JimmyT said:
“…a former hotel that had several floors in an apartment block. And weren’t the operators shut down by City of Sydney, anyway?”
My understanding was that the ‘several floors’ were still zoned residential. And, as in the case in the building in which I live, after the City of Sydney shut down the STRs, only four months or so later, up they’ve sprung again and the City won’t do anything about it.
The written advice I have from the NCAT’s Deputy President Stuart Westgarth was clear: The NCAT will not deal with matters of Planning. This is a Local Government issue. (A 1,200-page Submission to the CTTT/NCAT documenting every aspect of short-term letting in our residential building, including the breach of insurance terms and conditions was dismissed.)
Puddn/Lady Penelope, the critical elements from the Dobrohotoff v Bennic case law is this judgements:
“(The Respondent) readily agreed that she could not guarantee compliance with the House Rules or the Code of Conduct.
…the harm caused to the environment is not limited to the undermining of the planning regime. The adverse impact on the amenity and wellbeing of the (Residents) has been, as the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates, severe.
By leaving it to the Court to determine this important issue, the council, by its inaction, has, in my opinion, failed to fulfill its core functions and has failed its constituents.”
Pudd, for matters Strata, there are numerous case law examples, links to which can be found here. Of most help to us (in my opinion) is the 187 Kent Street and appeal. In these two judgments you will see where the City of Sydney set out for the Court the arguments of why mixing short-term tourist/visitor accommodation – serviced apartments – with permanent residential occupants is “fundamentally incompatible”. The judges agreed with these arguments.
To date, in all instances where the issue of short-term letting in a residential environment has been brought before the NSW Courts, the Judges have agreed with the concept of “fundamental incompatibility”. (I’m currently in Canada, meeting with other anti-STR campaigners. The Courts in Ontario recently came to an almost identical judgment.)
Our argument: all due diligence is (supposedly) taken when purchasing into residential property which, for many, is the largest investment one undertakes. Our titles are over residential property. Why then should legislation be retrospectively changed to alter our living environments, forcing us to reside in hotels/transit zones? What compensation should there be for such a change in our living standards? Plus, how will all levels of legislation, from the Building Codes of Australia, Fire & Rescue, Disability Discrimination legislation etc be dismantled across every form of ‘occupation’ from hotels to backpacker lodges, to facilitate Airbnb and every other unlicensed accommodation ‘booking platform’? Is the entire accommodation Industry to be deregulated, or just those who penetrate our housing and will those who have gone to the expense of installing BCA Class 3 grade infrastructure and paying commercial rates also be compensated?
Let’s now see what JimmyT gets by way of a response from the AG and Matt Kean’s Offices. The question was asked: Did the NSW Parliamentary Hearing Committee seek/obtain legal advice Legal Advice during their Inquiry into the adequacy of legislation covering short-term letting in NSW? The response received was: “No.”
One can/should argue that NSW has ‘world’s best’ legislation; local councils should be mandated to enforce the legislation. Plus: how can any government ignore the housing crisis engulfing not only Sydney but regional centres from Tweed to Albury? NSW has lost 58,250+ homes to Airbnb/Expedia alone with literally hundreds of other platforms/agents offering our homes to tourists/visitors from every country except Syria, Iran, North Korea – while residents are robbed of access to these homes unless they’ll pay the hugely inflated prices charged to tourists.
Residential Housing is for housing Residents.