454 Ocean Beach Road, Umina Beach NSW 2257

As a local resident of the area I object to this development .

Umina township is not a suitable area for boarding houses and there is not supper from the local community. There are no services and support mechanisms for either the residents or the neighbourhood to ensure the area is safe.

The area is suffering from poor planing and overdevelopment creating substantial social issues for resident that this development would only exacerbate further.

These high density low value developments should not be allowed and both developers and councillors have a responsibility to ensure the residents are in suitable housing with suitable support.
Boarding houses should be placed as required by government in regions close to substantial public transport links, employment, and social services. This is clearly not suitable for Umina, Ettalong or woy Woy.

There is currently a renewed development application for an 11 unit/room boarding house plus managers residence at 454 Ocean Beach Road, Umina Beach. The application was first made in May, 2019. Proposed hours of operation for the boarding house are stipulated as seven days a week, 24 hours a day.
Similar development applications, are becoming more common and an application has been lodged for 8 Micro Units at 433 Ocean Beach Road, Umina Beach. It would appear developers understandably are endeavouring to maximize profits, but sadly such developments contribute to residential overcrowding and deteriorating community standards.
Umina Beach Residents I have spoken to are vehemently opposed to this boarding house application.
Criminals upon release from prison if they have nowhere to go they often are relocated to boarding houses because of the cheap accommodation. Developers tried to build a similar boarding house at Ettalong where residents strenuously objected and successfully prevented it being built. The homeless people gathering at Woy Woy are a sad blight on the area with drunkenness, fighting and foul language common. The people of Umina Beach don’t want to see this beautiful beachside suburb turned into a slum area of the future.
The development application at 454 Ocean Beach Road, is opposite the CWA hall where Senior Citizens regularly congregate. It is near the Umina Beach Public School and numerous children walk to school and the Umina Beach surf Club, sometimes unsupervised. It is a long way from Woy Woy Railway Station and is nowhere near a ready employment hub. There is enough pressure on public transport now without adding an unknown, unstipulated number of residents from this site. Under the Terms and Conditions of the May, 2019 proposal, The number of guests occupying a room must not exceed the number stated on the reservation document. How many are allowed to be stated on the document and live in each room?
There are 11 Units self-contained with no apparent stipulation of the numbers of people allowed in each unit, as well as a minimum of one manager on duty at all times, just how many people will be living on one block of land? I submit this overcrowding is outrageous in a residential suburb.
In the May, 2019 Development Application, Smoking was to be strictly prohibited within the internal parts of the premises, including all rooms, bathrooms and common areas. Meaning of course nicotine addicted residents of the boarding house would gather outside on Ocean Beach Road smoking, which would be a form of intimidation of the Senior Residents attending the CWA Hall opposite, nearby residents and children going to and from school. The current application does not mention smoking restrictions, despite duty of care consideration. However the hourly restrictions to common areas must mean the boarding house residents will gather on the street after hours.
There is a total of 12 residences in this application, on one normal sized block of residential land. There is only six parking spaces and this will cause yet further parking and traffic congestion to Ocean Beach Road.
In light of the sheer weight of numbers of Umina Beach Residents, opposing this development, I look to our Council Officers and our elected Council Representatives to act responsibly and stop this outrageous development in a residential area.
Please do not destroy the natural ambience of Umina Beach with inappropriate developments like this. I caution if this development is allowed, the precedent will be set and other similar applications will follow.

