Objection MCU18

Page 2

therefore assert, not only is it fair, ethical and consistent to refuse the application: in good
faith with residents of this locale; and in order to foster community trust and respect for
Council; it is imperative the application be rejected.

Councillors noted (meetings 12/7 and 15/7), inter alia, that STA density has reached
saturation levels in Sunshine Beach; and in some areas comprises more than 50%.
Councillors expressed concerns about ‘policy on the run’; ‘investors paying good money for
applications made in good faith’; ‘engendering trust with the community’; being ‘consistent
and fair’ and most concerning of all, describe legitimate refusal, an option fully available to
Councillors in accordance with the provisions of the Plan as: ‘changing the Noosa Plan’.

Glaringly absent from the debate was fairness to residents who rely on Council and
Councillors to represent their interests; protect their (often life-time) investment in their
residential homes and the community - by appropriately applying the provisions of the
Noosa Plan. Absent from the debate was the duty of care; the obligation Councillors have,
to protect those residents who purchased their residential properties in good faith in what
was a predominantly residential neighbourhood. Residents could not have reasonably
foreseen that the residential value of their properties and their residential amenity would
be severely degraded and diminished by laissez faire Council management, and now overt,
Council decision making - against residents’ interests, in contravention of the provisions and
principles of the Noosa Plan.

At the meeting of 12/7, Councillors (with the exception of Clrs Wilkie and Wegener)
indicated, as did Mayor Stewart, that they would, in fairness and justice, vote to support all
STA applications ‘in the pipeline in Medium Density areas’. These statements are on the
public record and are demonstrably improper. It grieves me, as a resident, to have to draw
such matters to the attention of Councillors and the Mayor.

Such statements of intent are clearly improper and would not withstand even the most
basic scrutiny in any appellate or review process or as evidence in any further action on
behalf of affected residents. Councillors are obliged to assess applications informed by
provisions of the State Planning Act 2016; the whole of the Noosa Plan 2020; Planning Staff
recommendations and any objections submitted in accordance with the Act. Councillors,
and most egregiously, the Mayor, in her position of leadership, cannot and patently should
not, make assessments on any of these applications until they have received full advice from
the applicants; Planning Staff’s recommendations; and: fully and properly considered;
assessed, and made decisions according to merit; on any objections received. It is available
to be argued that to indicate a voting position ahead of receiving the requisite advice and
facts is not only improper, it is likely to constitute misfeasance. Councillors are obliged to
afford residents the opportunity to lodge objections to MCU applications and are obliged to
afford those objections full and proper consideration. To form a position ahead of receipt of
any such objections is to totally prejudice the application process against residents and
objectors and is clearly improper.

Mayor Stewart, speaking to an MCU application at Peregian Beach, at the Council Ordinary
Meeting 15/7, arbitrarily dismissed objections by 76 residents living more than 100 metres
from the site with the very unfortunate, contemptuous comment (and I quote) ‘who cares’. I

                                                2

Page 3

should not have to point out to Mayor Stewart and Councillors that it is improper for Mayor
Stewart to so arbitrarily, and I regret to say, contemptuously, dismiss valid objections by
residents on the basis of relative proximity or distance. Neither the Act nor the Noosa Plan
imposes any such restriction on objections. Residents throughout the Shire are entitled to
make representation, objecting to MCU-STA applications and Councillors and the Mayor are
obliged by their Office to dutifully and reasonably consider such objections according to
their merit, and use the information provided by residents’ objections to inform their
decision making. Merit is not subject to the narrow confines of immediate proximity.

This statement by Mayor Stewart has unfortunately gained traction in the community,
deleteriously affecting the rights of constituents to lodge objections. I have been
approached by residents who have advised me that they were going to lodge an objection
to 10 Hill St, but had heard they were not “allowed to” because they lived more than 50
metres from the site. Note the contraction of the Mayor’s (arbitrary) original restriction of
100 metres to 50 metres. It is, in my view, now incumbent on Mayor Stewart to correct this
misconception that has eroded the rights of her constituents and is likely to materially affect
the number of objections lodged against MCU 18/006.03.

