Objection MCU18

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