I am opposed to this development. I believe the location does not meet the necessary criteria as outlined in the Central Coast Draft Affordable and Alternative Housing Strategy (2018). That states that location is ‘a key issue in terms of social equity and sustainability’ and should be located close to ‘larger service centres with a comprehensive range of retail, health, recreation and support services and facilities, and where possible, public transport. A focus on transit oriented developments near major railway stations is also important given the level of commuting out of area in the Central Coast.’ It recommends locating affordable housing within 800 metres of railway stations, and focusing on business zones such as Gosford and Woy Woy. Clearly, Umina Beach does not fit that criteria, being over 4 km from the nearest train station. Additionally, council is required under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act to ‘take into account the social and economic impacts of a development application’ and to ‘consider whether a proposed development is in the public interest’. The proposed location is close to children’s playgrounds, sporting fields, surf clubs, and schools, and right at the gateway to the suburb, yet not near social services, and in a suburb that has an undersupply of doctors, no police presence, and a consistently greater than state and national levels of unemployment. Furthermore, whilst across the Central Coast, apartments make up 8% of housing stock, in Umina Beach, dwellings other than houses has increased over the last 10 years to 23% of the housing stock in 2016. This has been coupled with a population increase of nearly 10%, without the associated infrastructure to support it. Adding to this already existing inequity in Umina Beach is ignoring the social impacts of higher density living and changing the essential nature of our coastal village. There are many investigations and studies that have highlighted the costs of development without attention to infrastructure, particularly ‘soft infrastructure’ such as access to employment, and the establishment of local services and strategies to develop community cohesion. The Macquarie Fields riots of 2005 are example of an area that had basic hard infrastructure provided such as shops and affordable housing, but without other hard infrastructure such as a community centre, and the essential soft infrastructure. (http://realoptionsconsulting.com.au/.../Sharyn-Casey...). This study also notes The failure to provide adequate and sustainable community infrastructure results in long-term costs and consequences. This is particularly so in areas that are already disadvantaged or show signs of the potential to become increasingly disadvantaged over the medium to long term. The study indicates ideally a town of our size would have a neighbourhood centre, a community hall, and a senior citizens centre. Umina Beach, with its already higher than average unemployment, lack of a police station, and other essential infrastructure needs is in danger of suffering long term costs of ongoing unsuitable developments, including this one.

I strongly object to this proposal. Situating this sort of high density housing in Umina where there is not the infrastructure to support this is not a sensible decision. Umina infrastructure is already over-stretched and the addition of this development would further stretch infrastructure. The location of this proposal near both a school, surf club and playground is completely unsuitable.

Very similar and full of the same problems as the last proposal. Why are you even considering these proposals when it is so blatantly obvious that the rate payers of the area are so vehemently against such developments?
Ummm just in case you missed it.........again. That’s a big NO from me.

I do wish people would get all of the facts regarding this dwelling, please allow me to clear up some of the overactive minds of the area.

Kevin Wood comment below
There is currently a renewed development application for an 11 unit/room boarding house plus managers residence at 454 Ocean Beach Road, Proposed hours of operation for the boarding house are stipulated as seven days a week, 24 hours a day. NOT TRUE THIS WILL BE PEOPLES HOMES

Dani
Umina township is not a suitable area for boarding houses and there is not supper from the local community. There are no services and support mechanisms for either the residents or the neighbourhood to ensure the area is safe. THIS IS NOT A HALF WAY HOUSE OR A JAIL STOP OVER OR A REHAB CLINIC?

Please have a clear understanding of what this means for our pensions and low income singles that can not afford the housing prices in our area, I for one would love to know my mum and family members could be safe and warm in affordable accommodation this is not for people coming out if rehab or jail this is a up market 1bedroom units for older long term tenants. It is privately owned. Before the negative comments and overactive mind make sure you understand the term boarding house for this dwelling it does not say drug rehab or jail transfer the criteria for approval as a tenant will be the same as anyone applying for a house.

i am a local resident and i find myself torn between compassion and selfishness. For me compassion wins. If the boarding houses are properly supervised and serve as a real bridge into normalised community for people who have been in gaol or are homeless then i think the social value of this is enormous. The proposed site is very close to public transport and there are health services in the area as ample as anywhere else. Perhaps we should get out of this 'not in my backyard' mentality and forget our own parochial interests.