Patently decisions cannot and should not be made in advance of receipt of objections. To
indicate voting intentions and to record them on the public record, in advance of the closing
of the objection period and without the benefit of Planning Staff advice is improper,
negligent, entirely inappropriate and unreasonable by any reasonable, measured
assessment. Such action sends appalling messages to residents and objectors, and
encourages and rewards poor behaviour by applicants and their representatives.

Councillors and Mayor Stewart in particular expressed concern (meeting 12/7) about the
legal costs of defending appeals or being sued by unsuccessful applicants. Councillor
Stockwell advised the meeting that the compilers of this application (MCU 18/0006.03)
Martoo Consulting, have indicated if their applications are not approved by Council, they
will sue. I have no evidence other than Councillor Stockwell’s comments on the record, to
support such a contention, ascribed to Martoo Consulting. Accordingly I make the following
comments in a generalised capacity; regarding “threats” to sue. My comments are
generalised in nature and should not be read as comments directed at, or censorious of,
Martoo Consulting specifically.

Firstly “threats” to sue, are exactly that: threats. There is no substance, no specific detail, no
legal or intellectual force brought to bear. They are, at this stage, merely empty statements
without even the most basic detail of claim. Secondly: sue for what; on what basis? Due
process has not commenced, let alone been completed. The process of application;
objection if any; initial assessment; recommendation; final assessment and voting is yet to
have taken place. The applicants and objectors if any, then have the opportunity to apply,
pursue and exhaust all avenues of appeal. And, by that process, obtain favourable decisions
or evidence of suitable support for further action, before the applicants are in any position
to assess the viability of any further legal avenues or positions which may be available to
them at that time.




                                                3

Page 4

Councillor Lorentson unfortunately advised the meeting that in her opinion, any such cases
would be likely to succeed. It is improper and inappropriate for Councillor Lorentson to
make such statements on the public record without the benefit of any specific claim before
her; and without the benefit of appropriate legal advice of a suitable stature. Whilst Ms
Lorentson is, I understand legally qualified, she does not (I understand) have high level
expertise in this field and an abundance of caution in a public official would usually preclude
the making of such compromising statements on the record. Mayor Stewart, compounded
this unfortunate position by clearly stating on the record that she will vote to approve all
STA applications, inter alia, for fear of Council being sued.

To adopt such a position and advocate it on the public record is patently improper. By doing
so, Council is stating that Councillors, holding public, representative positions with public
responsibilities are willing to subvert proper processes and decision making if bullying
tactics are applied. To adopt such a position and advocate it publicly is a shameful
dereliction of duty.

Again, consideration of these circumstances from the perspectives of residents is glaringly
absent. Does Council have no concern that it will be sued, most likely in a class action, by
aggrieved residents who have gone through the entire planning process; have experienced
measurable, demonstrable, quantifiable loss, and have extensive documented evidence of
Council decision making to their detriment? One need only look to the record of the
meeting of 15/7 to demonstrate improper dismissal of, and lack of appropriate
consideration and weight, given to residents’ formal objections to applications. Examples
such as this, so clearly demonstrating overt prejudice against objectors (mainly residents),
would be likely to be used to evidence and demonstrate the clear disadvantage being
experienced by residents in this Shire at the hands of their elected representatives. Many
residents have extensive documented histories of poor, detrimental decision making by
Council resulting in significant financial and personal loss.

Councillors are aware through personal representation; submissions and the formation of a
Residents’ Group that residents and traditional accommodation providers are, being
galvanised to action by the exponential proliferation of STA in the locale of 10 Hill
St. Residents and traditional accommodation providers are deeply dissatisfied with Council’s
decision-making. Council should be demonstrating a greater regard for, and protection of,
residents and businesses in this locale, in accordance with the principles and provisions of
the Planning Act and the Noosa Plan, rather than being inappropriately and improperly
persuaded by empty threats and bullying tactics. Council is eroding and denigrating it’s
standing by publicly conceding to such inappropriate importuning by investors and
consultants.

10 Hill St - Duplex: Medium Density Zone

The property is located in a Medium Density Zone. Any consideration of the application
must first confirm that the proposed usage conforms to Medium Density provisions in
particular and then to the provisions and principles of the whole of the Noosa Plan and the
Planning Act. There is thus a threshold argument to be met, before detailed consideration of
the particulars of the property is undertaken.

