Objection MCU18

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