PBCA SUB on 30 Kingfisher mcu 21-0054

                                                                               27 May 2021
The Assessment Manager
MCU21/0054
Noosa Shire Council
Via email to [email protected]


PBCA Submission - MCU 21/0054 – Short term accommodation 30 Kingfisher Drive,
                             Peregian Beach.


I am writing on behalf of Peregian Beach Community Association Inc (PBCA) – an
organisation which has worked on behalf of residents to maintain the ambience and low-
key development of Peregian Beach for over 22 years.
The explosion of accommodation being turned over from long term residency to short-term
accommodation (STA) is causing significant problems in Peregian Beach (PB). Availability
of accommodation in the long-term rental market is reducing rapidly and the price is
escalating. Local businesses are unable to recruit staff because they are unable to find
long-term rental accommodation in their price range in, or at a reasonable distance from
PB.
There are significant issues for PB Community. More accommodation turned over to STA
is likely to mean that, in a normal non-Covid year the accommodation will be let only or
mainly in peak periods such as school Holidays. For the rest of the year these STAs are
empty and the community hollowed out. During peak periods there are the identified
problems with STAs of excessive noise, particularly between 10pm and 7am, inadequate
car parking spaces, and the myriad of other issues that impact on residential amenity.
30 KINGFISHER DRIVE, PEREGIAN BEACH
This application seeks to make a material change to the previously approved use, in this
case from residential dwelling with 5 bedrooms to short-term letting accommodation.
The PBCA objects to the application on the following grounds:
The proposed change of use to STA
   1.     is not consistent with the Strategic Framework; and in particular sections 3.2.4
          Housing to meet diverse needs of the Community; 3.3.3 Housing Choice and
          3.2.6-A Diverse and Resilient Community
   2.     is not consistent with the relevant codes, and
   3.     would result in significant loss of residential amenity for residents.