                                               4

Page 5

That threshold argument is:

Is this locale and Zone predominantly home to permanent residents?

If Council identifies that the locale is not predominantly permanent-residential, then Council
is obliged, to refuse the application as it is in clear breach of the provisions of the Noosa
Plan. Council is obliged to preserve residential housing in Medium Density Zones that are
threatened by STA encroachment and are obliged to protect the residential amenity of the
Zone by ensuring it remains predominantly home to permanent residents.

The Noosa Plan further emphasises this point by requiring that,‘ neighbourhoods of
permanent residents are protected from influxes of short-term visitors whose interests are
not compatible with residential amenity.’ Noosa Plan 3.2.4

What does “predominantly” mean: asks Councillor Lorentson. Whilst it may be illuminating
to obtain legal advice on this matter, I assert that in the meantime, the plain English
definition will suffice. At its most basic level, “predominantly“ means mostly: ie in the
majority. Definitions can be finessed at either ends of the scale. We can quibble
predominantly means more than a majority. It must therefore be 60%; 70% etc. Arcane, but
not illuminating for practical purposes. A generous definition, giving considerable latitude to
the applicants’ advantage is that: at a bare minimum, percentages of permanent resident
dwellings must be no lower than 51%. This is the plain English definition of “predominantly”.

The question is therefore: is Sunshine Beach in general, and the Hill Street locale of number
10 in particular, home to 51% or more of permanent residents? I assert it is not. And further
assert on that basis the application does not meet the threshold test which would allow for
Council to approve conversion of 2 residential dwellings to STA in an already STA saturated
area in a Medium Density Zone.

The applicants are fully aware they must meet this test to obtain approval. The provision is
cited on p9 of their application. They further assert:

‘The use of the subject site for visitor accommodation is not considered to prejudice the
outcome of the zone there are still (my emphasis) areas in the locality available for
permanent accommodation within the area.’ Application p10

I assert the applicants’ argument is inadequate and does not meet the “tests” of the Noosa
Plan.

If the density level of permanent resident dwellings in the Hill Street locale is below 51%
then the proposed conversion of 2 residential dwellings to STA further exacerbates the
predominance of STA in the area and clearly prejudices the performance outcomes of the
Zone. It is insufficient to assert there are ‘still (some) areas’ available for permanent
residency within the area. The area must be ‘predominantly residential’ with ‘some’ visitor
accommodation. Not ‘some permanent residents’ with ‘predominantly visitor
accommodation’ as the application asserts. I assert the applicants have reversed the

                                              5

Page 6

definitions of the Zone, and by doing so, the application clearly does not meet the density
provisions of the Noosa Plan and should be refused.

The applicants additionally note the requirements of the Plan that: ‘Short-term visitor
accommodation is predominantly provided through well-established resorts and holiday
units.’ Application p9 citing Noosa Plan

Again note the use of the term “predominantly “.

Henderson Street, the continuation of Hill St is home to a hub of traditional accommodation
providers. There are also 2 Backpacker accommodation providers in the locale. None of
these accommodation businesses are operating at anywhere near capacity. All of these
traditional businesses are experiencing considerable stress, caused in part, by trying to
compete, unfairly, against short-stay accommodation providers operating out of residential
homes in residential environments with significantly inferior business regulatory
requirements. Why are STA investors being so unfairly advantaged to the detriment of these
well established, well managed resorts and businesses?

When I purchased my home in 2009, short-term accommodation in Sunshine Beach was
predominantly provided through the well-established, well-managed resorts on Henderson
Street, and confined to the parameters of that area. Pacific Avenue marked the
commencement of the residential area of this section of Sunshine Beach. Indeed I
considered purchasing property on Hill St, in particular the Stephen Kidd property next door
to number 10 Hill Street. At that time Hill St was a residential street, home to permanent
residents. Hill St has now, almost in it’s entirety, been converted to STA; as have adjoining
locales, mine included.

