Original source · versioned page text
Adobe Scan 18 Feb 2022
Attached to the e-mail PM Submission - Steve & Christine Riley - MCU17/0076.01.
Steve and Christine Riley
2/27 Edward St, Noosaville
Email - [email protected]
Chief Executive Officer
Noosa Shire Council
PO Box 141
TEWANTIN Q 4565
17 February, 2022
Sent by email to ~ I d .gov au
Re: Submission Objecting to Application Reference MCU17/0076.01, Being a Other change to
include Short Term Accommodation (Multiple Housing Type 2 Duplex & Operational Works) over Land
Located at 1/25 Edward St, Noosaville, Qld 4566
Dear Sir
Reference is made to the above development application which is currently undergoing its public notification.
This public notification is inviting submissions from the public in response to the proposed short term
accommodation use of a dwelling in an existing duplex adjoining our property and for these submissions to be
lodged with Noosa Shire Council as the assessment manager.
We own a dwelling in the adjoining duplex use to the south.
We are objecting to this development application and request that Council refuses this development
application.
Our objection is based on grounds that include the following:
I . We have only Jived at this property for 12 months in the adjoining premises to the South. During this time
we have been subjected to what appears to be a disregard by the guests and the owner of this adjoining
premises to the fact that this adjoining premises is located in a residential area. There has been
frequently late night partying and socialising within the adjoining premises by guests who are staying
in this premises for short periods of time. Typically this socialising takes place on the outdoor deck at
the rear of the adjoining premises, and involves loud voices and merriment and multiple occasions per
week, during the majority of weeks.
2. The western side (rear) of the adjoining premises has been designed and constructed for entertaining as it
comprises a pool and its adjoining deck is about 2 metres of our property. During the last year, it has
been common for guests staying in the adjoining premises to be on the deck or in the pool laughing
and talking loudly and even what sounds like yellmg, at almost any hour of the night and day. It is as
if they are staying in the adjoining premises for a short time so it may as well be a good time.
3. My home was obviously des(gned and_ c~nstruc~ed to talc~ advantage of its north-south aspect as preferred
by Council under sustamable bu1ldmg design principles. As such, our main dining and kitchen Jiving
areas and two of our bedrooms are along the northern boundary of our property. This is close to the
outdoor entraining area and indoor living and indoor living area of the adjoining premises. Again
during that last year it _has been c~~on fo~ our valued residential amenity to be disturbed night and
day by guests staying m the adJ01nmg premises on a short term basis.
4. The sole frontage an~ acce~s to the adjoining_premises is from Edward Street. Edward Street is only a 1Om.
wide road openmg with a_ two -:Vay carriageway. Due to such a constraint, Council has marked a
significant length ofkerbmg with m Edward street ':" 1th yellow lines so as to restrict kerbside parking
and thereby better assist manage traffic. Our experience over the last year that guests ta • 10 • th
· · d k th . h" 1 · s ymg e
adjoining premises still ne~ to par e1r ve ic ~s m the Edward Street or Ann Street. This adds to
oblems in my neighbour and often seriously constraining vehi"cular access mto . my property.
Parking Pr
. . n of onsite parking and associate driveways and maneouvring ar . h d" . . . .
5. The prov1s10 . . eas m t e a ~ommg premises 1s
not conducive for overflow parking by gueSts and parkmg 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 my understanding that the vast ma,jority if not all adjoining residences to our immediate property are
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalSearchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.
Full text of the other 1 page
Page 2
- owner occupied and not used for short tenn 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 year our immediate neighbourhood has lost its valued residential amenity to the extent
some owners have felt it necessary to lodge complaints with Council .. The a~prov~ of the above
development approval will legitimise what has been happening to our U1lll1ed1a~e ~e1ghb~urhood for
the last 2.5 years from a land use perspective. The proposed local law may assist ID prov1dmg 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 pennanent housing in the area, impacting pennan_ent
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 tenn "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
Perfonnance Outcome PO21 of the Noosaville Local Plan Code in the 2020 Noosa Plan as:
(i) 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 pennanent residents.
(ii) 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 pennanent residents. The development proposal clearly proposes to increase the
extent of (lawful) extent of visitor accommodation within the area to the detriment of pennanent
residents.
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 :
(i) The proposed visitor accommodation is not appropriately located and integrated with pennanent
residents in the area.
(ii) The design and construction of the existing dwelling for the proposed short tenn accommodation
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 pennanent residents.
(iii) The propos~d visitor accommodation is likely to detract from the amenity enjoyed by residents
nearby and ID the surroundmg 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
Accommodat10n Code and Performance Outcome PO6 of the Driveway and Parkin c d · th 2020
· uffi · k' • g o e ID e
N oosa Pl an as ms 1c1ent car par mg 1s proposed on site to address the likely p k · d ds
site. ar mg ernan on
11. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that there is a need for additional short term accommodation
. m . the
area.
It is considered that our grounds of objection cannot be adequately addres b C • . .
conditional approval of the above development application along with th/es ouncil issumg both a
Council's new local law on Short Stay Letting. requuement for registration under
We therefore reiterate that the current application should be refused on .
concerns. grounds that mclude the above
Steve and Christine Riley