Beware – short term letting just got harder

by Ingrid Jackson, former Noosa Councillor

The agenda for Noosa Council’s July meeting looked innocuous enough. Four owners seeking approval to offer their properties for short term accommodation in Noosaville, Sunshine Beach and Peregian Beach seemed straightforward. At three previous meetings similar applications had been waved through by staff and councillors.

But not this time. The Council’s assessment staff had unexpectedly changed their mind, instead recommending that all four applications be rejected. The councillors responded with what could only be called confusion. Some supported the staff’s refusals, some had a bet each way, while Mayor Clare Stewart found the rejections wanting.

Under the Noosa Plan adopted last year, house owners in low density residential zones wanting to offer short term accommodation are unlikely to get a tick. However, in medium and high density zones, short term accommodation is defined as ‘consistent’ (allowed) but also ‘impact assessable’ (Council will decide).

This harsher policy occurred after an aggressive campaign by Noosa Parks Association boss Michael Gloster in which he urged then mayor Tony Wellington and councillors to cap visitor numbers to Noosa. Reducing the stock of accommodation on offer would help achieve that goal.

In an NPA newsletter, Dr Gloster penned, “the threat of over-tourism is demanding an equally bold response… Only by capping both resident and visitor numbers can residents and visitors be guaranteed a quality Noosa experience into the future.” And in a Noosa News article ‘Gloster’s Way: get in first’ he declared, “the fundamental tool was you bring in a town plan that restricts development so much they’re not economically viable.”

Despite Dr Gloster’s advocacy and Mr Wellington’s desire to get it approved, the draft Noosa Plan had still not been passed before the 2020 Council election because of Queensland Government concerns about some of its proposals. By the time these had been resolved, Mr Wellington had been defeated by newcomer Clare Stewart who upon assuming office made it clear that she was not enamoured with some parts of the plan.

New plan’s $20,000 sting

Ultimately, Cr Stewart was to vote against adopting the new planning scheme, but she got little support from her peers and the plan was approved with the new rules on short term accommodation intact. These provisions gave the Council a tighter grip on which properties would be made available for visitors and also imposed a high cost on applying for approval. By the time property owners got their applications through the bureaucracy, they could spend $20,000 or more on planning advice, lawyers and Council fees. And there was no guarantee that their applications would be approved.

The Playford-Wellington era, which Cr Stewart successfully challenged to become mayor, had seen a small group of men – no more than a handful – effectively control the governance of Noosa Shire for over 40 years.

While Cr Stewart and three other councillors in the seven-member assembly had been elected in what was interpreted as a community rebuke to the previous administration, the Old Guard – although shocked by what happened – had not disappeared. By mid-2021, they appeared to have reorganised and their apparent camp followers on Noosa Council were again following the old agenda which seemed to ‘keep Noosa as it is; repel all boarders’.

So in July, when staff of the Council’s development assessment unit recommended the refusal of all four applications for short term visitor accommodation, in contrast to a string of earlier recommendations to approve similar requests, it was not a total surprise. But a number of Councillors were taken aback and at a preliminary meeting questioned the about-face. This concern continued through to the Ordinary Meeting, the one at which decisions are made.

Crucial matters of governance

The Councillors were also confronted by a crucial matter of governance. The development assessment unit’s job is to make recommendations, but it has no authority to make or modify Council policy. Only elected Councillors can do that. Not only had the unit made a 180 degree turn on whether short term accommodation should be allowed, it seemed to have redefined Noosa Plan development assessment criteria without first following the mandated steps of consulting the community and the State Government.

The unit had delved into the Noosa Plan and found Performance Outcome 15 which states, “Visitor accommodation is not to be located in areas which are predominantly residential dwellings”. But the unit had a problem: the Noosa Plan did not define ‘predominantly’.
The Development Assessment Manager thought she would apply modelling by Unitywater that showed 23 percent of the housing stock in coastal areas (which assumedly included resorts) “from Tewantin all the way down Noosaville to Peregian Beach” as currently used for visitor accommodation. The manager considered this information “quite significant” and justified that statistic defining the meaning of ‘predominantly’.