Conversion to STA in residential areas is achieved in domino fashion. An STA is approved.
The residential amenity of adjoining and adjacent residents is so compromised they are
forced to move and those properties in turn are converted to STA, causing more permanent
residents to leave. The sale price value of the residential properties is reduced (even in this
market) because of the neighbouring STA. In the most recent case I am aware of, the
vendors’ loss was approx $100,000.

Council is well aware of this financial detriment to adjoining property values. Ms Coyle has
advised at previous Council meetings that Council has eminent legal advice that confirms
(inter alia) this contention. I predict that in the near future Council will be faced with
devising compensation schemes to recompense residents’ losses. I contend that every MCU-
STA application approved in the current environment of Noosa is 1 more compensation case
in the making. Do not compound an already evident problem by approving this application.

Council has allowed the destruction of residential amenity in residential neighbourhoods to
occur through both laissez faire and overt governance. Council is now obliged to protect the
remaining residential properties on Hill St and must accordingly refuse this application and
any further residential erosion of the Zone. Council has a responsibility to not only refuse
the application it must also give consideration to reducing existing numbers of STA in the
Zone until the Zone meets the residential amenity provisions of the Noosa Plan.

                                               6

Page 7

I assert that short-term visitor accommodation in this area is now predominantly provided
by STA operators operating out of residential homes. This development is contrary to the
Plan and must be reversed. Furthermore 10 Hill St was constructed as a residential duplex in
2019. At that time there was already an over-density of STA in Hill St which the developers
and subsequent purchasers (the applicants) must or reasonably should have been aware of
at the time of purchasing - July and September 2020. Nothing has changed in the area to
warrant provision of yet more STA accommodation in residential dwellings since that time.
Quite the contrary. Density of STA in Noosa, and Sunshine Beach in particular is too high.
STA density is having a demonstrably negative effect on: permanent residents; traditional
accommodation providers; businesses and services in general; volunteering, and the
community in general. Council has a responsibility to support the interest of these groups -
their constituents.

Council acknowledges that 23% of dwellings across the Shire are STA and that in areas of
Peregian and Sunshine Beach density levels exceed 50% STA. These statistics represent the
highest density of STA in Australia if not the world. They are not statistics to aspire to or be
proud of in any way. Such statistics are the shameful evidence of at best laissez faire Shire
management and at worst patent mismanagement.

Nothing in these statistics reflects the lofty principles of the Noosa Plan. For brevity I will not
list them all as I assume Council is well versed in the detail. It is difficult to reconcile these
statistics with careful and controlled planning resulting in a sustainable Shire conducive to a
relaxed pace of life where the community’s core values are not diminished by unintended
development decisions. Council has, by these statistics, demonstrably not worked with the
community to maintain and enhance the lifestyle, wellbeing and prosperity of residents
through careful planning and inclusive decision making. Quite the contrary. The meeting of
12/7 clearly demonstrates residents needs are being dismissed by this Council. I can assure
you, as can all of the permanent residents in this area, there is nothing relaxing or lifestyle
enhancing by being surrounded by STA’s.

Residents in the locale of 10 Hill Street are now in the absurd position of seriously discussing
and entertaining the use of (as noted under-utilised) hotel accommodation to obtain respite
relief from the intolerable behaviour of STA users, and to obtain much needed sleep. When
a hotel on Hastings St offered accommodation on an extended basis, I and my fellow
residents joked that we should move into the hotel and let out our homes to STA. I went as
far as costing this proposal which soon revealed this was no “joke” but a seriously viable
proposition.

Council is obliged to ‘protect the lifestyle valued by residents’ Noosa Plan 3.3.3.

My property has a large garage, set below ground level. When I purchased the property in
2009 I viewed this garage as a valuable asset for storage. I did not envisage it as a “bunker”
for living in and do not believe that any reasonable purchaser could have foreseen the
necessity to use it as such.




                                                7

Page 8

I can assure Council that when I moved to Noosa (from a Mews style property in an inner-
city laneway, which incidentally was much quieter than my current home now is), it was not
to pursue a preferred lifestyle of sleeping in the car in the garage or entertaining ideas of
building a soundproof sleeping bunker in the garage. That I have had to give serious
consideration to such an absurd concept is as a direct consequence of
Council’s ‘unrestrained and unplanned development’ (of STA) which is, in accordance with
the Noosa Plan, to be ‘resisted’. Noosa Plan 3.2.3

Councillors and the applicants may query my assertions of loss of residential amenity in the
Hill St locale. Where is the evidence? How many complaints have been received by Council
from residents in the vicinity? As Councillor Lorentson has previously observed: Council
receives more complaints about dogs barking than it does STA.