Aliacha Weiss stated, inter alia, I do wish people would get all of the facts regarding this dwelling, please allow me to clear up some of the overactive minds of the area.
There is currently a renewed development application for an 11 unit/room boarding house plus managers residence at 454 Ocean Beach Road, Proposed hours of operation for the boarding house are stipulated as seven days a week, 24 hours a day. NOT TRUE THIS WILL BE PEOPLES HOMES
Aliecha should get her facts straight and read the supporting documents at Council Both the old and the new DA state it will operate 24 hours a day seven days a week. The documents speak for themselves

Kevin Wood, please read correctly,
2.4 OPERATIONAL DETAILS
Proposed hours of operation for the boarding house are as follows:
 Seven days a week: 24 hours a day. TO BE AVAILABLE FOR US 24/7
Notwithstanding, it is important to note the proposed terms and conditions of the boarding house room occupancies include the following limitations:
 No boarding house residents or their guests will be permitted in private courtyards or balconies or any common part of the development after 11:00pm of any day.
 The Communal Lounge and its external open space is not to be used or occupied by any residents or their guests before 8:00am or after 10:00pm on any day.

CTS
The proposed new generation residential boarding house will provide greater housing choice and more affordable housing within the Umina area. The proposed rooms differ from those of traditional boarding house rooms with shared facilities. TRUE FACT PEOPLES HOMES The proposal provides fully self-contained small dwellings geared to long term residents. As such, it will not be offering short term occupancies, but will only offer minimum terms of six months. MUST BE 6 MTHS AND UP The design and nature of these arrangements are likely to attract a more traditional long term residential use rather than short term transient patrons. LONG TERM TENANTS TO MAKE IT THERE HOME

The proposed boarding house will be a privately operated facility and will not be operated by any government agencies supporting or servicing very-low income earners, social housing providers, rehabilitation or repatriation service centres for criminals, rapists, alcoholics or paedophiles or other government social services agencies

I KNOW MY FACTS REGARDING THIS PROJECT AND THE MANAGEMENT OF THE BOARDING HOUSE

Aliecha Weiss has confirmed that proposed hours of operation for the boarding house are as follows: Seven days a week: 24 hours a day, and that is what I said here initially and Aliecha commented here that was not true. Well I am sorry it is correct, it will have hours of operation 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
No one has suggested it would be operated by a Government Agency, Aliecha stated it will be a privately operated facility, Aliecha is a property manager for a local Real Estate company.

I object to this development.
Umina is a village that does not have the required services to support people who would use boarding house facilities.
This proposal is in a seasonally high tourist area that struggles with the pressures to offer many of the services needed by visitors let alone the extra services required by the people targeted for boarding house accommodation.

My objection is not in regards to the purpose of the building but the size of it. Our roads are already congested creating excessive traffic. Additionally, Umina simply does not have the infrastructure to support the high rate of increase in population. This large building doesn’t belong in umina.

