A BOARDING house operating since late last year in Karingal Drive will not be allowed to take in more tenants and some residents will be forced to leave.
At last week’s public council meeting councillors unanimously rejected an application to have 12 tenants reside at 177 Karingal Dv, Frankston.
Council planning approval is not required to house up to ten occupants.
A council officers report had recommended the permit be granted submit to conditions to be met by the boarding house owner.
Owner Richard Casley admitted he had “made mistakes in the process I’ve followed so far” but approving the permit would have provided an individual room to each of the 12 tenants living at the house instead of sharing eight rooms.
Neighbours have complained to council about anti-social behavior at the premises and councillors took this into consideration when deciding to overrule the advice provided by council officers.
Residents said police have been called to incidents at the Karingal Dv property on several occasions.
Seaford Community Committee chairman Noel Tudball spoke in favour of the boarding house application for the sake of the tenants.
“The people in this rooming house appear to be happy and safe. They have a roof over their head and they’re not on the streets.”
Mr Casley said no manager was on site to oversee the boarding house. He expected neighbouring residents to contact him if there is any trouble.
The council officers report noted: “The applicant has a number of Rooming Houses registered at other locations within Frankston, where a number of issues have arisen. In particular, there have been concerns raised by residents in proximity to these sites regarding anti-social behaviour of tenants and a loss of amenity due to the appearance of these properties or level of noise created.
These sites range in size and accommodate between 6 and 9 tenants each, where no planning approval is required.”
Cr Glenn Aitken said “there is no great joy” in rejecting an application for a rooming house but those who live in the same street deserve “a duty of care” from council, as do those who live in rooming houses, mostly due to unfortunate circumstances.
Council is preparing to trial a “Magpies Nest” model to offer minimal rent accommodation to homeless people, based on a similar initiative by Collingwood Football Club and the Salvation Army in the northern suburbs of Melbourne (‘Magpies plan spreads its wings’, The Times 1/4/15).
That model will see a maximum of three occupants in three separate homes and a case manager to support all nine residents.
Cr Colin Hampton said there are two rooming houses situated near his home but they are well managed.
“Unfortunately state governments – both Labor and Liberal – haven’t had the foresight to put the management plan into conditions of rooming houses.
“If they had done this we would not have the problems that we’ve had in this state over the period of time rooming houses have been allowed to flourish.”
Rooming houses are registered with Consumer Affairs Victoria and rooming house operators must comply with minimum standards “related to privacy, security, safety and amenity in rooming houses”.