The unit’s plunge into policy innovation determined that, if an area already had 23 percent or more of its properties used for visitor accommodation, it would recommend refusal of further applications. This bureaucratic overreach resulted in a formula that led to all four applications being recommended for rejection.

At the General Committee meeting, which precedes the Ordinary Meeting, when the first three applications came forward for rejection, Councillor Amelia Lorentson moved instead a proposal to approve the applications but ask the State Planning Minister to enable “a temporary local planning instrument to make short term accommodation inconsistent in medium density and high density zones”. If agreed, Cr Lorentson’s motion would have put on ice all new short term accommodation in most of the shire.

The Council’s Standing Orders are legislatively enshrined and state that “business not on the agenda shall not be considered at any Standing Committee meeting”. This was picked up by Councillor Tom Wegener, who queried whether the motion was out of order. “It’s a touch unusual,” responded CEO Brett de Chastel, “but I think it’s appropriate, as you have a block of applications before you.”

Cr Lorentson eventually sorts things out

That advice took the Council into deeper water. Now, with the Standing Orders disregarded, debate focused on Cr Lorentson’s proposal to temporarily freeze out short term accommodation applications in medium and high density areas. This suited Councillor Frank Wilkie who pronounced that “short term accommodation has fragmented our residential communities to a worrying point.” Councillor Tom Wegener agreed with this comment, which was totally lacking an evidential base. Cr Wilkie is rumoured in the shire as readying himself for a pitch at the mayoralty in 2024 and Cr Wegener is said to be a close associate of former mayor Tony Wellington.

Councillor Karen Finzel was worried by the conflation of the two separate matters of the applications and the ’23 percent cap’ and asked whether they could be addressed separately. “I think a clearer process would be better for this debate,” she said, expressing dissatisfaction with making policy on the run. She said Councillors were dealing with applicants who had followed due process and who had followed the advice of staff. Councillors, she said, needed to “be fair and give equity to these applicants that in good faith have followed the process.”

When Cr Lorentson’s multi-barrelled motion was put, it was won five votes to two in support of approving the applications and also her proposition “to make short term accommodation inconsistent in medium density and high density zones”. The Council’s General Committee, without the benefit of prior research or analysis, had advanced a proposal that would have a major impact on the community. It also would likely place the Council at odds with its obligation to consult before it made changes to the Noosa Plan. But there was still the Ordinary Meeting – the decision-making meeting – to come.

At the Ordinary Meeting three days later, Cr Lorentson apologised to her colleagues for the confusion caused by her proposed ‘temporary local planning instrument’, withdrawing it from further consideration. Now off that hook, Councillors voted to obtain more information on the issue. They then applied themselves to the development assessment unit’s recommended refusal of the four short term accommodation applications.

87 objections and a lack of evidence

When it came to a vote, the Council approved the three Noosaville and Sunshine Beach applications five votes to two, overriding the staff rejections. Only Cr Wilkie and Cr Wegener voted for rejecting the applications. At three earlier meetings in the year, Cr Wilkie had voted in favour of similar applications. It was not clear why he had radically changed his position.

After all, a few days earlier in the General Committee, he’d said, “In terms of equity, I’m in favour of approving the applications currently before us because of the information [applicants] received, and they were acting in good faith on that information.” Something or someone had changed his mind, but the reasons he gave were simply “for the sake of consistency” and “when is enough enough?”

Then it was the turn of the Peregian Beach property’s application to be voted on. Like the others, it had been recommended for refusal by staff and this had been augmented by submissions, ostensibly from 87 people, objecting to the application. In 2020 the population of Peregian Beach was about 4,250. The objectors constituted two percent of the population.

When I perused these submissions on the Council’s website I discovered, not to my surprise, that they mostly consisted of nearly identical template letters. It looked like opposition to the Peregian Beach application had been engineered.

In my research I came across the minutes of a meeting of Peregian Beach Community Association (PBCA) which recorded the distribution of template letters objecting to another short term accommodation proposal to be decided by the Council in August.