There is a reason for that Councillors. Residents have long since realised there is little to be
gained by lodging complaints with an unresponsive Council and unresponsive, often
threatening, STA managers. Failure to actively oppose cannot be construed as support. A
lack of complaints does not demonstrate responsible performance and management of STA
properties. It demonstrates resignation - acceptance that residents’ legitimate complaints
will not be appropriately responded to. One need look no further than the July meetings of
Council and Councillor Lorentson’s opinion piece (Noosa Today 30/7) to understand why
residents feel they have no reasonable avenue of recourse, and no hope for such. We
residents are exhausted. Exhausted by living with STA properties, and exhausted by
opposition.

The applicants assert pages 8-11, the properties: 2 two-storey units in duplex configuration,
are appropriate to be converted from their current residential usage to permanent on-going
STA usage. I refute their assertions.

The property in question is a duplex and is thus inherently unsuited to STA usage. To grant
STA usage to one property in a duplex is to unreasonably prejudice the residential amenity
of the adjoining property to such a degree that permanent residential occupation is not
viable. At the meeting 12/7 Ms Coyle appraised Council that past experience demonstrates
to mix STA usage with permanent residential usage does not work. Councillor Jurisevic
asked for evidence of this. There is an abundance of evidence to support Ms Coyle’s
position, commencing with the Noosa Plan itself. The Plan acknowledges that the needs,
interests, and I would add behaviours, of ‘short-term visitors ... are not compatible with
residential amenity.’ Noosa Plan 3.2.4

Mayor Stewart and Planning staff are directly aware of this issue, having so eloquently been
appraised by Dr Alison Asher of the Noosa Residents Against Unregulated STA. Dr Asher’s
experiences (and those of other residents) are detailed in her blogs ‘Living Next Door to
Anarchy’. Dr Asher’s advocacy in meetings and representations to Council was so affecting,
staff and Mayor Stewart sprang to their feet and hugged Dr Asher in spontaneous
demonstrations of support and human comfort for the appalling assaults Dr Asher has
endured against her residential amenity and the safety, well-being and security of herself,
her family and her property.


                                               8

Page 9

Whilst such displays of empathy are gratifying, we duplex property owners require to see
tangible outcomes. We need to see Council acknowledge duplexes are unsuited to STA
usage precisely because it is so readily apparent that STA usage in one dwelling cannot but
unacceptably compromise the residential amenity of the adjoining property to an
unacceptable degree.

In this instance the applicants appear to be aware of this fairly obvious pitfall and have
sought to overcome it by the 2 parties combining to submit a joint application. Whilst this
strategy may be effective in the short-term, it is unsustainable in the long-term.

‘Noosa Council has consistently taken a long-term approach to sustainable planning ... that
has ensured that the community’s values and principles are not diminished by unintended
development decisions’. Noosa Plan 3.2.2

If Council approves this application it will, knowingly, forever prejudice the future use of
these dwellings; and the interests of any future purchaser of one of these dwellings. Whilst
both sets of owners currently support STA usage in the property; if one of the dwellings is in
the future sold, STA usage in 1 dwelling would preclude purchase of the other dwelling for
permanent residential occupation either by ownership or long-term rental. Believe me
Council - no right thinking person would ever willingly, knowingly, choose to purchase or live
in a duplex property where the adjoining property is used for ongoing STA. Ask Dr Asher.

This point has been given weight by our new neighbour, who has just taken up residence in
2/27 Hill St - the adjoining half of the duplex Council approved for STA last year, and which
(approval) the applicants also rely on to support their application. Our new neighbour is
experiencing considerable noise nuisance from the STA, as do we. Unacceptable noise levels
during the day are impeding her ability to work professionally from home (Zoom
conferences are particularly difficult to conduct under such circumstances) and at night
affect the liveability of her premises and disrupt sleep. She was unaware (when leasing the
property) that the adjoining property was an STA. Our neighbour’s unfortunate experience
of adverse impact on her residential amenity is the entirely self-evident, undesirable, and
foreseeable outcome of approving STA in a duplex. I argued this very point in my objection
to the 27 Hill Street MCU, clearly to no avail. I note the applicants are relying on the
approval granted to 27 Hill Street to support their application.

