NOOSA PLAN 2020 PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO. 2 - POST PUBLIC NOTIFICATION FOR FINAL STATE GOVERNMENT MINISTERIAL APPROVAL · Attachment 1 Table of submissions

 Your Say    ECM         Submitter comments                                                                                              Response   Recommendation
 Reference   reference
                         children, and needs to meet current home liveable standards and be energy efficient. We should not
                         have to move to a new home elsewhere, when we own our property in Attunga Heights Noosa Heads and
                         are rate payers and purchased our property for our family to grow and live in. Our family should be
                         permitted to replace our family home with our desired new family home in the exact same location as our
                         current family home, where, we and our children are familiar with, and can access school, after school
                         activities and all the facilities our family needs.
                         We should not have to pay the extra cost to build duplexes instead of a family home.
             23132317    The proposed amendments seem to put restrictions on existing use of property. I can possibly understand
             new         changes on a go-forward basis (ie after the regulations are approved), but any new restrictions should
                         not apply (ie be retro-active) for existing residents. For example, protect existing residents’ rights to
                         redevelop their property into the same property-type as they had purchased (eg single-
                         occupancy/dwelling to single occupancy/dwelling).
                         The amendment indicates that this may been considered a material change of use and therefore not
                         allowed, instead requiring residents to redevelop their homes into dual occupancy. Dependent on the size
                         of the lot occupied by an existing dwelling house, additional freestanding or attached dwellings could be
                         developed to make better use of the site. In this instance, the property would no longer be a dwelling
                         house by definition and would be defined as either dual occupancy or multiple dwelling. I would propose
                         that the language is modified to apply only to dwelling purchased AFTER the amendments come into
                         effect.
 5824078                 No changes to change of use of residential areas. A block that holds a house can be replaced with a
                         house. No more small blocks, duplex, tiny homes being jam packed in. No sardine streets full of cars
                         because there are no car ports/ garages to house them. The streets belong to residents not developers.
             23113004    Medium & High Density Proposals don't make sense in some of those zoned areas are Definitely not in
                         "affordable housing areas" and will be to local ratepayers' detriment.

 5829787                 Mandating small multiple dwellings in MDRZ is unacceptable. There has been no evidence presented to
                         support the claim by council that single dwellings in medium density residential zone (MDRZ) is inefficient
                         and unsustainable. This proposal is not only unacceptable, it is unAustralian!
                         Permanent residents like me chose to purchase our property for its location and street character,
                         independent of its zoning. A lot of older dwellings in the medium density residential zone are old beach
                         shacks or holiday homes that are not well designed and many are not well constructed. It is unacceptable
                         for council to deny owners the right to rebuild (or extend) an older house as a single dwelling should they
                         wish to do so and be fortunate enough to be able to.
                         Small Multiple Dwellings in MDRZ will not be affordable. A small increase in supply will not materially
                         affect prices because it is small relative to the overall market and it competes with nearby properties, to
                         which its prices are tied. Zoning is not an important determinant of housing prices because other factors,
                         such as interest rates, immigration, taxes or location premiums, are more important.
                         The cost of small multiple dwellings developed in MDRZ and HDRZ of Noosa is not likely to be affordable
                         given the premium on the land value of properties in these zones particularly in the eastern beaches and
                         along the river system and near Noosa Junction. The development of small multiple dwellings in the
                         MDRZ will not assist the housing crisis in the short or long term.
                         Increasing planning restrictions will increase rents. There has been no economic analysis to support the
                         proposed mandating small multiple dwellings in MDRZ. Council proposes to mandate small multiple
                         dwellings in medium and high density residential zones in order to address the housing crisis by
                         increasing supply of affordable and accessible accommodation. Yet there is no evidence presented to
                         demonstrate that the proposed changes will have the desired effect other than a brief reference to median
                         rents.
                         Mandating small multiple dwellings and excluding single dwellings in the MDRZ represents a significant
                         planning restriction. Zoning restrictions need to be relaxed to allow more housing - restrictions
                         substantially contribute to higher rents.
                         The development of small multiple dwellings in the MDRZ will compound congestion in many areas
                         around Noosa.
 5829798                 I object to the proposed change to uses in the medium density residential zone in Proposed Amendment
                         No. 2 that would have the effect of rendering single detached housing an inconsistent use and only
                         operate to protect existing single detached dwelling houses as a pre-existing non-conforming use.
                         Our property at 47 Plover Street, Peregian Beach, is a single detached dwelling house and was one of
                         the ""original"" houses in Peregian Beach. The property has been used as such, as far as we are aware,
                         since it was built and it is our present intention to continue to use it for that purpose. At the time of the
                         acquisition of our property we made certain assumptions as to land use and, indeed, ongoing land use.
                         The effect of the proposal is akin to a compulsory acquisition of one of our use rights without
                         compensation.
                         There are 8 or so blocks (in addition to our block) to the immediate south of our block that are the subject
                         of the medium density legacy zoning in the town plan, dating back more than 20 years. There are a
                                                                                                                                          55
Table of Submissions made regarding Noosa Plan 2020 Proposed Amendment No. 2, 2024