Special Meeting, 3 October 2023
Date: Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 12:30PM
Location: Noosa Shire Council Chambers, 9 Pelican Street, Tewantin, QLD 4565, Australia
Organiser: Noosa Shire Council
Duration: 01:10:26
Synopsis: SEQ plan submission and HSS lodged, Noosa height/character defended, Legal bid to curtail short‑term accommodation, Infrastructure gaps criticised, Housing diversity and land‑banking addressed, Procedural amendments defeated.
Meeting Attendees
Councillors
Clare Stewart Karen Finzel Joe Jurisevic Amelia Lorentson Brian Stockwell Tom Wegener Frank Wilkie Executive Officers
Acting Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Community Services Kerri Contini Director Corporate Services Trent Grauf Director Strategy And Environment Kim Rawlings Acting Director Infrastructure Services Shaun Walsh Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Meeting Transcript
Clare Stewart 00:05.341
Good afternoon everyone. I declare this Special Meeting open. I would like to acknowledge that we are meeting in traditional lands of the Kabi Kabi people, and I pay my respects to elders past, present and emerging, and I hope that all councils remain in attendance and that Wilkie and Finzel have requested to attend via Microsoft Teams. I will move the motion to allow the councils to attend via zoom. They'll have a second, please. Thank you, Councillor Wegener. I won't speak to this. All in favour? Carried unanimously. I welcome the Councillors, Wilkie and Finzel. Today's meeting. Is adjourned. Thank you. May. Today's Special Meeting is to consider draft South East Queensland Regional Plan 2023 update, newstocouncil Council submissions. We have Kim Rawlings, our Director of Environment Strategy here, and Rowena Skinner, our principal strategic planner, to present the report. Rowena, Kim, could we get an update on the report, please? Rowena Skinner 01:02.696
Yes, Council. This report basically outlines the drive to secure regional plan. The update, the 2023 update that the State released in August this it's year, it's been through community consultation from that stage up until the 20th of September where, um, the State government presented the draft as an update to the 2017 shaping SEQ plan, um, specifically. Not the new a plan but an update to the existing one and based around the same five themes that the current one is, um, which is grow, prosper, connect, sustain and live. It does however revise some of the aspirations and actions within each of these themes. One of the primary drivers underpinning the 2023 update of ShapingSEQ is to ensure that the land and housing supply settings are responsive to current growth and the process is are in place to accelerate delivery of more housing. The draft update is underpinned by a new population projection model which projects SEQ to be home to nearly 6 million people by 2046. Accordingly, revised population forecasts have been assigned to each local government area in the South East Queensland region and therefore new dwelling targets as well. There's now an emphasis on consolidation or infill rather than expansion or greenfield development. To make sure and of also central to the plan is housing diversity and housing affordability within each type of development. So this report brings forward details on that 2023 update with the recommendation that Council make a submission before the 9th of October which is the deadline for local governments to make their submission. Clare Stewart 03:10.269
Any questions? Tom Wegener 03:15.932
Should we mention that in a mute. Clare Stewart 03:22.865
Frank could you put your microphone on mute please. Thank you. Any questions? I can't see Councillor Finzel. So Councillor Finzel any questions? Can you hear me? Karen Finzel 03:41.697
Yes, clearly. Yes I have no questions at thank the you. Any questions? Amelia Lorentson 03:48.772
I have one question. Can the growth targets set by state in the draft be delivered if the proposed scheme amendments that we've got in state proceed? Rowena Skinner 04:01.569
Councillor, I think when we talk about the growth targets, my focus is on the dwellings. And I believe. Theoretically, the dwelling targets can be met under the existing Planning Scheme without amendments, but they would be much more successfully met if we could get those proposed amendments through. Thank you. Clare Stewart 04:24.875
Where are we going to act with those claims and amendments? Where are they at with the State government? They because they've on been there since February. Rowena Skinner 04:31.553
I don't know. They have been with the State since February. Basically, at quarter past five on Thursday afternoon, we got some advice saying that we were closer to being able to meet the State's expectations around the State interest review. So there's a few things that the State have asked for. They came back with a formal information request and asked for some changes. There has been a little bit of back and forth. Then but effectively we're now in a position where if Council is amenable to those last few changes we could formally resubmit that package and they would potentially sign up for the purpose of consultation. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 05:27.562
I have a question. Thank you Mayor. Rowena would you be able to explain the difference between the submission that's being ratified today and the Housing Supply Statement we're required to make also? Rowena Skinner 05:42.262
Councillor, Councillor, the submission goes to a number of areas in the SEQ Regional Plan update so it's probably fair to say it's largely focused on the issue of growth which is around our population targets, our dwelling targets, the diversity of housing that's expected and I and- guess I the rate of growth that's expected. Kerri Contini 06:15.327
But it also does talk about some of the matters under the theme of sustain, it talks about some of the matters under the theme of prosper. Rowena Skinner 06:24.779
