PlanningAlerts

7 Comments

Create an account or sign in to have your say by adding your own comment.

1. More boarding houses are not needed in the area - these pokey undersized rooms, masquerading as ‘affordable housing’ provide the developers and owners with a massive land tax reducing asset. Unfortunately it does bequeath to the area sad, insular living for single people - it won’t be affordable and it’s degrading. There are too many of these being proposed to the detriment of future tenants and surrounding residents. Small apartments would be a much better option - more dignity for residents, more independence, less transience. Single low income tenants should not be condemned to live in an area the size of a prison cell. Please reject this development.

2. I absolutely agree with Roger Teumpy, and my comment cannot better his.
   "More boarding houses are not needed in the area - these pokey undersized rooms, masquerading as ‘affordable housing’ provide the developers and owners with a massive land tax reducing asset. Unfortunately it does bequeath to the area sad, insular living for single people - it won’t be affordable and it’s degrading. There are too many of these being proposed to the detriment of future tenants and surrounding residents. Small apartments would be a much better option - more dignity for residents, more independence, less transience. Single low income tenants should not be condemned to live in an area the size of a prison cell."
   Please reject this development.

3. Dudes
   If you can’t address any of the planning refs and regs all you’re doing is saying “I don’t like it”, which carries no weight.

4. Thanks Joey - yes, you’re correct- I don’t like it and that carries no weight. The rooms are too small. I think the gist of my comment was about the distortion of the tax ‘lessening’ strategy by more and more developers bunging up ‘boarding houses’ instead of proper homes for single people. Some may think this is a modern urban marvel and will solve all the current housing problems. I think it’s a reversion to what they tried over a century ago and will likely achieve the same outcomes over a few decades, of slum creation. Won’t bother me as I won’t be around then but I feel for the young and underprivileged condemned to live in a shoebox to feed developers’ greed. If this is a planning regulation that seems reasonable to the City of Sydney planners, then I wish them luck with the future outcomes of too many developments of this type.

5. Better that people express their views about proposed developments in plain language than not at all. Dressing up an opinion in planning and legal jargon is no recommendation. I support the comments made by Roger Trumpy on the subject DA. The social impacts of this and similar developments need to be fully considered. Also, we may be seeing "student" accommodation ending up as something else. A development at the corner of Cleveland and Abercrombie streets approved as a student facility is now seeking a change of use to a "hotel". A 600 student building in Eveleigh St. might also seek a change of use. Facilities aporoved for students may not meet standards required for other classes of accommodation.

6. No more boarding hoses please. The increase in these properties + plethora of student housing (Cleveland, everleigh, and recent state) is too much for Redfern. In The boarding house next to us the rooms now get up to an over $400 per week + electricity bills the legislation is under 25m2 for these rooms they are tiny. These tenants have received no relief from the reductions in rents seen in the area but owners/landlords have kept rents high. Be warned- The one next to us never gets in trouble off council for anything we report, they don’t have an on-site manager either which they are meant to w their DA- they don’t have recycling and have now put a massive security camera out front of our houses without permission- they have removed privacy screens & council has done nothing. I walked past this property for this DA - it has not been looked after at all...

7. As a community member, you can make a difference. When you object, you must have a good argument as outlined in other comments.
   The City of Sydney Council was excellent with our objections; although the matter proceeded to the Land & Environment Court; we were successful objecting to student accommodation under the banner of a"boarding house'. The premises allow only STUDENTS. Also, the design was drastically altered.

   The following conditions were made by the Appeals Court
   (3) RESTRICTION ON BOARDING HOUSE
   The building must be used as a boarding house for student accommodation only.

   This boarding house is about 200 metres from the proposed construction in Church Street, Newtown.

Have your say on this application

You're too late! The period for officially commenting on this application finished over 3 years ago. If you chose to comment now, your comment will still be displayed here and be sent to the planning authority but it will not be officially considered by the planning authority.

Your comment and details will be sent to City of Sydney. Your name and comment will be posted publicly above.

Create an account or sign in to make a comment