22 Dunstaffenage Street, Hurlstone Park

Demolition of all existing structures and construction of new 7 bedroom boarding house

External link Read more information

We found this application for you on the planning authority's website about 2 months ago. It was received by them 1 day earlier.

(Source: Canterbury-Bankstown Council, reference DA-194/2018/A)

18 Comments

Have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. Nat commented

    As a Hurlstone Park Resident - I object to this application.

    Hurlstone Park does not require a boarding house, this application is not in keeping with the current buildings in the suburb.

  2. Cheyne commented

    Council should not approve the proposed demolition to construct a 7 bedroom boarding house at this location, as this will not be keeping with the existing character homes that make this neighbourhood such a peaceful and family friendly environment.

    A boarding home will just introduce additional parking, noise, rubbish and conjestion to the narrow lane way - resulting in potential traffic hazards.

  3. Nicola Brown commented

    I object to the proposed boarding house development at 22 Dunstaffenage St, Hurlstone Park. I do not believe that sufficient street parking is available for a 7 bedroom boarding house. I do not think that a boarding house is in keeping with the other buildings and facilities in the immediate area. The design overlooks the yards of current residents, and will result in a loss of privacy. The building to land ratio is excessive.

  4. Michele van der Sander commented

    The location of this proposed development is in the middle of an already reasonably dense residential area, with mostly single story character dwellings, in a inner city suburban area with limited parking. To build a boarding house in this space would not be in keeping with the other dwellings in the area and would cause increased congestion to the existing residence and lessen the amenity of the neighbourhood.

  5. Frank commented

    For all your information, this is not a new DA and has been approved recently.

  6. Yiannis Mastakounas commented

    As opposed to all the NIMBY's (not in my back yard) and as a 45 year resident of Hurlstone Park, I support this type of development as there is an acute need for affordable housing in Sydney. The landscape is changing and smaller residences with single occupants an couples are the way of the future and very much in demand. You can fight it as much as you like but its happening all around us.

  7. Marc commented

    Yiannis. I 100% agree Sydney needs Affordable Housing. But are you sure this development in Hurlstone Park will help address this issue?
    The last I heard, vendors in the area demand an average of around $800K for a 2 or 3 bedroom apartment. Is that affordable to a 20-something, just starting out on their first job?

  8. MICHELE VAN DER SANDER commented

    Yiannis. I 100% agree Sydney needs Affordable Housing and would be happy to see some decent low rise medium density affordable housing that is in keeping with the local area. But what is being proposed is a boarding house - not affordable homes for singles & couples.

    " Boarding houses provide accommodation for a fee. Usually a resident only has a right to occupy a room and share other facilities such as a kitchen and bathroom, they do not have the same rights as tenants." NSW Fair Trading

  9. Yiannis M commented

    Marc, Michele,

    To be clear, New Generation Boarding Houses are unlike apartments as they cant be strata titled so cant be sold off individually, instead they provide self contained rooms for approx $300 pw (inner west, cheaper in outer suburbs) giving both young and older Australians the opportunity to live dignified while they either save for a deposit or in the case of the overwhelming situation of +55 yo homeless women being on the rise, to be part of a community and to afford to have their own space and dignity.

    As for NSW Fair Trading definition, it is techically correct however the occupants of New Generation Boarding Houses MUST comply with house rules which are approved by Council as part of the DA process, are mostly self contained rooms with private bathrooms and kitchenettes, have regular council inspections, need to comply with a raft of conditions, have to be registered, can't rent rooms for less than 3 months at a time, have an onsite 24 hr manager (if more than 20 occupants) or otherwise professionally managed etc and are part of the solution not part of the problem.

    If an occupant doesn't comply with the house rules they are given a warning and if they persist THANKFULLY for everyone concerned, except the rogue occupant, can be evicted to protect everyone's privacy and amenity including the neighbours.

    Would you rather have a low rise house next door which is rented out as a share home with no regulation as to who comes and goes and with no controls over the tenancy because it's damn near impossible to evict tenants these days,. I've been through the process countless times over the past 40+years and can cite many examples, what a waste of time, money and resources!

    Approx 64% of all Sydney residential tenancies (ref: NSWPOA) are effectively share houses and many are sub let without the Landlor's consent or knowledge with the head tenant often making more from the site than the landlord.

    I know of at least one such place in Hurlstone Park and have experienced the same issue in my own investment property in Hurlstone Park.

    The added wear and tear, damage and disruption to neighbours in such situations makes the entire exercise unviable for an investor putting up his / her hard earned only to be treated as a mug by the tenants and the Dept of (un)Fair Trading! Why would anyone want to provide or develop residential rental accomodation? At least with New Gen Boarding Houses theres a win win for all concerned.

  10. Liz Locksley commented

    Council should reject this development. It is unlikely to deliver much needed affordable accommodation. Instead it is likely to deliver poor quality construction and fat profit for the developer. A number of commenters have referenced the pressing need for affordable housing in the inner west. This need is also expressed in the Inner West Council’s own draft Local Strategic Planning Statement. https://www.innerwest.nsw.gov.au/develop/our-place-inner-west

    This development appears to be yet another in the Inner West purporting to provide affordable housing under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP (‘boarding house’ SEPP), a Planning loop hole to build poor quality appartments that are not actually affordable to people on low incomes. See recent (lost) legal summary of cases brought by Inner West Council trying to require developers of boarding houses to keep rents affordable via covenants. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=1f4e9701-1891-490b-b2a5-00f0663527e4
    Stick to your policy commitment Inner West Council. We need genuinely affordable accommodation and quality construction in keeping with the area.

