Objection MCU18

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