Furthermore, I contend, it would be wholly unacceptable, untenable and certain to bring
Council into disrepute if it were to remove 2 residential dwellings from the residential pool
in the midst of an extreme housing crisis by converting them to (in this location and Zone)
unneeded and undesirable STA accommodation.

In debate regarding the recent Peregian applications (meeting 12/7) Mayor Stewart argued
that refusing to approve STA rights in properties does not ensure the property will be
returned to residential usage or long-term rental. The owners may prefer to simply leave
the property vacant. That may be the case. Whilst it cannot be guaranteed that refusal will
lead to restoration of residential use, it can most certainly be guaranteed that once STA
approval is given, particularly to a duplex, neither dwelling will ever in the future return to
residential usage unless and until the STA market collapses.

                                               9

Page 10

Performance Outcomes - Medium Density Residential Zone Code

Acceptable outcomes: A06.2 Short-term accommodation does not: b) create noise that
would unreasonably impact on the residential amenity enjoyed by the adjoining or
surrounding properties.

The applicants have indicated (Response to Information Request 23 June, 2021) they intend
to accommodate 8 people per unit; 16 in total. This proposal is a clear over-use of the site.
The proposed rate of occupancy is clearly excessive. 8 persons in a 2 bedroom unit would
clearly result in an unacceptable and unreasonable loss of amenity to the adjoining property
and surrounding properties.

Noosa dwellings are occupied on average by 2.5 people (Census 2016). The units at 10 Hill
St feature open plan living and meals areas opening to outdoor living, entertainment and
pool areas There are balconies front and rear. The units are mirror copies. Notably there are
bedrooms, upstairs at the rear of both units, which open onto balconies, and are situated
above the outdoor dining, entertainment and pool areas. Sound from one unit will thus
travel freely to the other, particularly in these open areas. Bedrooms, sleeping areas, will be
particularly affected. Any ordinary usage of the outdoor areas, particularly at night, will
compromise the amenity of the adjoining unit. If both units are (as currently) designated for
residential usage, the occupants have an opportunity to be aware of and considerate to the
amenity of their immediate neighbours. Any disputes that arise are capable of being
resolved by negotiation as it is in the interests of both parties to co-operate. However if one
unit is residential and one STA, there is no incentive for STA users to co-operate. They have
paid their money and they intend to obtain the full bang for their buck, frequently with
disastrous impacts on the adjoining residents.

The design of the units makes them vulnerable to noise nuisance. With an average
occupancy of 2.5 persons residing permanently, this vulnerability may be able to be
managed. With a proposed occupancy of 8 STA guests, and how many guests of guests - the
applicants do not indicate - the amenity of the adjoining unit would be so compromised as
to be unliveable. The unreasonable noise nuisance will be compounded if both units are
approved for STA usage. The guests of each unit will “enjoy” a very adverse visitor
experience if their behaviours are not compatible. For example a couple with 1 or 2 young
children will be hard pressed to enjoy their stay and obtain any sleep if the adjoining unit is
host to 8 guests plus guests of guests, no matter how well or poorly behaved the larger
grouping is. Experience tells us that 8 guests and their guests, utilising a confined outdoor
dining and entertainment and pool area will be excessively noisy. This outcome is readily
foreseeable.

Even if the occupancy rates were halved to 4, noise transference between the units would
still be a significant problem, which, I assert is unable to be mitigated to a level appropriate
to residential amenity. A simple dinner party or family dinner in 1 unit would make sleep
impossible in the adjoining unit. An equivalent gathering in the adjoining unit - 2 competing
dinner parties - would be adverse to both parties. Add music to the mix, and ceaselessly
barking/yapping dogs, and the situation would be intolerable. These are the sort of issues

                                               10

Page 11

that are capable of being resolved between permanent residents, who must keep living with
each other, preferably co-operatively, and therefore have significant incentive to resolve
any issues amicably. STA users have no incentive to co-operate. Between the ever shifting,
ever changing occupants of STA there is not only no ability to resolve such tensions, there is
absolutely no incentive for the offending party to do so.

