LETTER TO THE EDITOR | Boarding house rejected, but smaller housing need remains

KNOCKED BACK: The rejected proposal for 194A March Street.
KNOCKED BACK: The rejected proposal for 194A March Street.

I ATTENDED the council meeting on Tuesday night where the pros and cons of the proposed boarding house site at 194A March Street were debated, and the proposal was rejected by council upon recommendation of council staff and multiple community members’ objections.

One need which was highlighted by the meeting was for more accommodation of a one- or two-bedroom type to provide for the increasing number of single, middle-aged women and men, a need for which a statewide State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) was legislated some years ago.

MAP: Where the boarding house would have been located …

A feature of this SEPP is, provided the rules are followed, the development could proceed despite council objections and refusals.

Thus, complying developments on Molong Road and McLachlan Street have been processed and are now at the construction stage.

One option for the developers is an appeal to the Land and Environment Court.

I wonder whether an alternative might be assessing whether the old Bunnings building could be converted into suitable low-cost affordable housing, given most of the basic structural elements have already been constructed.

Productive work for architects and interior designers, rather than the lawyers?

Yours faithfully,

Conrad Silvester

DO YOU WANT MORE ORANGE NEWS?

  • You can now receive headlines and story links from the Central Western Daily delivered straight to your inbox at 6am six days a week, as well as breaking news alerts. Sign up here

Comments