Objection by B & K Sharpe

Page 2

4. The sole frontage and access to the adjoining premises is from Edward Street. Edward Street is
   only a 10m. wide road opening with a two way carriageway. Due to such a constraint, Council has
   marked a significant length of kerbing within Edward Street with yellow lines so as to restrict
   kerbside parking and thereby better assist to manage traffic. It is our experience over the last
   2.5 years that guests saying in the adjoining premises still need to park their vehicles in the
   Edward Street or Ann Street. This adds to parking problems in our neighbour and often seriously
   constraining vehicular access into our property.

5. The provision of onsite parking and associate driveways and maneouvring areas in the adjoining
   premises is not conducive for overflow parking by guests and parking by any visitors within that
   site. As such it is common for overflow parking for guests and all parking by visitors to park in
   Edward Street or Ann Street. This appears to be a constant issue for our neighbourhood.

6. It is our understanding that the vast majority if not all adjoining residences to our immediate
   property are owner-occupied and not used for short term accommodation. The existing
   residential amenity of the immediate neighbourhood is therefore one that has been enjoyed by
   owner occupiers in the past. Over the last 2.5 years our immediate neighbourhood has lost its
   valued residential amenity to the extent some owners have felt it necessary to lodge complaints
   with Council. The approval of the above development approval will legitimise what has been
   happening to our immediate neighbourhood for the last 2.5 years from a land use perspective. The
   proposed local law may assist in providing an improved means to lodging a complaint however many
   of the issues being experienced cannot negated by enforcing Council’s local law.

7. The proposal is considered to not be consistent with 3.2.4 Housing in the 2020 Noosa Plan which
   requires proposed development to meet diverse needs of the community and 3.3.3 Housing Choice
   (n) of the Strategic Framework, as it will further erode the permanent housing in the area,
   impacting permanent resident amenity. The applicant’s response that …’The applicant seeks to use
   the dwelling for their own use and if refused for short term accommodation will not permanently
   rent the dwelling. Therefore, by refusing this development will not erode permanent housing’… is
   somewhat naive. The response does not properly appreciate the relevance of the term
   “community”. It is considered that “community” could be regarded in this context to refer to a
   group of people living in the same place or having a particular characteristic in common. The
   surrounding community is predominantly owner occupiers. The intent of the above extract from
   the 2020 Noosa Plan is for proposed development to meet diverse needs of that community of
   owner occupiers not to diversify the nature of residents/occupants. The response also
   disregards also that any such existing development approval runs with the land and can benefit
   successors in title and not just the applicant. The needs, preferences and wants of the relevant
   owner at the time can change over time.

8. The proposal is not considered to be consistent with 7.2.4.2 Purpose and Overall Outcomes (2)(t)
   and Performance Outcome PO21 of the Noosaville Local Plan Code in the 2020 Noosa Plan as:
      (a)   Additional visitor accommodation in the area has already proven over the last 2.5 years
            to result in detrimental impacts on the residential amenity of permanent residents.
      (b)   While the above code in the 2020 Noosa Plan seeks to maintain visitor accommodation in
            the area, it doesn’t seek to increase the extent of visitor accommodation within the area
            to the detriment of permanent residents. The development proposal clearly proposes to
            increase the extent of (lawful) extent of visitor accommodation within the area to the
            detriment of permanent residents.

Page 3

9. It is considered that the proposal is not consistent with 9.3.5.2 Purpose and Overall Outcomes (1)
   and (2)(f) of the Visitor Accommodation Code in the 2020 Noosa Plan because :
      (a)   The proposed visitor accommodation is not appropriately located and integrated with
            permanent residents in the area.
      (b)   The design and construction of the existing dwelling for the proposed short term ac-
            commodation use has continually been proven to be inappropriate for such a use over the
            last 2.5 years especially when located in an immediate neighbour of predominantly perma-
            nent residents.
      (c)   The proposed visitor accommodation is likely to detract from the amenity enjoyed by
            residents nearby and in the surrounding area as it has done for the last 2.5 years.

10. The development proposal does not comply with Performance Outcome PO12 of the Visitor
    Accommodation Code and Performance Outcome PO6 of the Driveway and Parking Code in the
    2020 Noosa Plan as insufficient car parking is proposed on site to address the likely parking
    demands on site if the proposal was approved.

11. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that there is a need for additional short term
    accommodation in the area.



It is considered that our grounds of objection cannot be adequately addresses by Council issuing
both a conditional approval of the above development application along with the requirement for
registration under Council’s new local law on Short Stay Letting.

We therefore reiterate that the current application should be rejected on grounds which include the
above.

Yours sincerely



G.F. Martoo for

William Benjamin Sharpe
Kirsty Lynne Sharpe
P.O Box 99
Noosaville, Qld 4566
Email – [email protected]
Telephone - 0487703106