2026 LGAQ CONFERENCE MOTIONS & COUNCILLOR ATTENDANCE · Attachment 10 - Submission to State Planning Policy Review

Page 2

  2




                            ensure that implementation does not create additional
                            administrative, financial or legal burdens for councils.
                            Ultimately, this motion aims to secure a planning framework that
                            supports housing supply and economic growth while safeguarding
                            environmental values, community wellbeing and long-term
                            resilience, and ensuring consistent, evidence-based planning
                            outcomes across Queensland.
Background                  The Queensland Government’s review of the State Planning Policy
(required) 350-word limit   (SPP) proposes to streamline State interests, with a stronger
                            emphasis on housing supply and economic growth. While these
                            objectives are acknowledged, the proposed removal or dilution of
                            key State interests, including biodiversity, natural hazards, coastal
                            environments, cultural heritage and liveability, represents a
                            fundamental shift away from the established integrated planning
                            framework.
                            The SPP is the primary statutory mechanism for embedding State
                            interests into local planning schemes. It provides the policy
                            foundation that enables local governments to implement, justify and
                            defend locally refined planning provisions. The removal of key
                            State interests weakens this foundation, reducing the consistency,
                            clarity and defensibility of planning outcomes and increasing the
                            risk of inconsistent application across the State.
                            Without clear State level direction, local governments will be
                            required to assume greater responsibility for technical matters (e.g.
                            hazard mapping). This will create resourcing and financial
                            pressures, particularly for smaller and regional councils, and
                            represents a clear cost and risk shift to local government.
                            The proposed changes also introduce ambiguity regarding the
                            interaction between State and local planning priorities. This
                            uncertainty is likely to lead to more contested development
                            assessments, increased appeals and reduced confidence in
                            planning outcomes.
                            Further, the removal of State produced mapping and guidance risks
                            fragmentation, with councils potentially adopting differing
                            methodologies and standards across the State. This would
                            undermine the coordinated, statewide approach the SPP is
                            intended to achieve and reduce certainty for communities, industry
                            and councils.
                            Maintaining a balanced and integrated SPP is critical to ensuring
                            that housing and economic objectives are delivered alongside
                            environmental protection, community wellbeing and climate
                            resilience. Strong State leadership, clear policy guidance and
                            appropriate resourcing are essential to achieving consistent and
                            sustainable planning outcomes across Queensland.
Case study/ Example         Noosa Council provides a clear example of the risks associated
(optional) 350-word limit   with the proposed SPP changes.
                            • Noosa Plan 2020 is heavily informed by existing State interests
                                and, for example, relies on State-provided mapping such as
                                bushfire hazard mapping and the Mapping of Environmental

Page 3

3




        Significance (MSES). Based on the information currently
        available, it is unclear how the proposed removal of these
        matters as State interests will affect their continued application
        and weight within local planning schemes.
    • Council is currently progressing planning scheme amendments
        to address coastal hazards(i.e. erosion prone areas). This work
        requires specialist technical input and external consultancy
        support and will not be finalised within the proposed SPP
        review timeframe. If State hazard provisions and mapping are
        removed prior to completion, a policy gap will emerge, creating
        uncertainty in development assessment and increasing risk
        exposure.
    • Noosa has limited in-house specialist expertise in areas such
        as hazard modelling. The proposed shift away from State-
        provided mapping and guidance would require Council to
        procure external expertise, increasing costs, timeframes and
        reliance on a limited consultant market.
    • There is further concern that plan making and the inclusion of
        natural hazards and environmental matters in particular, may be
        prevented from being included in local planning scheme where
        they conflict with the limited state interests of housing supply
        and economic development.
    These challenges are not unique to Noosa and are likely to be
    experienced across many Queensland councils, particularly smaller
    and regional authorities.
    These examples demonstrate how the removal of key State
    interests, combined with insufficient transition arrangements and
    support, can lead to policy gaps, increased costs, reduced
    consistency and greater legal and planning risk, highlighting the
    importance of maintaining strong State leadership within the SPP
    framework.