Rodolfo
This development has been re submitted again. Is it because of the number of objections it had the first time around?
There were a large number of objections and the developer "withdrew" the application. Why?
I oppose this development because of its size, appearance, potential occupancy rates, security, type of residents, position of the development and their contribution to the character, lifestyle, economy and well being of the community. This type of development does not contribute or enhance the Umina Beach Village character. This is a family area with many vulnerable aged residents.
It is alarming for a lot of residents to learn a police comment and assessment has been sought.
Why the need for a police assessment, when the developer suggests the accommodation is for young and low income workers
This is very concerning and it seems to be extremely dishonest. Why then, does this development application need high security cameras and a 24/7 on site manager for the on going management of the tenants in these premises?
Why are there so many rules, conditions and restrictions on the tenants of these units, if they are only low income and of good character?
Why the need for a police report, security measures including CCTV, the need to manage the premises with an on site manager 24 hours a day, seven days a week, if the tenants are meant to enrich the character and diversity of Umina Beach?
We have to add the fact that there are about seven (7) alcohol serving venues within walking distance of this development which by being so easily accessible, will have a negative impact on the community and business of the surrounding area, mainly during the evenings and at night forcing residents to avoid this part of Umina Beach and access to facilities such as the beach and recreation precint.
The touristic and family friendly feel of the area will be compromised and heavily impacted and it's identity lost to this type of development.
This location does not meet the Central Coast Draft Affordable and Alternative Housing Strategy (2018) requiring this type of developments be located close to large service centers and efficient public transport.
The council strategy also recommends affordable housing should be located within 800 metres of railway stations and focusing in business areas like Woy Woy and Gosford.
Council is also required under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act to take into account the social and economic impacts of a development application and to consider if a proposed development is in the general public interest.
We do not have any government bodies or agencies and insufficient police presence in the area.
There are no local social agencies or mental health and drug services. They are located in Gosford.
There are no Medicare, Centrelink or welfare services near by, with these facilities locate in Woy Woy, four kms away!
There are insufficient job opportunities in the area with most locals having to travel away from the area for employment.
This development only has six parking spaces with no parking available for its potential 22 residents living in 11 self contained units.
The application states there will be an on site manager 24 hours a day 7 days a week.
How long will this Managers position last and who is going to enforce this condition once the development is approved and completed?
They are low cost and small area apartments, which could attract tenants with different background, attitudes and behavior to the community that might be disturbing to local residents and the public in general.
I don't understand how this type of development could even be considered or accepted by council when it is so close to a primary school, two surf life saving clubs, the biggest children and family recreation center in the peninsula with its extensive parklands and proposed redevelopment. A very popular beach frequented by visitor from all places, caravan and tourist park, Hope church, CWA, and Umina Sunday markets.
Council should not approve this type of development because of the apartments size, building area, location, occupation density and proposed use as it does not match the population and general type of buildings in the area.
This development does not comply with many of the planning rules because of it's appearance, size, parking provisions, setbacks, privacy aspects, location and by being located in one of the busiest roads in the peninsula.
Let us remember the effect the boarding house operating in Woy Woy has had in the area's residents and businesses before trying to halt the progressive gentrification and character of Umina Beach.
This development has no reason to be approved because of the above reasons.
It is a very strong "NO" to this development from me.

There clearly is not enough infrastructure in Umina to support such a high density development. Roads are already congested with heavy traffic on west st and ocean beach road.
There is already a lack of job opportunities locally to the local residents and such a high density development such as this will create extra pressure on the job front with unemployment already at very high rates.

This type of development has no contribution to the local area. It annoys me that the past application received a very strong NO response from the public so the developers thought they would pull it from the DA process, make some changes and then resubmit without locals (including myself being notified).

I own a property within 150 meters and have not been notified, there is a lack of duty and I strongly oppose this development.

Clearly the developer is interested solely in his back pocket and not the impact this will have on the community.

I object to this submission.
The position is busy and there is a lack of parking especially on the summer weekends when nippers is on.
A boarding house should not be located in such close proximity to a primary school and nippers on the weekend due to the safety of the children as who will be living in this boarding house?
This type of development will change the feel of Umina, local people including myself who have moved up from Sydney, bought here because of the beach side feel Umina has. It’s a tourist spot that people visit from all over the country - the caravan park is rated in the top 5. A development of this type will go against everything the local people want and councils efforts to develop it into a better place attracting tourists.

A boarding house will not add to the local community. It will take away.

A very STRONG NO from me. It's not appropriate to have a dwelling of this capacity on Ocean Beach rd for one. The road & traffic are terrible as it is & to allow a possible 12 with the manager cars to come & go from one address is only going to cause havoc & danger. Kids use that footpath regularly & I can envisage problems with the extra cars that may come & go from this address, with the possibility of a child being hurt or worse. The roads on the peninsula are terrible as it is & are struggling now. We definitely need them fixed before any further possible road users move in.