16 guests plus guests of guests would prove an intolerable overuse of the site and must be
rejected. This level of occupancy would, undeniably, have a severely negative effect on
neighbouring properties’ amenity, regardless of whether those properties are permanent
residential or STA. I imagine tenants groups and perhaps Council too, would express concern
if a landlord offered this property as long-term rental accommodation for 8 residents in
each unit: 16 in total.

The applicants indicate it is anticipated the units will cater for families or couples. However
once approval to operate is given there is nothing to stop short-term letting to 8 individuals
per unit, 16 in total, each with their own vehicle. Added to which would be the cars of
guests of guests.

Hill St is a busy, narrow, and now somewhat dangerous thoroughfare. Street parking is
extremely limited. Entry into and egress from properties requires careful, mindful driving.
To propose an injection of up to 16 plus cars (guests and guests of guests) into this area,
when the site provides only 4 car spaces is, in my assertion, dangerous and irresponsible
and would result in unacceptable, negative effects on neighbouring properties’ safety and
amenity.

Council has, quite properly, raised concerns about parking. Council has indicated
(correspondence 22 March 2021) that ‘5 covered car parking spaces in total are required.’

The applicants have responded to Council’s reasonable request for detail, with what I
perceive as a somewhat disquietingly belligerent response. The applicants note ‘the
planning scheme also details that motorcycle spaces can be provided on site in lieu of car
parking spaces.’ The applicants propose 4 motorcycle places in lieu of 1 car parking
space. (Correspondence 23/7) This “solution” would clearly be significantly detrimental to
the amenity of adjoining neighbours. One can only imagine the noise outcomes of such a
“solution”. This “solution” is neither appropriate or persuasive and should be rejected.

I perceive a degree of aggression and resistance in this response. Coupled with the
proposed, excessive over occupation of the site, it does not, in my view, bode well for
responsible and responsive (to residential amenity) management of the site.

Like all MCU applications, the applicants insist the units will be well managed. I have yet to
read an MCU application or come across an STA owner (or manager or a short stay platform
representative) who freely argues their property is, or will be, poorly managed. Yet the
evidence is clear. That is the lived experience. The industry is notorious for the poor
behaviour of users and ineffectual, unresponsive and sometimes threatening behaviour of
owners and managers. Noosa residents, are experiencing significant stress and financial loss
to their property values (even in this market) as a consequence of living with this detriment.

                                              11

Page 12

It is irrefutable that there is a significant problem with management and operation of these
premises. A phenomena not exclusive to Noosa. The problem is industry/worldwide. Mere
statements of intent to well manage the property are unfortunately, in light of the track
record of the industry, less than persuasive.

Even if we are to give the applicants the benefit of the doubt that the property will be well
managed; the fact it is a duplex and the obvious transference of noise inherent in the design
of the duplex, makes it inherently unsuitable for STA usage. The overall detriment to the
adjoining unit and surrounding residents is unable to be sufficiently mitigated.

The positioning of the rear balconies above the pools make these units particularly
vulnerable to guests jumping from 2nd storey balconies into pools. This extremely reckless
and dangerous practice is unfortunately not unusual amongst STA users. The practice has
been regularly observed and documented by (usually neighbouring) residents. I am aware of
it. I assert Council is or should be aware of this practice. Individual residents and resident
groups have documented and publicised this practice on websites and by representation to
Short-stay Managers and Council. If Council was genuinely unaware of this practice - it is
now fully cognisant. I assert this practice takes place. Council is, in my view, obliged to
consider and assess this risk.

AO6.3 Buildings are designed and oriented so that the majority of outdoor living areas face
away from the habitable areas of adjoining dwellings.

