Ambassador could be home for older residents

A PROPOSAL to allow people over the age of 50 to reside permanently at the notorious Ambassador Hotel has not been approved by Frankston Council, but discussions are set to continue.

The permit in place at the hotel reads that “the owner covenants and agrees that no dwelling allowed by the permit on the land will be used as a principal place of residence, without the further written consent of council”. The owners at the hotel sought to amend that to read “‘the owner covenants and agrees that no dwelling on the land will accommodate persons who are under the age of 50 years (other than siblings, spouses or descendants of land owner/s or principal tenants).”

Councillors did not support the amendment at their latest meeting, but agreed to continue discussions with the owners on potential mechanisms to improve safety at the site. Those discussions will cover potential changes relating to residents over the age of 50.

Melinda Ryan from Town Planning and Co made a submission on behalf of the owner’s corporation. She said that the changes would mean that “no dwelling on the land would accommodate people who are under 50 years, whether or not it’s a principal place of residence or otherwise. So there will be no short term accommodation of younger persons.” Ms Ryan said the proposed change would apply to 109 apartments.

A report prepared by council officers read that the purpose of the change was to “reduce the anti-social behaviour of its occupants”. The site has developed a bad reputation for crime. Between December 2019 and February 2020, 20 arrests were made at the hotel (“Ambassador arrests spike”, The Times, 17/2/20).

The reasons councillors gave for not approving the changes were that “the agreement does not need to be amended to achieve the desired outcome of allowing occupation by those over 50, there would be persons who would be disadvantaged by the ending of the agreement, the amendment removes council’s contractual control,” and that there had been “no change in circumstance to necessitate the amendment.” 

Cr Colin Hampton said the idea had merit. “We had to reply to this request from the owners of the Ambassador, but we have added a provision that this council or the next will sit down with the owners and talk about possible solutions,” he said. 

“This can be turned around at any point with a notice of motion. Let’s get down and talk to them about a solution, I think the over 50s result is a good solution for the site.”

Cr Steve Toms expressed concerns that the changes would leave young people struggling to find accommodation. “I don’t feel comfortable with an arrangement that leaves young people seeking emergency housing at the Ambassador being absolutely blocked from doing so by this mechanism,” he said.

Cr Brian Cunial said “there are plenty of other places where younger people can get (…) residential accommodation. They need to be managed and they need people to know what they are doing to actually help them out.”

“To be frank if it was me that owned units in that development I wouldn’t want too many younger people in there because that might affect the value of my investment,” he said.

Cr Kris Bolam said “I hear Cr Toms’ concerns about exclusions of young people but I ought to remind councillors we did the exact same thing two years ago at Sandpiper Place. We put a provision in place that only made it available to young people or students.”

“It’s no secret that a number of owners have received penalties for contravening bylaws or health and safety issues, but those issues ares separate,” he said. “If anyone is going to come to council from that [Ambassador] complex and seek a good faith solution, they need to resolve those issues first and foremost.”

Councillors voted unanimously to not give approval to the proposed changes to the section 173 agreement, but to continue discussions with the owners moving forward.

First published in the Frankston Times – 7 September 2020