The July application, objected to by the letters, was refused six votes to one. It seemed four councillors previously supportive had been swayed by the template campaign. The one vote in favour of approval was that of Mayor Stewart. “I do so because of fairness, fair play, being consistent in our decision-making – all words which we all support and were endorsed and supported at Monday’s General Committee meeting,” she said.

So how did the other six Councillors explain their decisions to deny approval for short term accommodation to the owners of a property on busy David Low Way?

“My view is that this is a permanent residential area,” said Councillor Brian Stockwell. Councillor Joe Jurisevic added, “The first short stay in that area will enable the short stay proliferation”.

Cr Wilkie claimed, again without clear evidence, “It’s super-saturated with short term accommodation. It looks even more than 50%”. Councillor Wegner said, “Refusing this – what would have been a home – to turn into a business, is inconsistent with the principles [of the town plan]” and “If we approve this, the precedent is not only set, it’s set in steel.”

“I respect the motion which seeks for fair play and consistency in decision making,” said Cr Lorentson, “however I can’t support it because this application’s very different to the other applications.” Perhaps this difference was the copycat letters from 87 people. Cr Finzel also voted for refusal but gave no explanation.

A serious challenge to our community

The outcome of this vote should concern the Chamber of Commerce, Tourism Noosa and anybody who might want to use their property for short term accommodation. You can spend a lot of money getting an application before the Council and you can receive bland assurances from staff that it will probably be successful, then it can be rejected when it is brought to a vote. The anti-visitor predilection might be taking on a new life. Politics were being played with private property. And the development assessment unit seemed to believe it could make policy behind the scenes.

Since these meetings, Cr Lorentson has published a mea culpa in Noosa Today explaining more precisely her position on short term accommodation – which seemed to be the full backflip. She wrote “I do not support unregulated STAs and I do not support party houses. I support a strict Mandatory Code of Conduct for STAs”.

Cr Lorentson also said that “Limiting the number of STAs will not solve the housing crisis because the crisis is about different kinds of accommodation” and “limiting STAs would change the character and appeal of Noosa as a tourist destination and impact Noosa’s economy, jobs, visitor numbers, visitor spend and investor interest.” She concluded, “I support Noosa Shire’s Corporate Plan that states that council ‘will provide support for a sustainable tourism sector’ as one of its leading priorities.”

In the article, Cr Lorentson also mentioned how Noosa Council had agreed to smarten up its game by using “data and empirical research” when it was developing policy. And I will add, hopefully when it is making decisions.

When, in one of my last acts as a councillor in 2019, I spoke out strongly against the restrictive policy on short term accommodation, I asked for evidence of the community disruption it caused – hard facts and figures on how big a problem it was. There was nothing. No evidence at all that ‘party houses’ were a major problem. There was just one much-repeated anecdote. And I, like Mayor Stewart and Cr Lorentson did later, voted against the Noosa Plan because of this lack of evidence and failure to present economic and social impact studies.

If indeed the Old Guard is re-grouping, beginning to exert pressure and enticing Councillors with a view to regaining the mayoralty and its privileged position in the Shire, the community should be aware. We want a rational, community-facing and fair-minded Council which does the right thing by the people of Noosa and does not interfere unduly in property owners’ rights, as in the case of arbitrary limitations placed on short term accommodation.

During the July meetings, we witnessed attempted policy change by stealth, an untransparent write-in campaign, Councillors bouncing back and forth and the rejection, on the basis of pure opinion, of a ratepayer’s application to let out their property to visitors to earn some extra money.

There was only one councillor to come out of the debate with integrity fully intact. That was Mayor Clare Stewart, showing characteristic insight and wisdom. Other councillors would do well to emulate her, or at least understand the principles and the evidential base from which she operates.

FOOTNOTES

Michael Gloster, ‘Confronting over-tourism and déjà vu’, NPA Newsletter October 2019

Alan Lander, ‘Gloster’s Way: get in first’, 16 February 2019

Cr Amelia Lorentson, ‘STAs are not the enemy’, Noosa Today, 29 July 2021