Flat Chat Strata Forum Living in strata Current Page

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #11058
    Jimmy-T
    Keymaster

      If strata living is politics in its rawest form – and trust me, it can be – what really happened this week when the government responded to the Coure report on holiday letting, was the “art of the possible” in one of its purest manifestations.

      The cast of political comedy The Thick of It

      Out of the 12 recommendations that emerged from the inquiry chaired by Nationals MP Mark Coure, nine of them had the words “qualified support” next to them.

      Observers who don’t possess a boxed set of Yes Minister, The Thick of It or Veep will have focussed on the word “support”. The rest of us can see only the word “qualified”.

      Or to put it another way, how strong is the support and how extensive are the qualifications? And, in my opinion, in some cases the answer is “not very” and “extremely”, in that order.

      To be fair to Mark Coure, he was building a sand castle in a dust storm.  He was tasked with bringing together the views, needs and aspirations of many highly diverse groups and individuals, both self-interested and community minded, from areas as geographically disparate as seaside holiday towns and inner cities.

      And while his committee was consulting and deliberating, Airbnb was growing exponentially, rocketing Sydney to number four in its global city hit parade.  Meanwhile, previously passive strata communities woke up to find that, potentially, they were about to have short-term holiday lets foisted on their buildings whether they wanted them or not.

      It would be no exaggeration to say that there has been more public discussion about this issue – certainly in relation to apartment living – in the six months since the committee issued its report than in the previous 18 months during which it sat.

      And so we find ourselves last week being presented with not a White Paper on holiday letting but instead, a promise of more consultation and a discussion paper in about a month.

      This is a good thing. It’s all about the ministers – Roberts and Kean – taking back control of the issues that their departments are going to have to legislate and manage.

      They didn’t trash the Coure Report – that would have been disrespectful to a fellow member of the Coalition – but it’s safe to say that many of its recommendations are currently circling the plug hole.

      The key phrases in the statements this week by Ministers Roberts and Kean were about matching the benefits of increased tourism with the rights of everyone, especially apartment residents, to the safe and peaceful enjoyment of their homes.

      There was no reference to the potential earnings of owners or renters who let out rooms or whole homes.  Zero.  Zilch.

      However, key phrases like “we must find a balance between providing options for accommodation and residents being able to go about their daily lives” (Roberts) signalled a shift in thinking from what the holiday letting industry wants to what the community needs.

      “The inquiry recommendations make sense, but the regulation of short-term letting needs broader engagement with the industry and the community to establish a model that enables it to continue to flourish and innovate whilst ensuring the amenity and safety of users and the wider community are protected,” Mr Roberts continued.

      “It’s sensible to take time on a complex issue like this, which is why we are releasing an options paper next month.”

      Appropriately, Matt Keen whose portfolio includes strata, expanded on the theme of community responsibility.

      “We need to find what will work best for the people of NSW, which is why we’re issuing an options paper for discussion with relevant stakeholders,” he said.
      “We don’t want a holiday accommodation market that’s so over-regulated it puts people off coming here but the rights of residents who live near these properties must be considered too. While short-term holiday letting, if properly managed and respected by all parties, can be a boost to the local economy, the need to protect people’s rights to the quiet enjoyment of their own homes is equally important.”

      Now, while just about every other journalist I read last week was saying this was a green light to short-term letting in Sydney apartment blocks, I am not so sure.  In fact, I think the government has just pulled the handbrake on a booming industry that was in danger of getting out of control. Where this is headed now is anyone’s guess, so I will put in my two cents worth.

      In the final shake-out, online “home sharing” letting agencies like Airbnb will get what they say they want – that anyone should be allowed to share their home with paying guests, albeit with a limit on the number of nights a year before it’s considered a business.

      But I’m guessing, perhaps wildly, that there will be a caveat for apartments whereby the host has to be in the unit for the duration of the stay.

      Whether an apartment can be let in its entirety while the owner isn’t there will be subject to approval by the block’s owners corporation, probably with a “family and friends” exemption. Hey, someone has to feed your cat while you’re enjoying your Airbnb pad in Paris.

      Is this overly optimistic? Both Ministers’ Kean and Roberts “get” apartments in a way few of their predecessors ever have. So perhaps now, at last, we can move past all the spin, hype, claims and counter-claims and get some solid facts and figures.

      This will please neither the no-way-Jose anti-holiday let lobby, nor the multi-unit owning (or renting) commercial hosts. But, saying that, restrictions on the commercial exploitation of whole homes in our cities have attracted support from a couple of surprising sources.

      Earlier this month online holiday letting agency Stayz and the hoteliers body Tourism Association of Australia issued a joint statement saying, among other things, that they backed bans on whole home holiday lets in metropolitan areas.