And also connect and the theme of liveability I guess so it addresses the whole SEQ Regional Plan draft update whereas then the Housing Supply Statement is a much more technical document which specifically is just looking at the quantum the speed and the mix of housing delivery looking at the different types of dwelling sizes the different tenures range of accessible housing affordable housing everything else that the Shire might need to deliver and how they can do that in a timely fashion to keep on a par with the State's targets. Larry Sengstock 07:18.128
One further question. Joe Jurisevic 07:19.310
Follow on from something that you said earlier with regard to the members that currently for the State with regard to being able to meet the residential target as opposed to the population target can you possibly clarify how the interrelation between dwellings and residents don't appear to marry up in this document as opposed to what our current status of population per household is. Does that make makes sense? Kim Rawlings 07:49.251
Sense yes Councillor it would probably take me a minute to find exact figures but effectively we do not control the number of people that live in any given dwelling so we can control dwellings in terms of we assign. Rowena Skinner 08:08.894
A zone to properties dwelling so we can control dwellings in terms of we assign and then all those zones have an assumed density or yield attached to them whether that's going to be a detached house. Whether it might be townhouses or apartments. So we can control the number of dwellings. Now we know historically and certainly at this point in time we have a majority of small households. Something like three-quarters of our households are just one or two people. Whereas similarly over 75% of our dwellings are at least three bedrooms or more. So we're looking at redressing what would be on paper at least this mismatch between our occupancy, how we're using the dwellings we have and trying to make sure that of the additional dwellings get yet to be built we get the most number of small dwellings out of that mix and also some diversity in terms of community residences, rooming accommodation, some of those other models that might allow for share housing as well. Clare Stewart 09:27.410
I'm going to move to staff recommendation. Amelia Lorentson 09:30.019
I'll be at your second. Clare Stewart 09:35.216
The report before us outlines the draft ShapingSEQ 2023 update, which has been in community consultation from the 20th of August 2023, September 2023. Specifically, today's meeting relates Noosa Council's submission to the State government. The draft update is underpinned by a new population projection model which projects South East Queensland to be home to nearly six million people by 2046. Consequently, revised population and dwelling targets are assigned for each local government area. Key concerns which are raised. In the Council's submission to the State government in regard to the draft regional plan include: the short-term allocated population growth is not realistic and cannot be supported by either rapid delivery of housing or infrastructure. The assumptions of population modelling do not take into account nuances of each local government area and how many people. A place can support. Population and housing targets are exclusive of tourist and accommodation. Significantly, there is no state-funded infrastructure proposed to support requested growth. Language in the plan can be. Misleading and confusing, leading to genuine fears around buildings up to eight storeys in height. The iconic values of Noosa Shire once protected through legislation are at risk of being diminished, I.e. low-set buildings, absence of substantial areas of open space. Lack of recognition of the considerable work undertaken to date by Council preparing and endorsing a housing needs assessment, Housing Strategy and associated Planning Scheme amendments. Lack of transport infrastructure. That genuinely supports locals and residents. Similarly, residents have provided over 200 written submissions, as well as 150 residents who attended face-to consultations. There are five themes of the draft South East Queensland Regional Plan, which include: grow, prosper, connect, sustain and live, as Rowena has alluded to. With an additional $19,100 people, Noosa has been assigned the second lowest growth figure in SEQ, but as a percentage increase, Noosa has received the second highest proportional increase in the region of South East Queensland. The draft plan specifically requires greater housing diversity. Increase in attached low-rise dwellings, one to three storeys, and an increase, although less, in attached medium-rise apartments, four to eight storeys. There is absolutely no support in Noosa Planning Scheme for anything over four storeys, nor does it reflect the community sentiment received to date. Indeed, low density and medium-density residential zones are typically limited to a two storey height maximum. The little expansion of the urban footprint across SEQ, which is proposed, is a welcome step. In regard to social and affordable housing, a target of 20%. Informed by this independent modelling. Prosper. There are relatively few changes. The concern is where are all the thousands of new people. We are supposed to accommodate going to find employment, opportunity, business or innovation? Connect. There is positive talk around sustainable transport hierarchy, but new and improved infrastructure needs to be retrofitted in existing road reserves and corridors. The plan refers to proposed extensions of high-frequency public transport connections from Noosa to Maroochydore and beyond. This ignores any connection to Noosa's major regional activity centre and future transit hub. And similarly, although the plan refers to the Beerburrum to Nambour rail upgrade, there is no commitment of track duplication or noticeable improvements north of Beerwah. Positive statements around sustainability the details are lacking in terms of how strategies will be enacted, and who and will and when will they take responsibility for actions. Noosa Junction and Peregian beach