2022-11-04 Special Meeting Agenda

SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA                                                         4 NOVEMBER 2022


there was suggestion a Temporary Local Planning Instrument be pursued as well as longer term
amendments. Staff are investigating these options and discussing with the State.
5.   “Residents for Noosa”
Early in the consultation period a passionate resistance to the draft strategy emerged on a local
social media page. At the request of Councillors the offer for a specific discussion was extended to
this group and the Mayor, Cr Stockwell and planning officers met with eight “Residents for Noosa”
representatives.
This offered participants an opportunity to share experiences and concerns. While participants had
different opinions on various things the key message was concern that the housing strategy
potentially opened the door to additional residential development that has not previously been
planned for and therefore could undo the decades of conscientious planning for the protection of
natural values and low density residential amenity.
Participants were adamant that the influx of short-term accommodation was central to the lack of
rental accommodation and erosion of residential amenity. There was concern that Noosa is already
at capacity and building more housing at the loss of green space or low density amenity would be
unacceptable, especially as there was little guarantee additional housing wouldn’t also end up being
let to tourists rather than local workers.
There was also concern that Noosa ratepayers were being asked to support the business and
development sectors by subsidising infrastructure and development costs. It was suggested that the
needs of tourists, businesses and commuters were being prioritised over those of residents and that
retirees were particularly being undervalued.
6.   Online survey
Engagement consultants designed an online survey, containing 10 questions, through Council’s
Engagement HQ platform, Your Say Noosa. The consultant’s report advises 670 people provided
feedback through this survey. 46% of the respondents were aged between 45 and 64. Just over 46%
identified as retired or non-worker. Over two thirds of respondents identified as home owners while
18.7% identified as renters. The survey attracted the most responses from residents in Noosa Heads
followed by Tewantin and Noosaville. Cooroy and Sunrise Beach were also quite engaged.
The consultants derived various statistics from the on-line survey however key messages include:
-    493 respondents said it was important or extremely important to them that social and affordable
     housing be made a priority by Noosa Council; 110 said it was of low or no importance (96 of
     whom identified as home owners);
-    419 respondents strongly agreed new housing not be located where it is adversely affected by
     natural hazards such as flooding, bushfire or subsidence
-    There was clear preference development of social and affordable housing occurs throughout
     the region rather than being clustered in one location, although a number of areas were
     nominated as not suitable at all (such as the hinterland, Noosa Heads, Noosaville and the
     beachside suburbs). Young people particularly thought development of social and affordable
     housing throughout the whole region was the most important consideration.
-    326 respondents strongly agreed Council should advocate for a portion of the $38.5million
     Sunshine Coast social housing budget to be spent on social housing in Noosa Shire; 81
     respondents definitely disagreed with this.
-    311 respondents strongly agreed residential development and redevelopment should facilitate
     housing that is affordable for households on low to moderate incomes, including those who
     cannot access the private rental market; 80 definitely disagreed.
-    292 respondents strongly agreed on focussing new housing in areas with good proximity to
     services and advocating for improved public transport in these areas was important, although
     there was more division about whether this should specifically be within 400 metres of activity
     centres.




                                                                                      Page 6 of 20