As with brothels, boarding houses will happen one way or the other

I was a town planner at the former City of South Sydney in the mid-nineties when brothels
became legal. Brothel operators could apply to legalise brothels that had been operating
for decades.
I remember someone objecting to a “proposed” brothel in East Sydney saying that it would
be a disaster for her neighbourhood if that use was to commence a few doors along from
her. She seemed surprised to learn that it had already been operating for several decades.
Boarding houses seem to share a similar stigma – they are associated with apparently
socially undesirable types who are deemed by some to be wholly unwelcome in the Hills
District or on the Northern Beaches.
It seems a pity to have to explain that the boarding houses being built under State
affordable housing policies are usually self-contained flatettes with regular folks living in
them who happen to form a single person household, or sometimes a couple.
And just like with brothels, this type of use has been occurring across Sydney for decades –
only not with approval and normally not in a self-contained arrangement.
They are known as share houses. Typically regarded as a bohemian rite-of-passage for
students, they proliferate across Sydney. Often they involve rooms let out by a non-resident
landlord and involve unauthorised internal modifications. As with illegal brothels, illegal
boarding houses can be fire traps or can be unhygienic.
In 2009 the NSW Government introduced a State affordable housing policy that freed up
restrictions around granny flats and boarding houses along with some other forms of
affordable housing.
Under those rules, boarding houses are allowed in low density areas if within 400 metres of
a bus stop with frequent services.
When the O’Farrell administration came into power it introduced the “character test” into
the boarding house rules, meaning that a proposed boarding house has to be compatible
with the character of its locality. That provision has been successful in preventing proposals
that are grossly out of character with their suburban setting.
I assisted with a boarding house proposal in Cromer that attracted over 800 objections.
Many of those expressed horror at the location of the proposed boarding house where
children walk past it to go to school. They thought residents would be ex-criminals or other
perceived socially undesirable types.
Mayor of Warringah Council Michael Regan was amongst those vehemently objecting to
that proposal.
However, the proposal was for a single storey boarding house comprising eight rooms with
a generously landscaped front yard and clearly was compatible with the character of its
locality.
That boarding house has now been constructed and is operating. I understand that the
surrounding residents are now wondering what they were so worried about. You would
hardly know it was there.
The Sydney Morning Herald reported yesterday on a 54-room boarding house at Bella Vista.
Whilst that sounds over the top, it actually comprises several separate buildings each with
the appearance of a dwelling.
The main objections in the petition opposing it are to do with its location next to a school.
Apparently, objectors think that residents are likely to be ex-criminals, even though it
comprises market-rental housing near to NorWest Business Park.
There are similar proposals on the northern beaches. One proposal for a large boarding
house is across the road from the new Northern Beaches Hospital that is awaiting
completion. Again, it is not out of place where it is located. It is not at the end of a
suburban cul-de-sac.
I have recently written an objection to a boarding house in a suburban location at Dee Why.
However, the objection is not to the boarding house in-principle. The objection is that the
particular design is too bulky and calls for a greater rear setback so that it is more
compatible with the character of the locality.
Under the current planning framework that development is likely to require amendments.
The current controls are working.
Each proposal should be considered on its own merits – not based on objector’s slogans.
It is unfortunate that developers of proper boarding houses are so maligned. Across
Sydney, unregulated “share houses” are operating with owners individually leasing rooms.
In comparison, approved boarding houses provide compliance with fire regulations and
provide rooms for people with a disability. They also operate under a plan of management
that helps keep potential disturbance to a minimum.
Approved boarding houses provide a dignified option for people that don’t want to share
their fridge and bathroom with strangers. It provides an option for people that might be in
the wrong demographic for the typical share house situation and who suffer repeated
rejections.
The NSW Minister for Planning, Anthony Roberts, has now announced an intention to
increase parking rates for approved boarding houses to 0.5 parking spaces per boarding
room. The current rate per room in an accessible area is 0.2 spaces per boarding room.
The proposed parking rates will effectively prohibit small scale boarding houses in suburban
areas. The only viable proposals will be on large, more isolated sites and will be large scale
proposals.
All that this will achieve will be to encourage illegal operators.
Perhaps the NSW Government is also going to take the same approach to brothels. Back to
the nineties. I hope that doesn’t happen.
Sydney needs more single person accommodation that is properly built, including access for
people with a disability and fire safety measures. It should be located in areas within a short
walk of frequently operating public transport.
Let’s hope that the Minister for Planning rethinks this matter accordingly.