Submission - MCU20 0097 - Julia Craddock and Garth Prowse.msg

Subject: Development Permit for Material Change of Use - Short Term Accommodation Application Ref: MCU20/0097
From: Julia Craddock
Date: 2020-11-17T04:55:34+00:00
To: Mailbox Council Mail

Dear Council Officers,

I own, and reside permanently, with my partner Roger Prowse, at 1/28 Wildflower St Sunshine Beach. My property abuts the duplex at 27 Hill St. 

We have obtained and read the proposal submitted by Project Urban on behalf of the recent purchasers of unit 27A Hill St. 

We reject the premises of the submission and strongly urge Council to reject this proposal for Material Change of Use. The submission makes no compelling case for why the 1st purchasers of a newly built residential property should seek on purchase to materially alter the use of 1 unit of an adjoining pair - a duplex. This is a threshold issue. Council needs to give very serious consideration to the principle of allowing rezoning of use to 1 unit in an adjoining pair. 

In my submission, it is inherently unsuitable, impractical and inappropriate to alter the change of use of 1 unit in an adjoining pair. It would be impractical and unreasonable to have differing permits for usage between the 2 units. 

The proposal is particularly disappointing/concerning, as the property has only recently been constructed as a residential property. The purchasers of the property are the 1st purchasers of the newly constructed property. The property was designed, approved by Council, built, advertised and sold as a residential property. To be blunt: the purchasers have bought a newly constructed, adjoining duplex, residential unit. If they wished to purchase a commercial, on-going short-term letting property - they should have done so. 

The application for development permit for material change of use - short-term accommodation at 1/27 Hill St Sunshine Beach is not persuasive and should be rejected by Council.

Details of Opposition

1. Loss of amenity to neighbouring properties; diminution of my property’s value as a permanent residence (and presumably that of 27B Hill St). 

The submission seeks to present unit 27A as being at a distance from it’s neighbours: 50-70 metres. It does not adequately address the glaring fact that it is nil distance from it’s nearest neighbour, the adjoining unit 27B. Unit 27A is approximately 12-13 metres from my property. My proximity to 27A and my amenity is not directly addressed anywhere in the submission. Whilst I cannot presume to speak on behalf of the recent purchasers of unit 27B; it is readily apparent their property would, in all likelihood, given it’s proximity to 27A, be significantly, deleteriously affected by this change of usage if it is approved. 
If Council were to approve this application it would set a very poor precedent whereby properties are approved and built under 1 set of regulations and on completion are immediately changed to another. Furthermore it would set a very strong precedent to approve any similar application by the current or future owners of unit 27B.  Indeed it is difficult to see how Council could reject such an application as the nature and interests of the 2 units are, as an adjoined duplex, intrinsically combined. 
Council’s Short-Term Accommodation Guide and the quotes from Strategic Intent contained in the proposal acknowledge that the interests of short-term visitors are not consistent with, and can be incompatible to the interests of permanent residents. Neighbourhoods of permanent residents should be ‘protected from influxes of short-term visitors whose interests and priorities are not compatible with residential amenity’. It is patently clear that unit 27B, sharing a party wall with unit 27A, and whose outdoor entertainment areas abut those of 27A, will experience diminished residential amenity. 
It is also clear that if this material change of use is approved for unit 27A; unit 27B would in turn have a very clear case; indeed incentive; to also apply for a similar change of use. 
To live next door to 1 ongoing short-term letting facility is deeply concerning to me. To potentially live next door to 2 is alarming. I do not wish to live next to a resort. I purchased my property as a residential property in a predominantly residential zone. I would not knowingly purchase a property next to, or near, an ongoing short-term holiday letting property. I most certainly did not expect a resort to “pop-up” by default, next door to me, when 27 Hill St was redeveloped. I can assure Council that if the developers of 27 Hill St had sought any zoning other than residential, I would have vigorously opposed the planning application at that time. Council, and the recent purchasers, should respect the residential zoning that the property was built and purchased under. I would further suggest Council has an obligation to protect my amenity and interests as an existing permanent resident and owner of a residential property in a residential zone, from encroachment of a short-term letting commercial enterprise. It is precisely by this domino process that the amenity and character of residential neighbourhoods is destroyed. If the proposal is approved it would give me very serious cause to consider whether my property would remain viable as a permanent residential property. I assume any future prospective purchaser of my property for use as a permanent residence, would think likewise. It would be reasonable to expect that the obvious potential for negative impacts and loss of amenity posed by a “resort” in such close proximity would adversely affect the residential value of my property if the proposal were approved. 

