Council Planners have concluded that
“Noosa has begun to overreach its carrying capacity, particularly during tourist peak periods and weekends, with road networks, open space, Noosa River and Main Beach often at full capacity, with negative impacts associated with this being experienced by residents and visitors.”
REGULATING STA IN MULTIPLE UNIT ZONES
The inevitable long lead times in putting in place statutory planning and local laws means the disruption caused by on-line booking platforms is still causing significant social and economic damage to the local community and the economy. Ongoing reform and vigilance is required to reduce these impacts.
The line in the sand was first drawn in 2019 when I moved a motion to vary from staff’s recommendation to make short term visitor accommodation (STA) inconsistent in the Low Density Residential Zone in the draft revised town plan. My position was based on the research and the experience from around the globe. You can read my logic in the speaking notes I used for the adoption of the amended Noosa Plan in December of that year (attached).
The battle ground in this term of Council has shifted to the Medium and High Density Residential Zones where there is a need for further reform to clamp down to make all future developments for permanent residents.
Since April 2020 Council has been undertaking Tourism Carrying Capacity Analysis that has identified a staggering 5,625 dwellings being used for short term accommodation across the Shire. In coastal areas about 1 in every 3 dwellings is tourist accommodation. The use of dwellings for short term accommodation grew by 307 dwellings or 5.7% over the 2 year monitoring period, largely due to the two processes discussed above.
During this period Council approved 18 Material Change of Use development applications in the Medium, High Density and Rural Residential Zones. However, the completion of the Housing Needs Assessment triggered a rethink by staff which has resulted in the refusal of these applications for some time now. .
Council will soon be sending proposed amendments to the Noosa Plan 2020 to the state government for review. It is likely the proposal will make STAs inconsistent in all residential zones other than where they are home hosted by the resident who lives there.
APPLICATIONS DATA @ 1 JANUARY 2023
APPLICATIONS DECIDED: 1898
APPLICATIONS APPROVED: 1848
APPLICATIONS REFUSED: 50
WITHDRAWN: 34
COURT APPEALS: 10 (4 withdrawn)
STA LOCAL LAW UPDATE
Cost – Benefit Analysis undertaken as part of the adoption of the Short Stay Local Law estimated that the benefits of its implementation to residents' health and amenity to be in the order of $9.56 million per annum.
The Local Law seeks to reduce the amenity impacts of poorly behaved/ poorly managed tourists within residential neighbourhoods.
It is estimated around 4000 properties will require an approval under the Local Law. A team of planners are currently assessing over 3000 applications received.
All complaints are currently investigated but once the backlog of applications is under control officers will take a more proactive approach to compliance seeking out those that continue to operate without approval or in breach of conditions.
It is important to understand that a Local Law can’t override or include provisions relating to matters covered under the Planning Act - so it can’t be used to refuse land use permission, wind back lawful use rights or impose conditions otherwise covered by the planning scheme.
RISKS REDUCED IN NEXT ROUND OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
The Queensland Planning Act has a provision which suggests a landowner can seek compensation for an adverse planning change. “An adverse planning change is a planning change that reduces the value of an interest in premises.”
This process is outlined in section 31 of the act:
“ An affected owner may claim compensation in relation to development that is or becomes assessable development after the adverse planning change has effect, if—
(a) the local government refuses a superseded planning scheme request in relation to the development; and
(b) a development application has been made for the development; and
(c) the development application is—
(i) refused; or
(ii) approved with development conditions; or
(iii) approved in part, with or without development conditions.”
“ An affected owner may claim compensation in relation to development that is or becomes assessable development after the adverse planning change has effect, if—
(a) the local government refuses a superseded planning scheme request in relation to the development; and
(b) a development application has been made for the development; and
(c) the development application is—
(i) refused; or
(ii) approved with development conditions; or
(iii) approved in part, with or without development conditions.”
When Council made short term visitor accommodation (STA) inconsistent in the Low Density Residential Zone there was a significant potential for compensation liability. This was a key consideration in the assessment of superseded applications in the 12 months after the adoption of the Noosa Plan 2020. As a result 214 dwelling houses gained superseded planning approval to operate short term accommodation. No claims for compensation have been received.
Market estimates at the time suggested that the ability to use a dwelling for short stay accommodation would command at least a 10-20% premium on house prices. A quick analysis of the median house prices in the particular locations of the 214 approvals in June 2020 suggests this ‘estimated premium’ would have equated to somewhere in the order of $28-56 million (equal to a 56 -112% rate rise for all residents). However, there is no current court precedent to rely upon to determine the likelihood of success nor the likely level of compensation e.g. it may also take into account the lost opportunity for future revenue. What can be assumed with some certainty is that the potential liability was significant.
Concerns are now being raised in the community that the proposed amendments to the Medium and High Density Residential Zones will similarly result in a large number of Superceded Planning Applications and potential compensation claims. This is highly unlikely.
While the proposal may be considered an adverse planning change there are only about 268 dwelling units in these zones that do not currently hold lawful use rights. This is due to multiple dwelling development approvals prior to 2006 all bestowing interchangeable permanent residency and visitor accommodation use rights.
Further, since the tabling of the Housing Needs Assessment in 2021 Council has been consistently refusing STAs in these zones due to the demonstrable conflict with Performance Outcomes in the Noosa Plan 2020. It is likely that these considerations would also result in a similar outcome for any superseded scheme request and any subsequent development application.
Note: These are the opinions of Cr Stockwell, not necessarily those of Council as a whole.
