Jason Mah , of  Woolloomooloo NSW, made the following submission on the project:

Proposed amendment to parking provisions for boarding houses: ARHSEPP

I am not in favour of the proposed changes.

The areas with the greatest need for approved affordable housing would
be inner Sydney suburbs (e.g. Darlinghurst, Surry Hills, Newtown,
Glebe, etc.), given that property prices are now forcing landlords to
gradually raise rental rates to recover yield.

A majority of properties in the area are small blocks with very
limited parking, and most units are heritage listed which makes it
difficult to demolish/dig for underground parking (which in itself, is
expensive to construct). This already limits the number of suitable
plots where affordable housing can be created, even with the current
0.2 ratio.

Most residents living in these inner city areas already have great
access to transport, trains and are within walking distance to their
work places, hence many choose not to have a car. The demand of car
spaces in these areas, while necessary (because who wouldn't want to
have a car space if they could?), is more of a luxury than a

Accordingly, forcing new boarding houses to have 0.5 lots per room
will not only drive up the cost of affordable accommodation (because
developers will factor the additional cost into the rent), it will
also reduce the supply of affordable housing in these high-need areas
because of the limited supply of suitable plots who can accommodate
the increased requirement for car spaces. One could argue that it
would also encourage more people to buy cars (since they now have more
parking spots), which will in turn increase congestion and car supply
in the city. This is counter to the intended effect of the proposed

If the proposed changes were to be applied, it should NOT be a blanket
rule to apply across the board, but factor in the different situations
and supply/demand factors within the inner-city and other land-locked
areas. If anything, the 0.5 rule should apply to less-accessible areas
(> 400m from regular transport) instead of being across the board.

Please reconsider the criteria where the 0.5 parking ratio will apply
to be more specific to non-accessible boarding houses.