What would help Rosemary Heights carry the change?
There is a live proposal for the former retreat-centre lands beside the Nicomekl River. Tell us what concerns you, what you would change, and which practical solution deserves attention.
Share an ideaRead the evidence briefSource: City of Surrey application record 25-0205-00, checked September 25, 2026. To look it up yourself, open Surrey's Development Inquiry and search 25-0205-00.
Why this project
A good neighbourhood needs more than a site plan. Schools, safe movement, flood and habitat protection, places to gather, and the timing of promised improvements all carry part of the load. We are collecting proposals across those systems, including views for and against the development.
Add your voice to the record
About 3 to 5 minutes. One concern or idea per response helps us group themes fairly. You can support the proposal, oppose it, or suggest changes.
Tap the button below to open a short email with the questions already filled in. Answer what you like and press send.
Share an idea by emailHow your response will be used. Organized by Carly Smith as an independent community project, not an official City consultation or a petition. Carly has no client, listing, referral, ownership or other financial interest tied to these parcels or this application. Responses will be reviewed, grouped by theme, and reported with counts and differing viewpoints. Raw submissions and email addresses will not be published or given to the City, and you will not be added to a real estate mailing list. Only de-identified themes, and excerpts you permit, may be shared. To request access, correction or deletion, email carly@carlysmith.ca. Records will be deleted within 12 months after the community report is completed.
What happens next
- Listen and sort. Group responses by topic and separate lived experience, suggested solutions and facts that need checking.
- Discuss in community. Share a de-identified summary and invite residents with differing views to a solution-focused conversation.
- Put questions to Surrey. Ask the project planner which ideas can be considered, what the studies say, and how the public can take part through City channels.
A Neighbourhood Is More Than the Homes It Can Hold
What Rosemary Heights reveals about the infrastructure we can see, the capacity we cannot, and the promises that have to survive a change of plan.
Carly Smith · Published September 25, 2026 · Facts checked to September 25, 2026
A drawing of townhouses beside the Nicomekl River can make the Rosemary Heights debate look simple. Here are the homes. Here is the strip of green. Decide whether the trade is worth it.
But the interesting part of that drawing is everything outside its dotted line: the school morning, the left turn onto 152 Street, the rainwater moving down the bluff, the public trail someone must own and maintain, and the years between an approved school addition and the first student walking through its doors.
Those are load-bearing parts of a community. A site plan can show some of them. It cannot, by itself, tell us who is responsible for the rest.
Why this land carries history
The land in question is the former Rosemary Heights Retreat Centre at 3660 and 3690 152 Street. It is about 30.5 acres. When Surrey planned this neighbourhood in the 1990s, the land was marked for institutional and park/open-space uses in the Rosemary Heights Central neighbourhood plan. The Archdiocese had once contemplated a Catholic high school there. Those facts explain why the site means more to many neighbours than a vacant development parcel. They do not establish that a school was funded, that the entire property became public park, or that the old plan still governs it. Corporate Report R130, June 12, 2017; City planning history.
The debate has already outlasted several versions of the development. In 2017, Surrey recorded a Porte Communities proposal for roughly 278 townhouses and 23 small detached lots. Ninety-eight people signed in at the retreat lands information meeting. For this site specifically, staff reported that many residents wanted the Institutional designation retained and/or wanted the City to acquire the property for park. The report also identified three broader themes: land use and density, transportation, and schools. Those themes covered three Rosemary Heights applications considered together, not this property alone. By 2018, staff had assessed the traffic generated by that design; the finding is not a verdict on today's plan. Corporate Report R130; 2018 report.
Two more concepts followed. Peterson presented 228 townhouses and 212 condominium homes in 2023. Polygon was reported as proposing 200 townhouses and 175 condominiums in 2025. The current 236-townhouse plan has the lowest total unit count of the four reported concepts, but that comparison does not settle impact: unit type, floor area, net developable land, access and environmental constraints also matter. Polygon was the reported 2025 proponent; the City's live record does not publicly identify the current formal applicant or authorized agent. Peace Arch News, June 12, 2025 (reports both the 2023 Peterson and 2025 Polygon concepts).
What the current application says, and what remains unknown
The City's application 25-0205-00 describes 236 ground-oriented townhouses, subdivision into four development lots plus two proposed park/open-space parcels, and a development permit. The record still displays a rezoning from A-1 to the former RM-30 label, a zone that no longer exists. Its published status was Initial Review when checked September 25. It has not been approved simply because it appears on a City map. City application record; City development inquiry, search 25-0205-00.
A lower home count may change some impacts, but it cannot by itself tell us the effect on school seats, traffic or habitat. In 2025 reporting, an opponent argued that much of the land described as preserved was already undevelopable bluff or riparian land. That is an attributed claim, not a City finding, but it identifies the right test: what protection is already required as a regulatory baseline, and what additional benefit is being negotiated for the public? The answer depends on mapped boundaries, developability, legal protection, public access, timing, construction responsibility and maintenance.
