Meisen Investments, Crows Nest NSW, made the following submission on the project:

Proposed amendment to parking provisions for boarding houses: ARHSEPP

Director, Housing and Infrastructure Policy:

I put forward this submission on behalf of Meisen Investments, who
believes that the proposed amendment to parking provisions will not
help serve the original goals set out for the ARHSEPP, which are to
encourage types of development that will satisfy affordable housing
pressures. We are of this opinion for two main reasons.

Firstly, we do not believe it logical to impose higher parking
requirements as a statewide application. We believe that maintaining a
distinction between an accessible area and a non-accessible area is
still an important factor to consider when determining car-parking
requirements. If a change were to be made, we believe combining the
accessibility consideration with some measure of available street
parking; and having parking requirements as a variable depending on
these two factors, would be a more appropriate way of ensuring
adequate car parking whilst still encouraging the development of
affordable housing. Establishing a car parking provision that may be
applicable when faced with the parking limitations of, say, inner
Sydney, and setting this as a statewide application to be imposed in
more regional areas without considering other car parking alternatives
does not seem to be the most responsible way of amending this
provision.

Secondly, we believe that establishing a blanket rule such as the
suggested amendment to car parking will defeat the purpose that
motivated the creation of the ARHSEPP in the first place (i.e. to
encourage the development of more affordable housing). To continue the
example above, establishing a car-parking provision that may be
appropriate for inner Sydney and applying that provision to more
regional areas without looking at other available parking factors (as
mentioned earlier) will only serve to unnecessarily hinder the
development of affordable housing in these other areas. While the
ARHSEPP has noble goals, all development must be commercial otherwise
it simply will not occur, and setting a statewide provision such as
the suggested without any other variable considerations will make
developing affordable housing in some areas of the state (where the
provision is not applicable) non-commercial.

Strong evidence would suggest that affordable housing is a statewide
issue, and for this reason the relevance of the statewide ARHSEPP is
paramount. Foregoing the current variable considerations in parking
provisions, namely the accessibility factor, will result in the
ARHSEPP being relevant in fewer places throughout NSW. If higher
parking provisions are deemed necessary in some areas of the state, we
believe that introducing more variable considerations, such as a
general measure of free unlimited street parking availability or
maintaining the accessibility to public transport, would be a more
effective way of imposing more car-parking where it is required
without hindering the development of affordable housing in other areas
where more car-parking is not required. Ensuring that there is
continued incentive to build affordable housing is the primary
objective of the ARHSEPP, and we believe that the proposed amendment
to parking provisions will hinder this objective in many areas of the
state where supplying affordable housing is most important.

Yours sincerely,

Meisen Investments