  11. Liz Locksley commented

    Further to my previous comment, I note this development is in Canterbury Bankstown LGA and include the Local Strategic Planning Statement which refers to pressing need for affordable housing. https://haveyoursay.cbcity.nsw.gov.au/local-strategic-planning-statement-lsps

    Case law relating to Inner West Council is still relevant here. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=1f4e9701-1891-490b-b2a5-00f0663527e4

  12. Steve commented

    Wondering if Yiannis is the developer or related to the developer?

    These so called boarding houses are a loop hole for developers to circumvent local council and use state planning under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP (‘boarding house’ SEPP).

    Generally this apartment development would be rejected but because you give it the affordable rental housing flavour, it gets through, using different planning laws. The developers are all following each other like sheep and using this loop hole. It needs to be closed.

    As if Yiannis and the developer care about providing this world with affordable housing. Let's get real people.

  13. Jane commented

    I just wanted to say I agree wholeheartedly with the comment by Steve except I wouldn’t have put it so well!

  14. Cheyne commented

    There are still no documents available on the Canterbury-Bankstown Council website under DA-194/2018/A - how do we get the chance to view what is proposed?

    It is also unusual that DA-194/2018 is for another 7 bedroom boarding house, but this time at Greenacre.

  15. Yiannis M commented

    Steve, to satisfy your curiosity, I confirm that I am neither the developer nor know or are related to the developer.

    I do however understand yours and the other opponents cynicism to New Generation Boarding Houses (NGBH) as I too was a cynic and a NIMBY until I took the time to dig a little deeper when looking for a better investment for some of my hard earned money.

    I exited the residential property investment sector due to poor returns rising prices and being held to ransom by (un) Fair Trading and ridiculous tenancy protection regulations, which effectively hold a landlord hostage in their own property. Don't take my word for it though, just go to A current Affair for countless stories on how honest Mum and Dad investors have come off second best time and time again in the residential rental circus!

    This brings us to the point of why would any self respecting investor want to provide / develop residential rental accommodation hence the supply demand equation resulting in the current cost of residential accommodation. Its only going to get worse unless a solution is found and the Govt has no answer to this hence they turn to the private sector for solutions via State based programs such as NGBH.

    From a selfish point of view, I obviously was seeking to maximise my return on my invested hard earned money (crucify me for that!) but I also wanted my investment to be a win win scenario (if that was at all possible) as I have young adult children who are paying exorbitant rents and know first hand how hard it is for them to get onto the property ladder in Sydney.

    During the research phase, I have not yet found a better concept than the NGBH where the investor / landlord, occupants / boarders and community (neighbours, local businesses) all benefit as the:

    - developer / investor obtains a reasonable return on his investment (note: it is not a passive investment in most cases rather a business venture, as mum and dad investors generally run the smaller boarding houses);

    - boarders pay a lower rent, max 2 weeks bond (as opposed to 4 + weeks) and electricity, water and internet are included in the rent. My kids currently rent a 1 bed unit in Hurlstone Park for $550 p/w they would be paying $300 approx for an inner west self contained room in a NGBH allowing them to save the difference towards their own home;

    - community and neighbours benefit as the NGBH is regulated, is registered, has min 3 months accommodation agreements in place with boarders (unlike share homes and Air BnB in unit blocks, but that's another issue), cant be strata titled and sold off individually unlike unit blocks, local businesses benefit etc,

    So Steve, lets get real, unless you're a charity and want to work for free or you are a messiah prepared to risk your own money for nought, then please advise of an investment option for me and many other Mum and Dad investors out there, that provides all of the benefits to all concerned that a NGBH does.

  16. PAUL HARVEY commented

    Steve that is exactly what happened! This was rejected and resubmitted several times the finally rejected by Council. The developer appealed to the Land and Environment court and got it approved. That's right! This is already approved and so cannot be stopped now. This is just an applciation to commence work by demolishing the existing house. A lot of us made multiple submissions at various stages but the views and concerns of all the local residents, for all the various reasons you can see put forward in a lot of the comments on here, have been overidden in favour of developers!

  17. Janet commented

    Living in a boarding house is not a dignified way of life. Making money out of investing in boarding houses is also undignified and mercenary.

  18. Jim M commented

    Yiannis M, from the way you describe residential property investment I don't understand why honest Mum and Dad investors would put their hard earned into it. The problem, I think, lies in property investors paying off with other people's hard earned money bank loans for those properties. I'm referring to the hard earned money of renters who are priced out of the homebuyers' market.

    You mentioned the supply demand equaton. That looks like supply is the driver. People investing in new developments, that renters have to live in whether they like them or not.

    We'd be better off with a demand driven dynamic, a demand supply equation. Property investors getting out of property and putting their funds into investments that improve the world, such as renewable energy. Out-priced renters would then be able to buy. They'd build residences they prefer to live in, and neighbourhoods would be happier with that.

  1. Have you made a donation or gift to a Councillor or Council employee? You may need to disclose this.

  2. Please use your real full name if possible.

  1. We never display your street address. Why do you need my address?

This week

Find PlanningAlerts useful?

This independent project is run by a local charity, the OpenAustralia Foundation. PlanningAlerts is powered by small, tax-deductible donations from the people who use it to stay informed about changes to their local area. If you find it useful, chip in to support PlanningAlerts.

Back PlanningAlerts