Boarding Houses have become “the latest cash cow” for developers says a Sutherland Shire councillor.
Cr Diedree Steinwall said she could not understand why the council would want to cut development fees paid for this type of project.
The council deferred a recommendation in a staff report to reduce the fees, and instead requested a briefing for councillors.
Ten development applications for boarding houses in the shire have been received by the council this year.
Cr Steinwall said she had had been contacted by three different communities in D Ward with concerns about proposed projects.
”Boarding Houses, although much needed as a means of providing affordable rental housing, have become instead the latest ‘cash cow’ for developers,” she said.
“Developers are taking advantage of generous incentives to build larger and bulkier developments in residential areas, causing huge concerns in the community.
“The mandatory nature of this policy has rendered councils powerless to control them.
“This policy is being exploited and it is time for the state government to take action.”
Ms Steinwall said, in 2009, the state government introduced a State Affordable Housing Policy (SEPP) that freed up restrictions around granny flats and boarding houses.
While the intention to provide affordable rental accommodation for people on low to middle income in sometimes-affluent areas was admirable, developments has divided the community while delivering little.
Ms Steinwall said boarding house developments received more generous floor space and landscaping ratios and car parking allowance than apartment blocks, and they were not covered by design quality rules for internal amenity.
Some rooms were as small as 12 square metres.
The staff report said, at present, developers of boarding houses in the main centres were required to make a contribution to the council of $20,000 per boarding room to help provide new and upgraded public open space.
This was the same rate applied to new apartment blocks.
However the average occupancy rate for apartments, based on census data, was 1.8 persons, whereas boarding rooms were typically occupied by a single resident.
The report recommended the fees be reduced to $11,111 per room.
The report said the courts had ruled fees imposed by development consent authorities must be “reasonable”.
Recent boarding house applications had shown the development contribution was nearly 20 per cent of the project cost, the report said.
”It is considered that such a condition would be unlikely to pass the ‘reasonable’ test and could make this type of development economically unviable,” the report said.
The report said high density residential development in the growth precincts was forecast to result in population growth, which would increase the demand for public open space.
“Boarding house residents have similar needs to residents of residential flat buildings.
“With limited access to private open space, residents of boarding houses will increase the need for council to provide public open space.”
