
These passages were matched to the source text. Read them in context in the original minutes.
The panel refused development consent to eDA0184/26 for demolition of the aged-care facility and construction of a new facility at 34 Curagul Road, North Turramurra, on 28 September 2026, for the reasons in the Development Assessment Report.
The Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel, exercising the functions of Ku-ring-gai Council, as the consent authority, pursuant to Section 4.16 of the Environment Planning and Assessment Act 1979, refused development consent to eDA0184/26 for demolition of aged care facility and construction of new aged care facility at No. 34 Curagul Road, North Turramurra, for the reasons in the Development Assessment Report. B. Date of Decision: 28 September 2026 C. Reason for the Decision: The Panel concurred with the recommendation in Council's Development Assessment Report and the reasons for refusal.
KLPP39, resolution A–C
Open original minutes ↗The panel supported modernisation in principle, noted the previous consent had lapsed and found the Clause 4.6 variation requests insufficient to warrant support.
The key considerations by the Panel are included here to assist the applicant and Council in managing this application: • The Panel considered the matter and, in principle, supported a modernisation of the facility at the site noting the existing use rights scenario. • The Panel also noted the changes in requirements since the previous Sydney North Planning Panel decision also includes a Clause 4.6 requirement with an onus on applicants to justify variations from statutory planning requirements. • The Panel noted the previous consent has lapsed • The Panel was of the opinion that the Clause 4.6 Variation requests put forward with this application were insufficient to warrant support.
KLPP39, key considerations
Open original minutes ↗The listed possible design improvements involved the four-storey portion, overall height, adjoining-property interface, landscaped area and species selection.
• It is likely that changes to the application in a number of areas would improve the building design. This includes the four storey portion of the building, overall height and interface with adjoining properties, lowering the building height, increasing landscaped area across the whole site and a change in species selection to maintain and enhance the landscaped character in accordance with KDCP.
KLPP39, design considerations
Open original minutes ↗Four submissions were received and considered, and applicant representative Greg Boston addressed the panel, which took his views into account.
• The Panel notes that the applicant may avail themselves of review rights under Section 8.2 of the Act. D. How community views were taken into consideration: The views of the community were requested by way of notification of the application in accordance with Council's Community Participation Plan and there were four submissions received which were considered as part of this determination. The applicant's representative Mr Greg Boston addressed the Panel and his views were taken into account by the Panel as part of this determination. Voting: Unanimous Minute KU-RING-GAI COUNCIL Page 20260928-KLPP-Mins-2026/306171 /4 The meeting closed at 12:31 PM Minute KU-RING-GAI COUNCIL Page 20260928-KLPP-Mins-2026/306171 /5 Minute KU-RING-GAI COUNCIL Page 20260928-KLPP-Mins-2026/306171 /6 Minute KU-RING-GAI COUNCIL Page 20260928-KLPP-Mins-2026/306171 /7 Minute KU-RING-GAI COUNCIL Page 20260928-KLPP-Mins-2026/306171 /8 The Minutes of the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel Meeting held on 28 September 2026 (Pages 1 - 7) were confirmed as a full
KLPP39, community views
Open original minutes ↗The panel encouraged the applicant to address the reasons for refusal in Council's assessment report, noted that a bushfire evacuation management plan for residents and staff would be required if consent were granted, and said the applicant may use section 8.2 review rights.
The applicant is encouraged to address the Reasons for Refusal in Council's assessment report. • The Panel notes that should consent be granted, a management plan outlining evacuation of residents and staff in the event of a bushfire shall be required. • The Panel notes that the applicant may avail themselves of review rights under Section 8.2 of the Act. D. How community views were taken into consideration: The views of the community were requested by way of notification of the application in accordance with Council's Community Participation Plan and there were four submissions received which were considered as part of this determination.
KLPP39, applicant guidance and conditional requirements
Open original minutes ↗The recorded vote was unanimous.
The applicant's representative Mr Greg Boston addressed the Panel and his views were taken into account by the Panel as part of this determination. Voting: Unanimous Minute KU-RING-GAI COUNCIL Page 20260928-KLPP-Mins-2026/306171 /4 The meeting closed at 12:31 PM Minute KU-RING-GAI COUNCIL Page 20260928-KLPP-Mins-2026/306171 /5 Minute KU-RING-GAI COUNCIL Page 20260928-KLPP-Mins-2026/306171 /6 Minute KU-RING-GAI COUNCIL Page 20260928-KLPP-Mins-2026/306171 /7 Minute KU-RING-GAI COUNCIL Page 20260928-KLPP-Mins-2026/306171 /8 The Minutes of the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel Meeting held on 28 September 2026 (Pages 1 - 7) were confirmed as a full
KLPP39, voting
Open original minutes ↗The record states that Peter Wells confirmed the minutes of the 28 September 2026 meeting as a full and accurate record on 28 September 2026.
The applicant's representative Mr Greg Boston addressed the Panel and his views were taken into account by the Panel as part of this determination. Voting: Unanimous Minute KU-RING-GAI COUNCIL Page 20260928-KLPP-Mins-2026/306171 /4 The meeting closed at 12:31 PM Minute KU-RING-GAI COUNCIL Page 20260928-KLPP-Mins-2026/306171 /5 Minute KU-RING-GAI COUNCIL Page 20260928-KLPP-Mins-2026/306171 /6 Minute KU-RING-GAI COUNCIL Page 20260928-KLPP-Mins-2026/306171 /7 Minute KU-RING-GAI COUNCIL Page 20260928-KLPP-Mins-2026/306171 /8 The Minutes of the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel Meeting held on 28 September 2026 (Pages 1 - 7) were confirmed as a full and accurate record of proceedings by Peter Wells on 28 September 2026 __________________________ Chairperson
Minutes confirmation statement
Open original minutes ↗Source record
Ku-ring-gai Council minutes of the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel meeting held on 28 September 2026.
Key facts from the minutes
- The Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel refused development consent to eDA0184/26 on 28 September 2026.
- The application proposed demolishing the existing aged-care facility and constructing a new facility at 34 Curagul Road, North Turramurra.
- The panel found the application’s Clause 4.6 variation requests insufficient to warrant support.
- The panel identified possible improvements involving the four-storey section, overall height, the interface with adjoining properties, landscaping and plant species.
- Four community submissions were received and considered; the recorded vote was unanimous.
- The applicant may seek a review under section 8.2 of the Act.
Why it matters
- The panel’s refusal means the proposal does not have consent under eDA0184/26. The panel’s recorded comments identify the justification for Clause 4.6 variations, building height, the four-storey section, neighbouring interfaces and landscaping as issues with the application.