Infrastructure runs on different clocks
Part of the visible infrastructure has changed. Surrey completed its 152 Street widening and the Nicomekl River bridge twinning in 2025, including walking and cycling improvements and work intended to make the road more resilient to flooding. The bridge is a genuine public investment. Its completion does not tell us whether a particular new site entrance has adequate sightlines or what happens to turning traffic at 36 Avenue. That requires the latest traffic study and the City's review of it. City's 152 Street project record.
School capacity has a different clock. Rosemary Heights Elementary is part of the family of schools that feeds Grandview Heights Secondary, which is why the secondary-school evidence is relevant. Surrey Schools' April 2026 update reported 1,838 students at Grandview Heights Secondary, 22.5% above capacity, with eight portables. A funded 500-seat addition is targeted for fall 2029, while enrolment is projected to reach 2,500 by 2030. District projections published in 2026 also show elementary-space pressure across South Surrey/White Rock. Current Rosemary Heights Elementary capacity and a site-specific student-yield projection remain outstanding. Surrey Schools addition update.
The planning rules have changed
On June 15, 2026, Surrey adopted its new Official Community Plan, Surrey 2050, and rescinded the three Rosemary Heights neighbourhood concept plans. The old institutional and park designations explain residents' expectations; they are no longer the operative neighbourhood plan. I matched both street addresses to Surrey's live lot, OCP and zoning layers. Both parcels are now designated Urban I but remain zoned A-1 General Agriculture. That zoning label does not place the land in the provincial Agricultural Land Reserve: neither mapped parcel overlaps the provincial ALR polygon. Proposed townhouses therefore still need land-use approvals. City planning page; OCP mapping layer; zoning mapping layer; provincial ALR layer.
The City's live application description continues to use the former RM-30 label, a zone that Surrey staff describe as deleted and replaced within the 2026 zoning framework. Surrey 2050 lists MR1 and MR2 as the Urban I townhouse implementing zones. MR4 appears under Urban II, not Urban I. Surrey 2050 Urban I and Urban II zones; July 13 adoption minutes.
The old label does not determine the route. In Planning Report 7915-0187-00, staff redirected an Urban I proposal from deleted RM-30 to MR2 because its form and density met MR2 requirements. No OCP amendment was needed. In Planning Report 7916-0221-00, staff described former RM-30 as analogous to MR4. If MR4 is pursued on this Urban I site, an OCP amendment would be required unless another adopted provision applies. The eventual staff report will decide, not the old application label.
Form, FAR and the City's site-area calculation may affect that decision. In the MR2 comparator, staff measured density from five metres inland of top-of-bank and included riparian land being conveyed to the City in gross site area. Whether staff will use the same method here is not yet known.
The route determines the statutory process. If staff re-route this proposal to MR1 or MR2 and find it OCP-consistent, provincial law prohibits a public hearing for the qualifying residential zoning bylaw. If an OCP amendment is required, a public hearing is required. Statutory notice and written-input opportunities may still apply where a hearing is prohibited. Residents should follow current City notices rather than wait for a hearing that may never be scheduled. Province on public hearings; Local Government Act, section 464.
A public test for every promise
Here is the test I would apply to any new proposal in Rosemary Heights, whether I liked its housing mix or not:
| Promise or concern | What would make it measurable? |
|---|---|
| More housing | Approved unit mix, bedroom sizes, tenure, prices and actual completion dates. |
| Planning fit and public input | The City's written determination of the zone, site-area calculation, OCP route, transition rules, notice and public-input process. |
| Safe access | The current traffic study, junction and sightline design, walking routes, City conditions and post-opening counts. |
| Protected nature and heritage | A mapped tree and habitat baseline, watercourse setbacks, registered protection, maintenance duties and monitoring, plus confirmation of any required First Nations referral, archaeological review or cultural-heritage assessment. |
| Public benefit | Precisely which land or trail is conveyed, which legal mechanism secures public access, when it opens, who maintains it, and whether the former contribution framework or new Amenity Cost Charge system applies during the transition ending June 14, 2027. |
| School and family capacity | A current district referral, student yield from this housing mix, funded seats, childcare places and their delivery dates. |
What carries the load between the day a home is approved and the day the surrounding community can support the people living in it?
Sometimes the answer is a bridge. Sometimes it is a classroom, a wetland holding water, a safe crossing, or a neighbour who can still reach a place to gather.
The goal is a community that can welcome people and remain capable of caring for the landscape that makes it worth living in. We get closer to that goal when every claimed benefit has a map, an owner, a budget, a delivery date and a way to check whether it worked.
What have you noticed?
Share a concern, a source or a practical proposal. Views for and against the development are welcome.
Share an ideaThis independent project does not replace a submission to the City of Surrey, and this brief is not an official City consultation. For the official process, use Surrey's Development Inquiry service. Organized by Carly Smith · carly@carlysmith.ca