      And Ben McConaghy,  a spokesman for Airbnb, said before this week’s announcement: “So long as regulations protect the rights of house and apartment owners to share the homes they live in, we’re supportive of steps which discourage Sydney properties from being used exclusively for short term rentals in urban Sydney.”

      The sands are still shifting  … but the worst of the storm may be over.

      The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers.
    Viewing 7 replies - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
    • Author
      Replies
    • #26860
      fred11
      Flatchatter

        Presumably, nothing that is yet to come out from the reports will have any affect on SSMA2015 and “Fair Trading’s” position on by-laws, as stated on their website, namely :

        ‘No by-law is capable of restricting a dealing in a lot, including restricting short-term letting’

        What do you think ?

        thanks.

        #26861
        Jimmy-T
        Keymaster
        Chat-starter

          The Fair Trading Strata Living web booklet also says this about short-term holiday letting:

          The owner or occupier of a lot must ensure that it is not used for any purpose that is prohibited by council planning regulations and other laws. They must also ensure that the lot is not occupied by more people than are allowed, and that the use of the lot does not create a nuisance or hazard to others in the strata scheme.

          So owners corporations can pass by-laws that say they will comply with council zoning.  And if your building is zoned residential only, then you can use that to block short-term rentals.

          The Fair Trading advice will change to reflect changes in the law but I don’t know if we will see those changes embodied in the Strata Schemes Management Act.  I still think THIS SUMMARY covers most of the main options that are or were actively considered.

          The government response to the Coure Report is full of qualifications but nowhere does it address one of the critical issues in the original report  – that strata law does not allow by-laws that interfere with “dealing”.

          Now, clearly we have shifted from the core of that concept when we allow 75 percent of all owners to force the other 25 percent to sell their units. In other words, the Government can bring in a law that allows Owners Corporations to decided on holiday lets without interfering with the fundamentals of the Strata Act.

          But if you look at the Coure response, there are so many acknowledgements of the recommendations couched in terms of “this will be considered” that it’s hard to see how much of it will be accepted.

          I am absolutely convinced of two things: the government will allow genuine “home sharing” – the kind that Airbnb claims is their core business; the government will create a mechanism whereby apartment blocks can restrict holiday letting of whole homes if they so wish.

          The easiest way to do that is to allow the proposed “complying development” provision with exceptions and exemptions for apartment blocks. Then apartment blocks that want to do so will be able to continue to pass by-laws supporting their zoning.

          Governments hate having to go back and change laws every time a loophole appears.  That’s why Strata law has three Acts – Development, Management and Regulations.  It’s the third of those that’s most flexible and that’s where we’ll see any changes that aren’t covered by other laws.

          The Coure response specifically mentions that the SSMA will be reviewed after five years (not the three the Coure report calls for) so don’t expect any major changes in that area.  In the face of a changing landscape, I suspect the government is looking for flexible changes to laws that can be tweaked if and when any negative effects become evident.

          They neither want to shut down Airbnb and its ilk, nor do they want online holiday lets to swamp residential housing.  So expect low impact regulations with enough flexibility built into it to keep it all under control.

          But I would recommend any apartment block that doesn’t have a short-term letting (zoning) by-law in place already to get one soon.  It may be a lot harder to do after the laws are changed. 

          The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers.
          #26865
          Lady Penelope
          Strataguru

            As attractive as your option sounds Jimmy T (i.e. that a strata scheme can ban short term letting based on it not being deemed ‘residential’) I am not sure that it would work in reality.

            The term ‘residential’ is a zoning term that merely distinguishes it from the other zones which are mainly either: ‘industrial’, ‘commercial’, or ‘agricultural’. 

            The term ‘residential’ generally does not have the narrow and specific meaning that would be required to ban short term rentals from an area that has been zoned as ‘residential’, and particularly in a zone that already permits other residential types such as: low density residential, medium density residential, high density residential, and large lot residential. 

            Unless it could be proven by a strata scheme that an owner within their scheme has breached the planning and zoning regulations and has changed the use of their apartment from ‘residential’ to ‘commercial’ then a short term let would still be ‘residential’.

            This breach may require a high degree of proof … and, if challenged by an owner, the strata scheme may unfortunately have a difficult time proving this change of use.

            I have a vague recollection of a change of use being recognised in Victoria when a large number of apartments within a strata scheme was taken over by a large international accommodation provider that included: an onsite check in desk; an onsite manager; and which employed a commercial cleaning company to service the apartments, and luggage porters etc. This scenario was deemed to be more akin to ‘commercial’ than ‘residential’.