This type of housing is not suited to a beachside area like we have either. I appreciate that there are people needing this, but the size of the land & location don't fit the criteria. The residents either side would not be happy Im sure. It's certainly a way of the person applying for this to maximise his dollar, but I wonder would he like it next door to his home?

I strongly disagree with the proposal of this boarding house, whilst the idea is nice it does not suit the location. We are a tourist area and this will DE value all of the local residents houses and our community thrives on the tourism and holiday visitors. The Boarding house does not fit in with the community and will give reason for holiday makers to take their vacation elsewhere. We are also already limited with parking and infrastructure on Ocean beach road and this will only make matters worse.
I am very against this boarding house and think that this application needs to be taken elsewhere

I am a local resident and I strongly object to this development. Having read the Social Impact Statement 2.14 it states "the boarding house will be a privately operated facility and will not be operated by any government agencies servicing, supporting or providing rehabilitation or a repatriation service for criminals rapists alcoholics or pedophiles" Really! And how would the owner or manager confirm this to be true when most of the above live in social housing boarding houses or private boarding houses. I understand these people need to live somewhere but having 11 rooms and 1 room for a manager is never a good idea It creates social disharmony within the group that can and does spill out onto the local community This development must be rejected

We object to this proposal as we live in close proximity to the intended development we are young family and do not agree with the types of people that’s could possibly be housed in a development such as this one , however i know that not all housing developments house ex criminals and people of This nature I do know that this development is not in a suitable area for the possibility of this , we do not have the facilities that boarding houses require in our area such as adequate transport eg train stations 24 hour medical care and mental health facilities close by .

This development also is trying to house and have more parking spaces than I believe is feasible for the space provided .

This is a high traffic area full of local
family’s , school children locals & tourists . This is not a space that we should have to pass on a daily walk to the beach ,school shops of caravan park and could be a possible eye sore .

As a local Buisness owner and neighbour I also believe that it devalues the housing and Buisness’s in the surrounding area and will attract people of lower social economics which makes it harder on our Small Buisness to succeed .

Speaking to a lot of my clients about this and they too agree there has not been enough notice about this and do not want this boarding house in our local area .

Please consider our submission to object to the proposal of 454 ocean beach road umina

I strongly object to this boarding house proposal AGAIN (2nd time this application has been submitted).
Firstly, the simple fact that the multistorey complex will ruin the neighbouring houses and villas chances of sunlight, breezes and privacy.
Secondly, the idea that none of these residents will own cars is ridiculous and there is nowhere for these cars to be parked. If the developer tries to state that no-one will own cars, then I am most concerned about the sort of people they think will live there - obviously not long-term residents. Who lives in a property where there needs to be times in place, managers etc?
Council, why would you place a boardinghouse in what is the most socially disadvantaged area on the Central Coast?
Are you trying to make this place a ghetto?!
Our aged and young residents are going to be put at even higher risk of criminal associations.
There is already barely any employment opportunities for local residents, so this development will further reduce these chances.
Where is the environmental consideration?
Why is this application being submitted again?!
This development needs to go to Gosford, Wyong, Erina, Tuggerah etc, where there are ample employment opportunities, close to Hospitals and close to public transport services.

Dear Council. Please reject this development based on the following:
- inadequate public transport nearby (no train station)
- no police station in Umina to monitor this site
- very close proximity to primary school, surf club, CWA Hall.
- Parking does not meet guidelines.
- does not meet green space guidelines
- will effect view and natural sunlight of neighbouring properties.
- reduce natural amenity of the area
- Umina is trying hard to improve its reputation. Please don't send us backwards!
Thank you

Wayne
I oppose this development my concerns regard the size, potential occupancy rates security and situation of the development. I wonder why a development needs security and cctv monitoring and an on site Manager 24 hours a day, what risks do they think may happen? Is this to protect the occupants or the surrounding neighbours. How will the developers make money if it has low rents, wages to an 24 hour on site Manager, cleaners, maintenance, a gardener etc. leaves a bit to be suspicious about.
The location and size of this development is unsuitable, this is a quiet area with many elderly resident living here and theirs or anyone's lifestyle and peace should not be disrupted by a boarding hours with multiple resident that could be potentially coming and going every three months as nobody can guarantee this will not happen.