village have been existing Hastings Street and macon street, Cooroy, as SEQ Great Places to live. The Gympie Terrace and Pomona are also addressed in the outcomes for live. There are no specific details as to the implications of being a listed great place. Placemaking is promoted in rural towns and Noosa Council is already undertaking work in this space with our first placemaking project, pilot project in Pomona. Specifically, concerns as outlined on page 14 of the agenda state. In general, there is a lack of acknowledgement of the substantial and strategic work Noosa Council has been doing for the last five years in seeking to improve housing choice and affordability, including completing comprehensive housing needs analysis, monitoring the impact of short-term accommodation on permanent housing, adopting a Housing Strategy, preparing Planning Scheme amendments, and moreover, a lack of acknowledgement of the iconic values that set Noosa Shire apart from other more densely settled parts of South East Queensland. I want to thank, and lastly, similarly on page 17 of the agenda, which is very important, there is expectation is the expectation that by 2026, which is only three years away, our population will be 11,200 persons higher in the 2021 figure, which would rely on an average annual increase over 3.9% which has not been experienced by Noosa since the 90s and since the 90s Noosa has been experiencing just over a 1% growth rate since that time. So that's very significant and that clearly is not sustainable for us as a small Shire. I want to thank the planning staff for their diligence, their expertise and their advocacy in regard to this paper and their submission. I think it's a terrific submission. I think it outlines the concerns that have been raised, the concerns of and I think it's one that the State really needs to heed and take direction from. So thank you. Amelia Lorentson 15:21.393
I have a question through the Chair. The recommendation authorises to the CEO prepare and submit a Housing Supply Statement, which you made reference to, Rowena. My question is in terms of land banking. I'm part of that submission will be we also be advocating to the State to investigate any relevant mechanisms to address land banking such as you know lose it or you sort of law sunset clause and even a discussion around compulsory land acquisitions. Rowena Skinner 16:12.382
Part of the Housing Supply Statement we can go into a lot more detail around the area of speed of delivery of housing as well as mix and content. So part of the issue of speed is as you mentioned the fact that there are already development sites that have approvals in place for many years and have not yet come to fruition. There are development sites where developers are releasing just one or two blocks a year as part of their ongoing income or superannuation. I suppose Noosa doesn't have the large-scale developments that see a rapid influx of new houses. At once or supply a great number in any given year. So we will be talking to the State in there about the length of currency periods which are currently six years and they extensions to that in so long. And we will be talking about various, I guess, tools to encourage the swift delivery of housing, whether that's through infrastructure charging or some sort of. As you see. Joe Jurisevic 17:35.923
Thank you very much in my question was of similar nature, and I asked staff if there was any mention of addressing that, and the housing statement is where this has occurred. My question, CEO, is through point B, authorise the CEO to make any minor amendments, whether we can include a statement or a summary of the land banking issue that's mentioned in the housing statement in our main submission to the State. I think it deserves consideration to be included. Larry Sengstock 18:11.127
I suppose we will fashion some words that meet make any that of these of new ideas new that we've and ideas that come to the table today where we're able to add them to the content. A fantastic content. Clare Stewart 18:25.698
Your excellent summary. Frank Wilkie 18:34.038
I have a question for staff. Where does the proposal to allow up to three storeys of unit development on each residential lot sit in the ShapingSEQ Review proposal? And will our submission back to the State be made in comment on that specific aspect? Rowena Skinner 18:57.261
Councillor Wilkie, the SEQ Regional Plan doesn't in itself dictate height limits. That's still a matter for the Planning Scheme. But the SEQ Regional Plan talks about increasing the diversity of housing within the low density residential zone. One of the things it looked at was saying zone. One that of the things it looked a that range of low density low-rise housing products would be suitable for that zone. And then it goes on to elaborate in the definitions that on to elaborate in the definitions that low-rise is considered anything up to three stories. Kerri Contini 19:35.151
So I guess as the Mayor alluded to the language within the plan is. Rowena Skinner 19:42.882
Unfortunate in that it leaves the door open to sort of fears of three stories development in the low density residential zone through its ambiguity however it can't in itself change the height limit that's allowed in Noosa at the moment. It does mean that any Planning Scheme amendments we do in the future obviously when we do a state interest review and they are cross-checking our proposed amendments against state interests including the South East Queensland Regional Plan they will ask us the question as to whether we should be looking at three-storey height limits within that zone. Noosa, Tewantin. Joe Jurisevic 20:30.786
I've got a follow-on question with regard to heights. In this there's mention of eight storeys but I understand in the public consultations that the State held with the community that eight storeys was mentioned spoken about and addressed can you advise what the response from the eight storey height limit from the State would have been during that process? Rowena Skinner 20:54.492