2.  Site Details
The outdoor living and entertainment areas of unit 27A are routinely referred to, throughout the submission, as a private open space. The space is open; it is not private in any meaningful sense, other than by access. 
The boundary wall is stepped and varies in height in sections from approximately 1.5-1.6 metres. It is 1.8 metres only at it’s highest points. The area is visible to passersby. The 1.8 metre block wall that separates the units’ adjoining outdoor living and entertaining areas is referenced throughout the submission as a noise mitigating feature. Whilst it provides some visual privacy between the 2 units at ground level, I would suggest it will do nothing to block music and the social noise of guests enjoying and making full use of the outdoor entertainment and pool area. The wall is a rendered block wall, currently unsoftened or “padded” by any substantial noise absorbing vegetation. I would suggest that as a solid wall it is more likely to aid the projection of sound - bouncing and reverberating music and social noise upwards to my property, and of course raising it over the fence to 27B. The unit has a balcony on the 2nd storey which is situated well above the perimeter and adjoining fencing. Noise from any music or social use of the balcony, even simple talking, will carry freely to 27B and to my property - in particular my bedroom. Guests will be likely to have windows and sliding doors in the bedrooms, balconies, and entertainment areas open thereby carrying music and noise from inside the unit to adjoining properties: principally 27B and my property. 
The main living and outdoor entertainment areas of my property are adjacent to, and orient towards the outdoor entertainment areas of 27 Hill St. My property is an open plan, Stephen Kidd designed, pavilion style home. It features extensive use of louvred windows throughout. The living and kitchen areas open onto a deck via a wall of bifold doors which we usually open every day, creating an open pavilion effect. I bought the property expressly because of these features which provide cooling sea breeze airflow throughout the house so that air conditioning is very rarely needed. Noise from the units adjacent (est at 50mtrs in the submission) and any social gatherings in the park adjacent to 27 Hill St (a further distance) currently travels freely into my living area and bedroom. Furthermore as my property is set higher than the units at 27 Hill St, noise travels up and is particularly evident in the main bedroom. 
The open design of our home makes us particularly vulnerable to noise from adjoining and adjacent properties. This risk is mitigated by the fact that we are located in a quiet residential area with established on going relationships with neighbours and the community. Living with the noise of occasional entertaining by established neighbours is quite different to living next door to a permanent holiday letting enterprise. 
Whilst “party houses” are banned in Noosa, it is undeniable that for the guests of 27A it will be their party/holiday environment for the duration of their stay. They are after all paying guests who have hired a property precisely so they can fully enjoy it’s amenities for the duration of their stay. 

3.  Proposed Management of 27A Hill St

The proposal seeks to persuade that surrounding residents’ amenity will not be adversely affected because the property is proposed to be managed/serviced by an offsite Airbnb management/caretaker service. This proposition is supported by references to existing examples of holiday accomodation close to 27 Hill St. Whilst I am not familiar with the workings of all the properties listed, I am familiar with Parkshores, having holidayed there many times in the past. Parkshores and Sundancer Holiday Apartments are resorts. Parkshores, and I assume Sundancer, has a live-in manager on site. Noise and behaviour is strictly controlled. The pool and outdoor areas are closed at 8pm and are not accessible to guests after this time. This is to prevent noise from these open areas reverberating up to the units above. I find it quite disingenuous and concerning to seek to equate large commercial resorts equipped with onsite managers with a small residential unit in a duplex with at best a displayed phone number complaint service.
27A Hill St is currently a small residential adjoining duplex located in a principally residential area. It is not and should not be turned into a resort. 
The intersection of Pacific Ave and Hill St marks the commencement of a principally residential section of Sunshine Beach and is distinct from the more commercial stretch of Henderson St (Hill St extension) from Pacific Ave to Sunshine Beach village and Pilchers Gap. Whilst 27 Hill St is located near commercial holiday letting enterprises it is located in the principally residential section of the neighbourhood. Council should protect this residential neighbourhood from commercial encroachment. 
It is clearly impractical and unrealistic to believe that having “house rules” and a contact for complaints number will be sufficient to deter paying guests from using the pool and outdoor entertainment areas at night. The unit is small. It is impossible to believe that paying guests will readily agree to confine themselves to the unit whilst looking at the invitingly lit pool every night. 
People book holiday let properties precisely because they wish to have full use of the facilities unfettered by resort style limitations. They are there to enjoy themselves and have little concern for neighbours’ amenity. 
An offsite caretaker/booking service is in no way comparable to an on-site resort manager. I do not wish to live next door to a resort. 
The proposal indicates that as the unit is small, no more than 4 people should be approved to stay at any one time. What constitutes 4 people?  It is a legitimate question. Is it 4 adults, plus children? Will a family of 2 adults and 3 small children be denied a booking? What of guests of the guests, who decide to visit and stay. Who will do the head count. How? When? What measures will be put in place to ensure that the number and identity of guests equates with the booking? There is endless elasticity and potential problems in this concept of limited, vetted guests. 


4.  Conclusion
I submit it would be completely inappropriate for Council to approve the proposed material change of use - short-term holiday accommodation for unit 27A Hill St. 

Adjoining duplexes are inherently unsuited to allowing differing usage to 1 of the pair. The interests of the holiday letting property are intrinsically incompatible with that of the residential property. 

Approving the proposal would set an undesirable precedent for change of use. It is inappropriate to build a property on a residential permit and as soon as it is completed seek to change that permit before residency has taken place. 

The property was designed, approved, built and purchased as a residential property for residential use. Council, and dare I submit, the purchaser should respect and protect that very recent planning decision. 

Council should protect my residential amenity as an existing permanent resident and rate-payer, abutting 27 Hill St. 

Council should preserve the residential amenity and character of this predominantly permanent resident neighbourhood and protect permanent resident properties from the adverse affects of ongoing short-term holiday letting. 

I strongly request Council reject application ref MCU20/0097

Julia Craddock
Roger Prowse
Sent from my iPhone