MAYORAL MINUTES · 2023-05-16 - Mayoral Minute - HAAPOLA Act

Page 2

equal to at least 15% of all dwellings resulting from the development. This component is to include
a diverse mix of dwelling types or diversity in the number of bedrooms contained in the dwellings.

The current definition of Affordable Housing as it appears in the Planning Regulation 2017 and within
planning schemes will also be replaced with a new definition ‘Affordable Housing Component’ which
means “housing that is affordable to particular households and that complies with the criteria in the
Planning Regulation 2017”. The relevant criteria with the Planning Regulation 2017 are loosely
defined and there are significant concerns regarding how affordable housing approved under SFD
will be maintained in perpetuity given the inclusion of Section 43C 3(c) which allows for it to be sold
or rented below the typical market value on the basis of its type, composition, method of construction,
size or level of finish. This guarantees no actual level of affordability and no oversight from registered
housing providers, particularly in the event the property is sold and is unlikely to remain affordable
beyond the first sale. With respect to build to rent, no details or specified time period are provided to
ensure the property remains below market rent long term. It is also considered unreasonable to
effectively enforce this requirement, and therefore places concern on whether the affordable housing
component will be maintained over the long-term.

The minimum 15% affordable housing criteria for SFD declaration is consider too low given the
primary driver for the legislative changes is the provision of much needed affordable housing.
Furthermore, there are concerns that the new process has the potential for large scale projects with
minimal affordable housing could approved via the SFD process. This is further amplified given the
local government’s role in development assessment and planning schemes are being effectively set
aside for SFD proposals.

As mentioned above, the breadth of eligible development is broadly defined and despite the
explanatory materials referencing ‘infill development’, the legislative drafting is not limited to infill
development as it can be applied to any material change of use or reconfiguring a lot for ‘urban
purpose’ (including residential, industrial, sporting, recreational and commercial purposes) provided
that it includes a minimum 15% affordable housing.

While the proposed SFD pathway excludes development in ‘environmental zones’ (i.e. land zoned
for conservation: national parks, conservation areas), the change proposed do not preclude SFD in
areas subject to environmental overlays– e.g. vegetated areas on freehold land.

The SDF pathway also lacks the usual standards and safeguards - it does not have prescribed
assessment benchmarks (or the ability to prescribe them under a regulation), and it specifically
excludes the Planning Act 2016 requirement to comply with assessment benchmarks. While it has
a representation period, it has no referral agency step (or requirement to consider previous referral
agency responses) and the Minister’s decision criteria are limited and non-mandatory. For example,
the current material advises that ‘in assessing and deciding the application the chief executive (being
the Minister) may consider any planning instruments applying to the premises the subject of the
application’. However this is not a requirement.

Assessment of SFD proposals will be undertaken within reduced timeframes with no referrals, public
notification being limited to 15 business days for making submissions, and no appeal rights. Whilst
the State will engage with Local Government Authorities early in the process, there is no certainty or
confidence for our community that local planning schemes will be adhered to through this process.
This element is of significant concern, particularly given the broadly defined scope for SFD proposals
which may be significantly inconsistent with local planning schemes.

It is important to acknowledge Noosa Council has a strong and proud history of upholding Noosa
Planning Schemes and which has been enshrined and reinforced through numerous upheld
Planning & Environment Court decisions. This persistent and dedicated approach to Local
Government planning has made Noosa the iconic destination it is today that our community and
visitors love. Noosa Council is also very aware and supportive of achieving greater housing
outcomes for our Community as addresses in Council’s comprehensive Housing Strategy endorsed
                                                                                             Page 2 of 3

Page 3

over two years ago. This Strategy has a range of actions underway to achieve these outcomes in a
manner that aligns with community expectations. As highlighted above, there are significant
concerns the SDF process may threaten or undermine this approach and Noosa Council will be
strongly seeking the State Government reconsider their approach to the SFD process to address
the concerns raised above and importantly ensure the Local Planning instruments, such as the
Noosa Plan 2020, will be adhered to.

Consultation on the proposed amendments closes on Tuesday 21 May 2024. Council will be making
a submission raising significant concerns as outlined above and requesting amendments to the SFD
process to ensure proper adherence to Local Government Planning Schemes and allowing for
appropriate and meaningful community input into the SFD process.

Any person can make a submission and should access information via the following link:
https://yoursay.housing.qld.gov.au/housing-availability-and-affordability-planning-and-other-
legislation-amendment-bill-2023




Cr Frank Wilkie                                   Date 16/5/2024
Mayor




                                                                                    Page 3 of 3