Objection MCU18

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