Julie
This development has been re submitted again. Is it because of the number of objections it had the first time around?
There were a large number of objections and the developer "withdrew" the application. Why?? I hope that the last lot of objections will be taken into account as well.

I oppose this boarding house as a resident of Umina for many years I have seen the area slowly decline with the approvals of to many granny flats and multi unit developments, We are faced with overcrowding, more cars and rubbish in our laneways and streets, less parking , our roads are a disgrace, employment issues, longer waiting list for specialist services and more anti social behaviour.
How many people can reside in each room. This has the potential to house more than 11 people and there is also an on site manager. This must raise serious concern and issues for council and for neighbouring residents with noise and parking issues.

The objections to a boarding house at Ettalong was upheld and not approved, so why would this development be any different? These builds are supposedly "affordable housing" but the new one at the rear of Gosford Hospital on Beane St, developers are offering $280pw for a studio! That would be 70% of a person's pension just on rent.
However, we have a neighbour (single lady 80+) who is squirreled away in a crappy (probably illegal) granny flat/converted garage for $250pw being 60% of her pension including housing assistance. She and other women like her would greatly benefit from a safe place to live close to her beloved beach/coast.
So, who decides on the mix of tenants?
Dept Housing re-organised the tenant mix at two towers at Dundas to older people in one and younger in the other. This came about from the many tenant complaints (noise, fights, drug dealing, violence etc) and with the support of a local resident action group, got the mix changed.

Whilst I am not opposed to the idea of the development to help people that
need it, but I am extremely opposed to the location being in Umina which is
very clearly an inadequate location. Looking at the DA this development is
targeting transient type people who will most certainly have no commitment
to upkeeping the sense of community and pride which has been evolving in
Umina over recent years. In addition, these transient people may well be
disposed towards anti-social behaviour which will have a negative impact
on surrounding residents especially on our children walking to/from Umina
Beach and the local schools. Woy Woy would be a far more suitable
location because it has far better public transport links, and access to better
amenities to support such people such as the Centrelink and Medicare
centre there. The local infrastructure is far better suited to cope with such
demands. Council also needs to look at what has happened after similar
developments were built at Woy Woy and Gosford – the model has failed
miserably as there are now very real social issues happening in both
Gosford and Woy Woy around these facilities. If this goes ahead Umina will
most certainly end up having the same problems. Interestingly a similar
development proposed for Ettalong a few years ago was not approved after
residents objected so if this DA is approved it will support the view by many
locals that council doesnâ€TMt give a damn about Woy Woy and Umina.