Councillor, I didn't attend the State government planning sessions, the community consultation sessions. So I can't tell you what they told anybody at those sessions. Certainly their advice to us is that, you know, it's a generic sort of definition that medium rise development is four to eight storeys. That's kind of based around building classifications and different processes for different styles of building classifications. Having said that, again, they can't dictate housing height or any building height limitations within the regional plan. They have sought to say that there will be an a proportion of medium rise buildings within Noosa and certainly the Planning Scheme does allow for a very small number of four storey buildings in Noosa. Clare Stewart 21:54.446
Rowena, and this is the ambiguity over the concerning language that has been in the draft regional plan. Your submission to the draft regional plan is based on what was written, rather than verbal communication, the actual facts and figures outlined the SEQ draft regional plan, which they did specifically mention, medium rise being potentially four to eight storeys, and talked about that across Noosa, which of course then gave way to concern. So of course I would imagine that your submission has in response to the brittensohn draft that the State government had put forward. Kim Rawlings 22:32.223
Yes, that's correct. Yeah, that's correct. So the submission responds to what the words are, and the submission clearly articulates that those height limits are not supported in Noosa and the impacts of those potential height limits both in the median rise and in our low residential zones. So we have specifically addressed. Clare Stewart 22:54.634
Those issues in the submission. Which is what you have to do irrespective of what was said or alluded to at community consultation. That's right. We have to respond to what was in writing. Yes. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 23:11.060
I don't think I'm going to be able to see that, Ms Frank. Brian Stockwell 23:16.593
So I'd like to move an amendment that adds item D, that reads, authorise the Chief Executive Officer to write to the minister requesting that the State government consider amending the Planning Act to support those councils. Seeking to maximise housing rather than short stay accommodation outcomes in residential zones by excluding any commercial short-term accommodation occurring in detached dwellings from the current protections offered by sections 260 of the act which lawful uses works and approvals and section 31 claiming compensation unless those uses are ancillary to premises used as a principal place of residence I'll second the motion so Councillors coming out of both the report and the submission it clearly identifies that one of the constraints to quickly responding to the housing crisis in Noosa is the volume of detached dwellings that have been converted to tourist use. The reason we've got that is that under our last Planning Scheme there was legal opinion which suggested that there was some lawful existing use rights if you'd been doing it up to declaration of the gazette of Noosa Plan 2020. This recommendation is asking the State government to do what many governments around the world are currently doing. That is stopping protecting the use of homes for tourist accommodation. It doesn't say that any Council has to do any particular thing, but in our case, if this was the case in June 2020, could have now 1000s more homes available for people to live in. It's very important to understand that the building of a detached dwelling in a residential zone is for people to live in. We've seen the massive growth of online booking of tourist accommodation within our residential zones and the large community backlash against it and as I said around the world governments are taking steps which will allow them to wind back those uses and put them in appropriate areas and this takes out the major constraint in Queensland legislation for us to get government to consider taking out the major constraint to other councils in similar situations to ours by suggesting that a tourist use of a home or detached dwelling within a residential zone is not existing doesn't enjoy the privilege of being considered an existing lawful use nor could if Council changes Planning Scheme to make them not permissible within that zone result in Council having to pay compensation I think it's a sensible way ahead it's they have listed a range of planning reforms in the regional plan I'm suggesting that. We would be the right Council to promote this particular reform. Tom Wegener 26:28.643
Any questions? Do other states, Queensland I believe is the only state that has a provision of paying change of use? Brian Stockwell 26:38.651
I'm probably not up to date but I know Queensland's endurance affection have historically been the most beneficial to interests. To develop interests of any state in Australia. Clare Stewart 26:49.604
I'll. Joe Jurisevic 26:51.827
Speak to the amendment though. I'm prepared to support the amendment because I believe that having read the report that Noosa is one of the areas identified as a locality where short-term accommodation does impact on residential availability of accommodation. But also I believe it's prudent to ask the minister and the State government to at least review the impact of short-stay accommodation in residential zones. Noosa is an immune being impacted by short-stay accommodation by any means in residential properties. And many of the jurisdictions around Queensland and other areas of Australia are now looking at the measures that the Council implemented with short-stay accommodation and reviewing how short-stay accommodation impacts on their residential areas with the lack of available housing. So I'm prepared to support this amendment on that basis that it will trigger, I believe, an action from the government to at least consider looking at the impact of short-stay accommodation on residential zones. Clare Stewart 27:59.093
I. Tom Wegener 28:08.908
