Submission - Allan Stephens - MCU200097.msg

Subject: Fwd: FW: Development Permit for Material Change of Use - Short Term Accommodation Application Ref: MCU20/0097
From: Allan Stephens
Date: 2020-11-22T23:29:08+00:00
To: Mailbox Council Mail

Council Officers,
I own, and reside permanently, with my wife Siri at 2/14 Weyba St, Sunshine Beach.
We have obtained and read the proposal submitted by Project Urban on behalf of the recent purchasers of unit 27A Hill St.
Let me say at the outset, that the Council has approved too many residences for short stay (Airbnb)
If Councilors live within close proximity to these premises, they will understsand the excess noise emmiterd from these premises, disturbing the peace and tanquility of  of our neighbourhood. Just look at 12 Weyba Strret as an example, wild parties to all hours with  constant yelling and exessively loud music. We are tied of complaining to the property manager, From now on we will call the police, a strained resource as the managers are inadequate
I think it is time for the residence of Noosa to have a say in where  short stay residences are approve.
Lets put it to a vote,. of ratepayers , residents  and not leave it to Council to rollover to every request for short stay approval    .
Juist look at the Council's encouragement of Schoolies coming to Noosa , who pays for the clean up of main Beach, not Council, it's the ratepayers, How much more damage and cost will there be after just one night in Noosa.  Of course then we have the drugs that follow schoolies and as a result , the need for extra secutiy and medical professionals, who I'm sure would rather not be there in force. Again who pays,? it's the ratepayers or tax payers
It's ok to say , the commercial enterprises need the revenue, it's ther ratepayers who bear the costs.
I'm sure commercially, all will do well, if we further encourage regular visitors to Noosa, and not turn it into another low rise Gold Coast, a disgracwel place, , where normal people avoid
So lets put it to a vote of residence, not beaurcrats in coincil

As a result, we reject the arguments of the application and request that Council not approve this application.
Basis of Objection
Planning Approval Process
Whilst the Noosa Plan 2020 Short Term Accommodation strategy has been developed for many reasons, we believe that it was not intended to be held in contempt by developers in this manner. This duplex was only recently built using established Planning Processes to establish a residence in this Medium Density Zone. To now have the owner apply for a Material Change of Use without the building having been occupied at all seems to be devious and manipulative.
Subject Site
The subject site is a duplex currently under contract on a non-strata titled block. This Development Application should be invalidated until firstly the contract is finalised, and then the strata title approval process be undertaken before this Material Change of Use is considered. as the impact of this Development Application on 27B is significant.
Loss of Amenity to the Entire Neighbourhood.
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 this proposed increase of Short Term Accommodation in this area 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.
We purchased our property as a residential property in a predominantly residential zone that is classified as Medium Density. Council has advised (Short Term Accommodation Guide 15 October 20200) That this zone” is intended for permanent residential living mixed with some visitor accommodation” Whilst we have not found any evidence of how Councils defines  “some”, it is our belief that the quantity of visitor short term accommodation has been reached and there should be no more permitted in this area. Each and every approval for this type of accommodation reduces the amenity of this neighbourhood. The question is asked – at what point does Council say we have enough?
We believe Council has an obligation to protect our 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. This Development Application, if approved, is one more step in destroying the amenity of our neighbourhood.
Proposed Management of 27A Hill St
To compare the management of this site with surrounding larger commercial enterprises is not logical nor valid. These generally have on-site managers that continually monitor and police their guests. To suggest that an off-site caretaker will be able to provide the same outcome is ludicrous and naive.
Summary
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.
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.

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, and get your decisions from residence

Allan Stephens,
2/14 Weyba Street,
Sunshine Beach, 4567