Baby boomers have been receiving a thrashing in the media lately for being self-centred and staying put in their large family homes rather than downsizing to free that home up for a young family.
The reality is that this is not going to change anytime soon and, in response, the traditional working class council of Botany Bay in Sydney has been pushing a simple answer.
It is only approving apartment developments that meet criteria making them suitable for families.
The first thing they did, five years ago, was to introduce a size mandate – their development control plan required developers to build apartments significantly larger than the minimums required under state government controls. Writing in the Sydney Morning Herald last week, Botany Council mayor, Ben Keneally, wrote: “we required two-bedroom apartments to be 100 square metres, rather than the minimum 75 square metres”.
“(Apartments) must all have hallway storage suitable for storing a pram and sporting gear, plus enough space in the children’s bedrooms for a bed and a desk, so little kids could play in their room and older kids could study.
Challenges – and challengers
But there are challenges – and challengers. Despite winning a case in the Land and Environment Court confirming the Council’s power to insist on these larger apartments, the property developers’ lobby has convinced the NSW government that this is not the right way to go – smaller is the better option they claim. Why? This question has not been answered but obviously they can get more apartments into the same area.
The state government has folded, it would seem, and amended state planning rules to override council controls. Ben Keneally and Botany Council is now investing ratepayer’s money in legal fees to fight the state government.
Meanwhile, Botany Council is trying a new strategy. Rather than insist on a minimum size, they are now specifying particular requirements for the construction of all two and three bedroom apartments.
“(Apartments) must all have hallway storage suitable for storing a pram and sporting gear, plus enough space in the children’s bedrooms for a bed and a desk, so little kids could play in their room and older kids could study. Two bathrooms will be required and at least one must have a bathtub and be large enough to allow parental supervision. There must be a separate small room for study or media consumption.”
Maintaining the fight
They claim that this is the best way that they can keep young families in the area – and they have a point. It all makes sense. The minimum size strategy has delivered over 4,500 ‘family friendly’ apartments over the past five years.
They expect their new provisions will be tested in the courts too but they are sticking to their guns.
“It concerns me that I will have to spend ratepayers’ money to defend them – but it’s critical for the future that we insist on the development of family-friendly apartments,” Keneally said.
A positive outcome will benefit all, including developers, because they will still build and sell apartments – look at the 4,500 delivered over five years. A negative outcome will only benefit developers, who no doubt don’t live in Botany but want the workers that could be living there.
The problem it appears is not greedy baby boomers but greedy developers. Common sense is not that common.