Can't comment on that. Councillor Stockwell on this amendment. And it's just obviously important like we're kind of stuck in the mud unless we can do this. So CEO, godspeed. Thank you. Clare Stewart 28:22.770
Thank you. Anyone else? Who who's that? Sucks? Of course I can. Okay, we'll put the amendment to a vote. All in favour? Karen Finzel 28:36.366
That is Councillor Finzel. I can't see your hand. Can you see it now? Is that a yes? That's a yes. I support the amendment. Clare Stewart 28:47.457
Thank you. That is unanimous. Thank you. That now forms part of. Thank you, Councillor Wilkie. I see your hand. That now forms part of a substandard motion. Karen Finzel 28:56.747
And I would like to raise. Oh, sorry. You go, Councillor Finzel. Thank you. I'd like to raise an additional amendment. Yeah. I'm seeking an additional recommendation following the submission process to the South East Queensland Regional Plan for Council to consider any submission made regarding extension to the urban boundary from landowners and provide its position on these back to the State government. The reason I raise this additional recommendation-- hang on, can you tell me how to be seconded? Clare Stewart 29:31.640
Oh, sorry. Can we have a seconder for Councillor Finzel's amendment? Amelia Lorentson 29:37.110
I'm not sure I can't, sorry about I'm that. Not sure. Joe Jurisevic 29:39.671
I'm I understand not sure I understand it, but I'll have to-- I'll second it for. Brian Stockwell 29:42.595
The purpose of debate. Clare Stewart 29:44.118
Okay, thank you, Councillor. Right, Councillor Finzel, the floor is yours. Karen Finzel 29:49.327
Thank you, everyone. The reason I raise this additional recommendation is firstly that I want it on the public record to support good governance, thereby providing reassurance our community that due process is taking place following the principles of accountability, transparency, fairness and responsibility in the best interest of all stakeholders. Given the high level of engagement in our community regarding this matter, I think it is imperative that we support our community in showing that we are being. Open and transparent and making sure that all processes are taking place in a transparent manner. The reason I raise this is because I feel there are some communities that, in the rural setting, are still very much close to centres that provide access to services like doctors, schools, public transport, recreational and community centres within reasonable. Distance, even though they currently sit outside the urban footprint. So this is why I'm seeking support today for this amendment to ensure community sees that we are following process accordingly. Thank you. Clare Stewart 31:18.628
Thank you, thank you, Councillor any questions for staff around this. Frank Wilkie 31:25.843
I have a question. Yeah, Thank you. Mayor. Question for staff. Is it the case that the State government is not proposing any extension to Noosa. Council, Noosa Shire Council's urban boundary, and is Noosa Council supportive of any extension? To the urban boundary under the SEQ plan? Kim Rawlings 31:55.252
At this stage, yes, that's the situation. There are no proposed extensions to the urban boundary in draft SEQ Regional Plan. The public consultation process enabled people to put in submissions, Councillor Wilkie, and we are aware that through that process there have been submissions from the public, from some landowners to the east Queensland regional planning process around urban boundary extensions. So there's a number of those. We will be asked by the State government what our position on those submissions are shortly. Thank follow-up question? Frank Wilkie 32:41.470
So this amendment is not. Advocating for an extension of the urban boundary, it's just articulating the process that is going to be occurring anyway? Thank you. Kim Rawlings 32:53.754
That's my understanding that Councillor Finzel, Councillor Finzel may wish to talk to it but we had a conversation that this is to on the table the process that we'll go through. We understand there have been some submissions about urban boundary extensions we'll be asked to have our position on those and provide them back to the State. At this stage and as you can see in our submission we aren't supporting any extensions to the urban boundary but we but we'll need consider. To the information that's when it's provided to us. Joe Jurisevic 33:23.498
Thank you I understand that. So yeah I didn't quite understand, sorry can you just minimise, Councillor Wilkie here. I didn't quite understand so the question for Councillor Finzel is with regard to this amendment is that what you are alluding to that submissions made to the State through this process that Council is aware made available to the State government? Is that the intent of this amendment? Karen Finzel 33:46.497
Yes, thank you Councillor Joe. Yes, it is to just show transparency and show the due process given that yes Council has a position but it's to be transparent and provide good governance back to community members that put in a submission. Um into the South East Queensland draft plan and as the staff member just alluded to that state will be approaching Council in relation to the matters with those submissions that were made. Joe Jurisevic 34:22.596
So further question given that it was the State that's requesting those extensions or those requests for extensions to the urban boundary from landowners and that those submissions would have been made directly to the State. Does Council sit with regard to those submissions? An awareness of them or were they all made to the State government? Are we aware of all the submissions that were made? Kim Rawlings 34:46.439
We've just recently become aware of submissions and we haven't as team yet had a chance to assess those but we will do those very quickly and then there will be a conversation with Council about those. Joe Jurisevic 35:01.249