            However, this example is unlikely to produce the same outcome from a situation where an isolated few apartments within a ‘residential’ building are let on a short term basis, particularly if they don’t share the same set of characteristics as the Victorian example.

            #26866
            tharra
            Flatchatter

              & if the language of the development consent pertaining to the building class is?:

              “That the residential component of the development must be for permanent residential accommodation only and not for the purpose of hotel, motel, serviced apartments, tourist accommodation or the like.”

              I’m still flummoxed as to why hotels/motels & the like have to comply with more onerous fire safety regulations yet whole apartment short term lets appear to be exempt.

              #26867
              Jimmy-T
              Keymaster
              Chat-starter

                @Lady Penelope said:
                The term ‘residential’ is a zoning term that merely distinguishes it from the other zones which are mainly either: ‘industrial’, ‘commercial’, or ‘agricultural’. 

                The term ‘residential’ generally does not have the narrow and specific meaning that would be required to ban short term rentals from an area that has been zoned as ‘residential’ …

                It depends on the local council and its Local Environment Plan. For instance, City of Sydney (which has the largest concentration of apartments in the country) specifies in its DA’s what they mean by permanent residential (see below).

                This all comes back to a discussion elsewhere on this website that the best placed bodies to set the parameters for residential letting may be local councils – as they have the bigger local picture in view – and owners corporations as they have their individual community needs to consider.

                Ironically, though, it was the City of Sydney submission to the Coure inquiry that set them off down the dangerous path of “complying developments”.

                This is an extract from a recent development approval in Sydney.

                RESTRICTION ON RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

                The following restriction applies to buildings approved for residential use:

                (a) The accommodation portion of the building (levels 1 to 8) must be used as permanent residential accommodation only and not for the purpose of a hotel, motel, serviced apartments, private hotel, boarding house, tourist accommodation or the like, other than in accordance with the Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012.

                (b) A restrictive covenant is to be registered on the title of the development site in the above terms …

                (c) If a unit contains tenants, it must be subject to a residential tenancy agreement for a term of at least three months.

                (d) No person can advertise or organise the use of residential apartments approved under this consent for short term accommodation or share accommodation.  

                The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers.
                #26868
                Lady Penelope
                Strataguru

                  It is good to see that the City of Sydney has made an attempt to develop some restrictions for new development approvals. However, I have lived too long on this planet not be sceptical of even the best of endeavours! I can see legal loop ‘holes’ in this DA. I hope that those who reside in this development do not think that they have water tight protections. 

                  One of the most obvious ‘holes’ is at (c) – the 3 month residential tenancy agreement. Signed leases are easy to get released from and without any penalty – all it takes is the owner’s consent.

                  What is to stop an unscrupulous owner requiring all of his tenants to sign the mandatory 3 month lease but permit the tenant to escape from the lease after one week? This is a contractual agreement between the owner and the tenant that the OC is not party to – therefore any excuse can be concocted to explain why the 3 month lease was not sustained and was terminated early. 

                  There is no penalty on an owner who has permitted his tenants to break their 3 month leases. The only requirement is that a 3 month lease was initially signed.

                  And another ‘hole’ is at (d) – the no advertising of short term rentals …… The unscrupulous owner could advertise a 3 month rental but state that “the lease terms contain no penalties for early termination”. The short term rental has not technically been advertised – but has it been implied? Or is the owner just being magnanimous? A tricky one to decide!

                  This DA is a good initial attempt but the issue still needs some work to make it more ‘water tight’ and less ‘holey’. 

                  #26870
                  Jimmy-T
                  Keymaster
                  Chat-starter

                    There are always ways of getting around laws and by-laws – just as there are ways of enforcing them creatively.

                    If you are in a block that has a legal obligation not to allow lets of 30 days and someone plays fast and loose with the rules (as described by Lady P) then you reciprocate in kind. The law is on your side but you don’t have to go to court every time you want to enforce it.

                    Lift and door security tags can be routinely cancelled when short-stay letting is suspected. Locked-out holidaymakers can be given the mobile number of the owners.

                    Let the rogue landlord pursue the owners corp through NCAT to enforce their “right” to break the rules.

                    If you do want to get proactive, Notices to Comply can be issued and fines pursued over breaches of short-stay letting by-law breaches (max $1,100 for the first offence, $2,200 for repeat offences).  

                    Orders and fines (max $550) are sought at NCAT for failure to register tenants and/or provide by-laws to new tenants (max $550).

                    Basically, you legally make the rogue landlord and the illegal guests’ lives as uncomfortable as possible until the problem shifts to a building that doesn’t care.

                    The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers.
                  Viewing 7 replies - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
                  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

                  Flat Chat Strata Forum Living in strata Current Page