It is clear the intent of this provision is to protect the privacy and amenity of adjoining
residents. Whilst it may be argued these units may technically conform to this provision by
orientation, it is clear that lived practice would not meet the intended outcome of this
provision - preservation of neighbours’ privacy and amenity. As previously noted the units
are mirror images. The outdoor entertainment and pool areas are thus adjacent - side by
side. Significant overlooking both between the units and from the rear balconies of the units
to neighbouring properties is noted. Of particular concern is the ability of occupants in 1
unit to observe the pool and outdoor recreation area (likely be used for activities like sun
baking) by the adjoining unit and the outdoor and pool areas of surrounding neighbours.
Residents would be rightly entitled to be concerned and sensitive about privacy when
assessing overlooking of pool and sun baking areas. The documentation also suggests
Council has quite properly expressed concern over this issue.

The applicants, in the first instance, seek to rely on screening vegetation currently existing in
adjoining sites. Council should not accept the existence of vegetation on a site over which
the applicants have no control as an effective mitigating factor. The second mitigation
offered is to offer to install zip screens. Zip screens would not only not mitigate over-
looking, they would facilitate it. Zip screens allow the occupant to look out unobserved
which raises the rather unpleasant prospect of occupants in one unit observing the
occupants of the other unit or adjoining properties, whilst not being visible to persons being
observed. Put simply, zip screens allow one to look out unhindered whilst those outside
cannot look in. They are intended as an aid to privacy from external observers - not internal
observers.


                                               12

Page 13

Local Residents’ Attitudes to and Experiences of STA in the Hill St and Surrounding Locales.

As I have previously asserted, the number of complaints received by Council does not
adequately reflect community feeling. Likewise the number of MCU-STA objections does not
adequately reflect the level of opposition to this application in particular (noting the effect
of Mayor Stewart’s comments) and to any further increase in STA in this area in general.
Many residents, for various reasons, are reluctant to engage with formal processes and do
not lodge formal objections. Failure to actively oppose does not equal support. I am
confident Council: Councillor Lorentson and Mayor Stewart in particular; are fully aware of
the views of the residents in this area. Opposition to further STA approvals reached tipping
point with the approval of 1/27 Hill St. That approval, against trenchant opposition from
residents and local accommodation providers, galvanised residents in this locale into action.
They commenced to meet and organise. Council has received numerous representations
from residents in this area and has engaged in meetings and negotiations with residents’
representatives. Council can be under no illusion regarding the intensity of opposition to
further STA approvals in this Hill St locale.

‘Noosa Shire has been shaped ... by the actions of passionate and creative residents...’ Noosa
Plan 3.2.3.

Those passionate residents are seeking to impress upon a so far unresponsive Council that,
to quote Councillor Stockwell, ‘enough is enough!’

Council has a responsibility in this matter to represent the interests of it’s constituents in
this area and vote resoundingly to reject this application. The application lacks technical
merit; does not conform to the Noosa Plan and the Plan’s performance outcomes. It should
be refused.

I and my fellow residents did not seek this (STA saturation). We did not choose this. It came
to us. It came to us via inadequate Council management. And no amount of personal effort
or expenditure by residents will adequately mitigate the damage done to our amenity and
to the fabric of our community. No landscaping; no screening; no architectural modification;
no bunker; no double glazing; no blackout curtains, no noise cancelling headphones; no
earplugs; no living with all doors and windows closed - nothing - will sufficiently mitigate or
adequately ameliorate my residential amenity; that of my neighbours; or the overall
damage being done to the fabric of this community by STA saturation. This Council needs to
act, swiftly, promptly, immediately, to protect the amenity of its residents - its constituents,
and refuse this application.

I oppose this application. My partner, Roger Prowse opposes this application. Residents in
the area oppose this application. Residents’ groups oppose this application. Local
accommodation businesses oppose this application. Key workers and hospitality workers in
the businesses of Sunshine Beach village oppose this application. It is reasonable to assert
the homeless workers and working families of Noosa oppose this application. I presume (by
Ms Coyle’s comments) that Planning staff too, will recommend to refuse this application.
Accordingly, properly, Council must vote to refuse this application. It is the only right and
proper thing to do.

                                                  13

Page 14

If Council does not vote to refuse this application; residents and any reviewing body would
be entitled to ask whose interests is Council reflecting, serving and representing by voting to
support this clearly unsuitable application?

I strenuously recommend Council refuse this application.

Julia Craddock
1/28 Wildflower St
Sunshine Beach




                                              14