But as far as those submissions, were they made to Council or to the State government? No, they were made to the State government. So the State government is already aware so what I'm alluding to is the amendment here with regard to considered to the submissions and present them to the State government. They've already been presented to the State government. Kim Rawlings 35:16.923
I think this is, and provide Council's position on these submissions to the State government. Joe Jurisevic 35:25.525
Okay, so the element here is provide its position. Kim Rawlings 35:28.542
The submissions were made directly to they ran the process. It was a state government process, not a Council process. Those submissions didn't come via us. They went straight to the State. We've just been, late last week, provided with some information about those submissions. We haven't had a chance to assess those. We will assess those and then we'll bring those to Council. Joe Jurisevic 35:49.513
Sorry, I misunderstood the question. I clearly now see that it's talking about providing Council's position. Karen Finzel 35:54.969
Yeah and also, I just want it on the public record for good governance and transparency, just to reassure our community, given the heightened sense of what's going on around our housing crisis, to provide just this additional transparent process. To show community where we're at. Clare Stewart 36:15.173
And Councillor Finzel now. Councillor Lorentson and Stockwell, we both will start at the same time. Amelia Lorentson 36:19.993
Councillor? Just so that I can understand the process, Councillor Finzel has alluded to transparency and openness. What is the correct process? That's the next question, thank you. Kim Rawlings 36:31.358
Well, the process that's been undertaken is the correct process. Thank you. So there's no. This is absolutely the correct process. It's been a state government-led process. The draft South East Queensland Regional Plan is a state government document. They ran the public consultation process. So, submissions have been made directly to the State government. That's the correct process. When we've been asked by the public how to have an input, we've directed them to the State government to the process. Absolutely correct process. The State are now reviewing those submissions and anything of relevance to Noosa, they're coming back to us saying. We've received these submissions, Noosa Council, what do you think about these issues? So from our perspective, that process is absolutely the right process. Joe Jurisevic 37:17.697
Thank you very much. So in that regard, when would the public be made aware of any proposals from landowners for extensions to the urban boundary that was submitted. That was were submitted to the State. Kim Rawlings 37:31.571
I can't say what the State process is going to be about making submissions public, Councillor Jurisevic. Okay. I'm not sure whether the State will do a consultation report. And, you know, summarise submissions like we do when we put something out to the public, we do a consultation report. I'm not sure if that's going to be the process done by the State and whether they'll make all the submissions public. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 37:57.563
Yeah, mine is a point of clarification which I think may be desirable to change some words because I heard a lot of people talking about urban boundaries. Is what we have in the Noosa Plan. The regional plan has an urban footprint. I presume the amendment is meant to refer to the urban footprint. And generally, the terminology is not extension of it, but expansion of it. So is that correct, that if we were looking at new properties going into the urban footprint in the regional plan, it would be referring submissions to the expansion of the urban footprint? Rowena Skinner 38:31.029
Councillor, I would actually suggest that you change a it request to reflect request for a change to the regional land use category, because it may be that they're wanting to go into the rural living, for instance. That they're actually wanting to go the other way, from something back to a rural, regional landscape. So I would just broaden it to any requests for changes to the regional land use category. Brian Stockwell 39:03.792
Will that be up to the meeting? Yes. It is. Karen Finzel 39:07.398
A meeting. Do you want me to comment on that? Clare Stewart 39:12.639
Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Karen Finzel 39:15.442
Thank you. Yes, I'm happy to take the staff recommendation to change the wording to reflect what she just said. Is that the recommendation from the staff? Clare Stewart 39:29.298
So we'll put that to- is well, everyone happy with. Joe Jurisevic 39:31.313
Let's say that- so consider any submission made regarding changes to the land use category from landowners. Kim Rawlings 39:44.894
That's the language- that's the correct language used in the regional plan. Thank you. Changes to the regional land use category. Amelia Lorentson 39:54.493
So that incorporates any application for expansion. Thank you. I think I understand. Kim Rawlings 40:00.050
But Rowan Rowena is correct in that the submissions could be the other way. That's right. Clare Stewart 40:08.538
That's right. So just to confirm that. Amelia Lorentson 40:12.122
Wording. Kim Rawlings 40:13.063
Delete. No, no, no. Go back to from landowners. Amelia Lorentson 40:19.211
And provide. Joe Jurisevic 40:21.632
Just up to from land owners. Kim Rawlings 40:27.332
The end of the benefit. And extension. Karen Finzel 40:34.892
Should that be expansion or extension? That's coming out. Thank you. Clare Stewart 40:40.483
So it should read now, consider any submission made regarding changes to the regional land use category from landowners and provide its position on these back to the State government. Any objection to that? No. Thank you. Tom Wegener 40:58.173
So is this asking you to do anything you weren't already going to do anyway? Kim Rawlings 41:02.949
No, it's not. That's the process we'll be going through. Clare Stewart 41:09.091
Would anyone else like to talk to this amendment? Amelia Lorentson 41:23.182