The developer of the proposed Boarding House at 454 Ocean Beach Road, Umina Beach, Mr Charles Raneri in his recent da application, stated; inter alia; (Peninsula News “Boutique Boarding House Plan resubmitted with changes” Edition 480) “This type of new generation boarding house facility will attract members of the community that are self-sufficient and desire to live independently rather than share facilities” and, “It is unfortunate that this type of accommodation falls under the heading of “boarding house” and “the home was privately owned and aimed at low to middle income earners” and “It is unfortunate that this type of accommodation falls under the label of “boarding house” and "The design and nature of these arrangements are likely to attract a more traditional long-term residential use rather than short term transient patrons."
Is it a boarding house? or is it a block of Units that otherwise would not pass development application scrutiny? It does pose the question of whether this proposal, to quote Shakespeare is “a rose by any other name” what is important is what things are, not what they are called. The bottom line is that if the da application is passed, it will be passed under da law as a “boarding house”, with 12 residences on one block of residential land. There is no stipulated restriction on the amount of people allowed to live there, and as is common practice, some residents will share the rental, there could well be four or more people in each unit and the situation arises in years to come there may be forty or fifty people living on one block of land, with hours of operation 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. That might be acceptable in Beijing or third world countries, but it is inappropriate for Umina Beach, nor is it in the public interest to create future slums.
The objectives of the Boarding House clauses in the Affordable Rental Housing, State Environmental Policy is to provide short term accessible and affordable housing. This da application does not seem to fulfill those requirements. The land between West Street Umina Beach and the beach itself is in demand and very expensive selling for around and over the million dollar mark, so it seems an unlikely location to provide cheap accommodation for low income earners. In section (3) (30A) Local Area Character - "A consent authority must not consent to development to which this Division applies unless it has taken into consideration whether the design of the development is compatible with the character of the local area". Clearly this development is not compatible.
I was confused to read the comments of Bruce Hyland in the article (Peninsula News “Lets have a reasoned debate, not unsubstantiated slurs” Edition 481) He then proceeded himself cast personal slurs at the Developer, Council Officers and myself. He cast a slur at the developer accusing him of subterfuge. In fairness to Mr. Raneri it is clear he has not reverted to subterfuge and openly stated the da intentions as quoted above. Mr. Hyland unfairly cast slurs on the credibility of Council Officers in his comments; “not being noted for acuteness of perception, our planning administrators are quite likely to fall for this subterfuge” Mr. Hyland also cast numerous incorrect slurs at the article I submitted (Peninsula News “Inappropriate developments will destroy local ambience” Edition 480.) In this article I called for our Council Officers and Elected Representatives to act responsibly to stop this outrageous development in a residential area. The da Council Officers I have met are highly qualified, they have a hard job to do, and to publicly criticise their professionalism and competence is ridiculous and unfair. In his article Mr Hyland mentions an avo he took out but hastened to say not against Mr. Woods. To clear up any innuendo in his comments for other confused readers, I have never met Bruce Hyland, I don’t know him, and I fail to see my non-involvement in his historical avo has any relevance.
Mr. Hyland in his article called for a debate saying; inter alia; “Let us have a reasoned debate on the merits and otherwise of this development”. The Debate has been ongoing for six months, in the Peninsula News, online at both Planning Alerts and the Gosford Council Website, where dozens of Umina Beach Residents have lodged their objections in proper manner on the issue. I note Mr. Hyland did not participate in the Council da process which has been well advertised in the past six months, and open to public scrutiny online. Mr Hyland does not live in Umina Beach, but almost three kilometres away from the proposed boarding house. That does not preclude him from commenting, but it is clear he will not be affected by the location of the boarding house in a neighbouring suburb.
My knowledge of the issues comes from decades of law enforcement experience. I am the first to agree a percentage of boarding house residents are respectable people. However criminals do not publicise their antecedents. When criminals, pedophiles and even pedophile murderers, are released, the public are not informed of their location, nor are the police authorised to publicise their address. The Privacy Act prevents the public from being made aware, and the public perception is the rights of the criminals outweigh the rights of children. That is not; to quote Mr. Hyland; “Nothing but hearsay and shock jock emotionalism”, it is fact.
The Affordable Rental Housing, State Environmental Policy, Section (3) (30) (1) (c) deals with proposed numbers of lodgers. The management plan submitted with this da does not specify a maximum number of lodgers who can occupy a room. The State Environment Plan Policy requires consent not be given where boarding rooms will be occupied by more than two adult lodgers; “a rose by any other name”; will this building be a “boarding house” restricted to two persons per room? or a unit block with unlimited numbers? A question that our Council Officers and Elected Council Officials will have to ponder and I am sure they have the required perception, competence and professionalism to do so.

We do not need this in Umina. We are over crowded as it is. It is too close to school and parking is a hard enough. We don't know what kind of people will be residing in the boarding house which is a major concern. I do appreciate people need to be placed but why as close the a school and the beach which is a major walking path for the local residence.I have seen how the WOY WOY boarding has impacted on the area with persons drinking swearing and taking drugs at the oval we did need this.