Advertisement

Summerland seniors development rejected by council

Click to play video: 'Summerland seniors development rejected by council'
Summerland seniors development rejected by council
Summerland seniors development rejected by council – Feb 7, 2018

A proposed seniors complex in Summerland will not be going ahead.

On Tuesday night, council voted 5-2 against the $125-million project.

If approved, the proposed development was expected to house up to 700 seniors in more than 400 units on a 14-acre property in the Bristow Valley, perched above Okanagan Lake.

Story continues below advertisement

The project had attracted heavy opposition from the public. Approximately 80 people had voiced their opinions, which were largely against the project, during a public hearing on Monday.

The main sticking points were the sheer scale of the project and the potential impact it could have on an aquifer that supplies water to a nearby trout hatchery.

The audience applauded after the vote was held and council decided it was not the right project for the proposed location.

Get the day's top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day.

Get daily National news

Get the day's top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day.
By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.

A spokesperson for the development company, Lark Group, says the project would have created hundreds of jobs and provided much needed housing for seniors.

Story continues below advertisement

“It is unfortunate that the few, loud vocal residents who are opposed to the project drowned out the silent majority of Summerland residents who are in favour,” said Kirk Fisher in a statement to Global Okanagan News.

Fisher says the company hopes to have the opportunity in the future to “contribute to the survival of Summerland.”

Summerland’s mayor voted in favour of the project, touting the benefit to the local economy.

“It would have provided jobs and those people would have needed housing. It spurs the local economy. But it didn’t suit the council and council didn’t go for it,” Peter Waterman said.

Sponsored content

AdChoices