Sorry, just a quick question, Kim. Just to clarify, so this amendment is redundant? You're already going to be providing this information as part of the process? Kim Rawlings 41:36.725
I won't comment on whether it's redundant, but that is absolutely what we're doing. So, yes, it's absolutely what we're doing. Thank you. Karen Finzel 41:45.186
So, can I make a comment there? Joe Jurisevic 41:48.188
No, you've spoken to it. You can close. Councillor Finzel, you can wait for the close on that. Thank you. So, yeah, whilst. Appreciate where Councillor Finzel's coming from in this regard, seeing I don't normally support redundant amendments, seeing as staff are already undertaking the actions within the amendment, I won't be supporting them again. Clare Stewart 42:09.969
This Councillor. Councillor Finzel would you like to close? Karen Finzel 42:19.632
Yes, thank you. I just want to close with the comment that I just wanted this on the public record. We as elected representatives have the privilege of you know having access to the staff and you know in-depth understandings of process. Basically this is just to put it out to community because this is a very hot topic that's very emotional and affecting a lot of people's lives given the housing crisis. So my intent really is to just be transparent and have it on the record. Thank you. Clare Stewart 42:49.721
Thank you Councillor Finzel. We'll put it to a vote. All in favour? Councillor Finzel is a yes. Councillor Wilkie I cannot see your hand. Wilkie is in favour. Against? Jurisevic, Wegener, Lorentson, Stockwell, Stewart. Motion is lost. Thank you, Councillor Wilkie and Councillor Finzel. Karen Finzel 43:15.283
Thank you. Clare Stewart 43:18.379
That brings us back to the original, which I believe only I've spoken to. Would anyone like to speak to the motion? Frank Wilkie 43:30.766
Mayor? I? Councillor Wilkie. Are any other Councillors present going into moving any more amendments? If not, I would like to test one? Clare Stewart 43:41.398
I don't think so. Okay. Amelia Lorentson 43:46.064
I have an amendment, but I second the original debate, but happy with the inclusion through the CEO. Thank you. Clare Stewart 43:54.776
Thank you. Councillor. Councillor Wilkie. Frank Wilkie 43:57.578
I'd like to add, I think it'd probably be an E, and it reads and it reads include in the submission to the State. I've sent a copy of this to Amelia if she wants to cut and paste. Include in the submission to the State. An assessment of the impact of permitting three-storey unit development in low density residential neighbourhoods. Clare Stewart 44:31.192
Thank you. Include in the submission to the State. That's right. Frank Wilkie 44:45.760
Do you have that, Amelia? Clare Stewart 44:47.743
Yes, we've got that, thank you. Okay. Joe Jurisevic 45:35.646
Is that it Frank? That's the wording? Clare Stewart 45:39.884
I'll read it out Frank. Include in the submission to the State an assessment of the impact of permitting three-storey unit. Development in low density residential neighbourhoods, SR developments. Is that right, Councillor Wilkie? Lost him. Councillor Wilkie? Joe Jurisevic 46:05.551
He's frozen. We've lost him. Clare Stewart 46:07.584
He's frozen, okay. He may have to hold. It. Larry Sengstock 46:11.003
I'll don't look at that. Clare Stewart 46:17.083
Councillor Finzel, you have your hand up. Karen Finzel 46:19.047
Oh, sorry, I'll put that down. Clare Stewart 46:22.542
Sorry, Councillor Wilkie, you're back. Thank you. Was that correct, that wording? Frank Wilkie 46:29.865
I'm just trying to see it on the screen. Including submission to the statement, assessment of the impact of permitting three storey units. Clare Stewart 46:37.973
Yes. Thank you, Councillor Wilkie. Do we have a seconder for that? I'll second for the purpose of discussion. Thank you, Councillor Wilkie. Frank Wilkie 46:46.763
Yeah, thank you, Mayor. Look, this was alluded to earlier in the reply to question from one of the planners, Rowena, that there is the possibility that three-storey unit development could be. Or dwellings up to three storeys in height, including unit development, could be permitted on low-density residential allotments. And if that were to be the case, that would have a significant impact on the amenity of those low density residential neighbourhoods in terms of the traffic generated, the parking in the streets. Just the sheer volume of people that would be accommodated in those neighbourhoods and likely to have just as big an impact should there be a dotting of four or eight storeys throughout the Shire as well. I'm concerned about the uncertainty and the vagueness and the wording of the SEQ Regional Plan about that prospect. I just wanted to articulate it and put it on the record that could there be a response using the best available understanding that we can glean from the document about that prospect should it become a reality. Thank you. Clare Stewart 48:07.701
Thank you, Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor, Councillor Stockwell's question. Brian Stockwell 48:12.155
I think this could be exactly what happened in the last attempt at amendment. My reading of both the report and submission is we have dealt with this issue in a fairly comprehensive manner. I suppose the question is the to Councillor whoopee is when you're thinking about the impact is there something else additional to what staff have already said as to its unacceptability that you would like to include. Frank Wilkie 48:40.474
I apologise if that wasn't implied in the wording it would have a negative impact on residential amenity is what I'm referring to. Clare Stewart 48:56.080
I think, correct me if I'm wrong Councillor, look I think Councillor Stockwell's question was similar to the last amendment is there anything that in addition that you would want to put forward that the staff haven't already in their submission about the impacts of the potential increase in height in the low density residential if is that. Frank Wilkie 49:14.808
