from Wayne Stevens to David Ford
Subject: Correspondence from the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice
The issue we are debating is to provide surety to purchasers who wish to live in residential property not to be affected by short term rental. The recent Griffith University study went to great pains to explore the frustration that purchasers experienced·clarifying the classification issue, then ultimately found that short term rentals were introduced into their property. The standard module·provides the means for that surety and restricts management rights agreements to 10 years.
I will draw to your attention the fact that had the AG’s interpretation of the intent of the BCCM Act been applied from 1997, there would be 100%· accommodation module buildings and really no need for the standard module to cover residential buildings.
The other point that must be clarified is that the UOAQ has never suggested that the BCCM Act should override planning principles. The UOAQ has expressed deep concern that the Queensland Government has chosen to misinterpret the definitions of class 2 and class 3 buildings allowing class 2 residential buildings to be used for short term accommodation that under the NCC should be class 3. This in turn allows misallocation of the BCCM module.
The response from the Attorney is most concerning to the UOAQ. · Notwithstanding the attached, the BCCM Act has since 1997·understood that Residential lots were places of long term residence and Accommodation lots were places of transient or long term residence.·Thus there has been no confusion as to the meaning of residential and accommodation for 17 years as demonstrated in the adjudication for Carrington Court quoted below; however, it now becomes convenient, in the interests of developers and jeopardy of unit owners, to introduce doubt and confusion.· The tone of the correspondence· clearly indicates· bias towards developers and caretakers obtaining 25 year contracts at the expense of unit owners.