Council this week rejected Ms Keneally’s request to amend or revoke the development control plan (DCP) on the Centennial Road site and may consider legal action to defend its position.

The DCP was adopted in August 2008 in response to residents’ concerns about a joint Australand/Australian Unity proposal to build a 190-unit retirement community, 153-bed residential aged care centre and wellbeing centre at OLSH.

In an undated letter to Council, Ms Keneally said the DCP was “too restrictive and unnecessarily limits seniors housing development on the OLSH site”.

She has asked that nine “unacceptable” restrictions be removed, including restrictions intended to protect the character of the area, ecologically endangered communities and existing residents’ views.

Ms Keneally also objected to a proposed two-storey limit for residential development, lighting control to protect the night sky, and a requirement that non-residential uses be economically justified, saying Council’s DCP had no effect because it was inconsistent with the current Local Environmental Plan (LEP) and would not become effective until the draft LEP 2009 was gazetted.

She said the department had refused an Australand request to have its project declared state significant and asked the applicant to discuss the matter further with Council.

“I can understand the need to ensure development of the site respects its unique features and minimises conflict with surrounding areas,” she wrote.

“However, the site is large enough to accommodate a significant level of development and still achieve these objectives.

“It was on this basis that the Director General of the Department of Planning issued a Site Compatibility Certificate in December 2007.”

Councillors at Wednesday’s meeting unanimously supported a call from Deputy Mayor Ken Halstead to refuse the request.

“We should reject outright the contents of what is in the letter and let them know they have a fight on their hands, and that it could end up in court,” he said.

Cr Halstead described Ms Keneally’s letter as “quite objectionable”, “extremely offensive” and “a litany of interference”.

“They [the department] are demanding you to modify the contents of a DCP,” he said.

“They have no right to do that. The DCP is a function of the council.”

Cr Juliet Arkwright said the tone of the letter was threatening, if not bullying.

“There is a big issue at stake,” she said. “Obviously a position has been taken [by the department] in advance and whatever the outcome we have been told to shut up and oblige the applicant.”

Cr Jim Clark said he was puzzled by Ms Keneally’s offer of departmental assistance “if Council wished to develop a DCP for the site” when a DCP was already in place.

“I can see which of the provisions [of the DCP] we would want to scrap,” he said.

“If we took all the points out, we wouldn’t have a DCP.

“The provisions of the Seniors Living SEPP [the State Environmental Planning Policy] aren’t suitable to protect the site and that is why we came up with the DCP.”