Nathan Khoury , of  Parramatta NSW, made the following submission on the project:

Proposed amendment to parking provisions for boarding houses: ARHSEPP

As a developer who has current boarding house projects, as well as some
in the future pipeline, these proposed changes are not welcomed. The
reasons for this are plentiful, but, generally:

1. Given the close proximity of boarding houses to public transport,
the purported "need" for additional parking spaces is ridiculous and
will make most boarding house sits unfeasible from a development
perspective

2. This proposal encourages higher car ownership and usage. This is
contrary to global government moves that are encouraging shared and
public transport options for congestion reduction, environmental
preservation and to reduce population in major cities.

3. This proposal goes to defeat the very purpose of the original
legislation, that being to assist persons seeking affordable housing
options. If developers are hit with more requirements for parking,
then the effect will be two fold:

a. Many sites will become unfeasible and hence there will be less
demand from developers to undertake the projects and that will result
in fewer boarding houses being completed;

b. The cost will increase (basement costs etc) and the yielded rooms
will likely decrease - both making the projects less feasible and if
undertaken, these costs will ultimately be passed on to the end users

c. The attraction of boarding houses (among others) is that they have
fewer parking requirements. 0.5 spots per room is absurd and will most
likely lead many developers to prefer to stick to developing units,
which have higher parking spot ratios as well.

I have discussed this at length with my partners and fellow developers
and the response has been overwhelmingly negative and it is very clear
that this will have a very bad impact on the boarding house space. I
myself would consider this reason enough to kill my drive or
enthusiasm to develop boarding houses.