Open letter

The Oaks

1 Wood Street
Lane Cove NSW 2066
Tel : (02) 9418 6386
Mobile: 0414 427 708
Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Open Letter to Lane Cove Councillors
Reference Boarding Houses

Transmitted by Email

Experience tells us that the State Government’s low income housing policy of the new generation of boarding houses is fundamentally flawed and as this policy is implemented by Local Councils I write by way of correcting misinformation.

Should correspondence direct to our elected representative breach protocols, please advise and accept apologies.

I do have a vested interest, residing at The Oaks 1 Wood Street, Lane Cove West, a local heritage listed property that adjoins the proposed boarding house at 47A Pen Street (DA under assessment).

Extending circulation of this letter to Councillors of all Lane Cove Wards is considered necessary as boarding houses are proposed in all areas and I challenge the boarding house strategy in principle, as well as the inappropriate intended location of 47A Penrose Street. Through my business I have decades of experience with boarding houses and have seen what works and what does not and therefore present myself with some authority on that subject.

The Abberfield Group of Companies have manufactured coin operated and push button time controlled devices for many decades. These are often used for pre-payment or control of hot showers and laundry equipment in caravan parks, the tourism industry generally and in boarding houses and hostels. We have therefore had decades of experience in supplying, installing and servicing these products in boarding houses.

The DA submission waxes lyrical;

‘In regard to the perceived impacts of boarding houses, there is often a lack of
understanding in the local communities of the people likely to be accommodated in
affordable housing and a misunderstanding of the nature of the people that qualify to
occupy the affordable rental housing. This can lead to local residents opposing new
affordable housing proposals as they object to “social housing” occupants in their
area, because of perceived social issues and potential for impacts on property
values.’

The distinction between “social housing” and occupier funded housing is fully understood and in our business we have experienced both. Our main experience is in boarding houses where tenants pay their way, the category the developers of 47A Penrose Street say will occupy the proposed building.

We have met many wonderful honest hard working low income people, whom we respect immensely, but with low income very often comes a serious lack of social s vandalism, graffiti, filth and garbage everywhere (including used syringes, condoms etc.), foul language, verbal and physical abuse. We have seen this behaviour time and time again; it is real now, just as it has been for all the six decades of our experience of visiting these communities.

Consolidation of these types of people perpetuates and encourages anti-social behaviour and on the “doorstep” of kid central West Lane Cove is totally unacceptable

Conversely, coin or push button controls on showers and laundry appliances are also fitted to the garden flats of ordinary homes, used by other low income people at these dispersed locations there is negligable anti-social behaviour. In the setting of dispersed housing, such as garden flats, smaller studio apartments (as part of a no apartment complex), these disadvantaged people function well.

They benefit from the social interaction with the rest of the local inhabitants, some of who become mentors to the underprivileged.

The policy of new home unit developments including a small percentage of low income apartments supports the decentralisation of low income persons. In concept i highly desirable. If it has been unsuccessful and has led to the policy of a new generation of boarding houses, it is beholden to those in authority to determine why it unsuccessful and address any shortcomings. But it will be “a brick on London” that the failure will not be that decentralisation of low income persons was fundamentally flawed, that principle is fundamentally sound.

And now I must apologise for the crudeness of using a proven well known phrase. It offends my sensitivity to do so but the imperative of driving home the known pro and undeniable (but ignored) fact about decentralisation compels that I must risk the odium a ending an unfortunate possible inference.

It is a categorical fact that decentralisation in every walk of life is generally advantageous and on the subject books are written, from one I quote:- “the answer to poll is dilution”.

Benevolence compels that sympathy to under privileged persons must be practiced, not just preached, or worse ignored. Our record of supporting those in need is extensive to our considerable financial and emotional peril. One fundamental of that support is education itself, but also educating or guiding others to learn how to themselves.