Skip to the record
Accept no imitations.

Original source · versioned page text

2017-04-11 P&E Agenda Attachment 1 to Item 1 Housing Needs Assessment

of 229

Page text shows just the words. Original shows the document exactly as it was published.

Page text read automatically using OCR, there may be inaccuracies

Text sections have not been matched to the original PDF pages. Use the original document to check page numbers.

Data for Queensland as a whole was also considered for a broader perspective. An indicator table
showing demographic characteristics for the comparison areas and the results of the comparative
analysis is provided in Appendix A.

These comparative Local Government Areas were chosen because they are popular tourist
destinations and/or have similar older populations to the Noosa Shire. However, they do differ
from the Noosa Shire in specific ways:

        The proportion of Noosa Shire population 60 years of age and older was around 30% in
         2015, while for Douglas Shire, Gold Coast and Queensland, this proportion was much
         lower at around 20%;
        The Fraser Coast region was significantly more socio-economically disadvantaged in 2011
         than any of the other areas – with lower median personal and household incomes, and
         around 60% of the population living in the most disadvantaged neighbourhoods in
         Queensland (the bottom 20% of neighbourhoods on the index of relative socio-economic
         disadvantage). The proportion for Noosa Shire was around 13%, 17% for Douglas Shire
         and 12% for the Gold Coast;
        While separate houses were the most common dwelling type in all of the areas, Douglas
         Shire and Gold Coast had much lower proportions of separate houses (80% for Noosa
         Shire LGA, 71% for Douglas Shire and 60% for Gold Coast) (Figure 40). Fraser Coast was
         the highest, with 87.5%;

       Figure 40. Separate houses, Comparison areas, 2011




       Source: ABS 2013a;
       Notes: Excluding unoccupied dwellings, and visitor only, and other non-classifiable households. Noosa
       Shire and Douglas Shire based on SA1s which do not fully align with the LGA boundary.

        Douglas Shire and Gold Coast also had higher proportions of households renting and
         lower proportions of households who owned their home outright compared to Noosa
         Shire (Figure 41).




Briggs & Mortar Pty Ltd | Page 110
Log in to download the original file

2017-04-11 P&E Agenda Attachment 1 to Item 1 Housing Needs Assessment(PDF, 3MB).pdf · 3.6 MB (large file)

Large file: the download may take up to a minute.

Searchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.

The supporting record

Open full page ↗

Source document

Analyse documents ↗Open full page ↗

My Comparisons

Choose two to four records of the same kind. Drag using a handle or use the “Compare” buttons.

Your selected records are saved in this browser for your account. Results use the filters on the page where you choose “Compare selected”.