Correct if. There's already reference to an increase in density to three stories specifically in the low density residential neighbourhoods. Then I apologise I must have missed it. I thought it was worth pulling out because I wasn't certain that they had been specifically identified. Joe Jurisevic 49:39.007
Just for the purpose of clarification there, Councillor Wilkie, I'll ask if staff can clarify what the position is in the paper with regard to three-story unit developments in residential low density neighbourhoods on your behalf? Kim Rawlings 49:52.308
Thank you. Through the Chair, the submission does address the issue in a couple of places. So on page one of the submission, it says quite clearly that Councillor three-storey units in low density is not sensitive and builds those sorts of general statements of fear and not acceptance. And then again, it is addressed in the live section on page, I'm getting there, I'm getting there, page seven. Under the 2.3.2 attached low rise section, where we specifically say that low density is limited to two maximum, and we refer to the Iconic Queensland Places Act, which sought to protect and identify character, so that we don't support the idea of three storey and low density because of the impact on character and liveability. I've paraphrased there, but that section is better. Frank Wilkie 50:55.737
Thank you, thank you Kim. I do apologise, I should know better, I'm happy to withdraw that amendment or see it voted down. Clare Stewart 51:03.196
And Councillor, just to add additional comfort to you, it also says that in the report, it says buildings of three storeys in height will not be accepted by the community in the low density residential zone of Noosa Shire, nor for the most part the medium density residential so zone. That's, should add conflict to you as well. Frank Wilkie 51:20.955
Thank you, Mayor. I'm happy to withdraw it. Clare Stewart 51:22.493
Thank you. All right. So, thank you, Councillor Wilkie. So that brings us back to the substantive motion. Joe Jurisevic 51:29.531
Sorry, point of order, Mr Chair. Now that the amendment has a mover and a seconder, I'm not sure whether it can be withdrawn or actually has to be voted upon. Voted. I'm passing. My understanding is it has to be voted upon. Larry Sengstock 51:43.240
I'll assist to vote. Clare Stewart 51:44.548
Okay, all right. So Councillor Wilkie, will we put in this amendment to a vote, just for the purposes of process? So all so in against? Favour. Unanimous. Karen, your hand is, I can't see it. Councillor Finzel, against or for? Joe Jurisevic 52:08.528
I think we've lost Councillor Finzel. Karen Finzel 52:09.890
Sorry, no. My apologies. Are we voting, sorry, what are we voting for? The question that we're supporting Councillor Wilkie's amendment? No. Well basically he's withdrawn and we're voting it. Don't support it, it's a Councillor Wilkie has withdrawn. I don't support the amendment. Clare Stewart 52:29.269
I'll put it to a vote again, all in favour? Sorry, all against. Okay, my hand is up, Thank you. We're all against it. Thank you for focusing the debate. All right. We are now back to the original motion with the addition of Councillor Stockwell's name. Yes. And I have spoken to the original motion. I believe I'm the only one. Would to anyone else speak to like speak the original motion? Tom Wegener 52:53.353
Absolutely. Do you have a question? I have a question. I feel as though that the South East Queensland plan actually makes the concept of good people bad. Because I've seen when incredible job that you guys have done and it just takes all the work that Noosa has been doing for years now and especially in the last year and just sweeping it away like dirt and saying well no this is what you're gonna do and that can do it really really fast. Is that an accurate? View of what's happening here? Kim Rawlings 53:27.812
What I will say is that there has been significant amount of work that this Council has done. The issue of housing and the housing crisis over the last three years. In trying to address this issue for our community. We have been able to rely on that information in our submission. So I think we are well positioned to be able to say that Noosa Council has done some comprehensive work in trying to address this issue. There's no doubt that it has been incredibly frustrating that work that we have done and the amendments in place and have had with the State government for some months now to seek to address the issue of housing choice and diversity for our community are still not through so yes in some ways we do feel there's been a lack of recognition of the comprehensive strategic work that run by Rowena and the team and supported by Council that has occurred for our community over the last three years we're. Tom Wegener 54:34.967
Gonna speak to them first I'd like to congratulate you on your work Rowena, Kim and it's the team because it is substantial and it's turned me around in my thinking towards the social housing and so forth and I hope that this very well-written submission will change the State they'll take it seriously and not impose this. How this Housing Supply Statement you know that it's just it's fear-mongering in a way and that hopefully will you be able to submit a Housing Supply Statement that is very consistent with what we're already doing and on to say this is wonderful at Noosa way you go. Brian Stockwell 55:19.620
Thank you Councillor, a speak I echo the quality of the reporting and the submission so it was um I always like to try and pick holes in stuff and I couldn't find one for the matter at hand and this has been a really useful process for us in our community because it's re-established what is at the heart of planning at Noosa and in the submission report what's mentioned is these iconic values and when we stand stood to lose our Council what the State government at the time did is they introduced the iconic legislation the iconic places of Queensland legislation and this is what they listed for Noosa as the iconic declared values said Shire community respects and appreciates its iconic values they said Noosa environment and has goals of environmental excellence quality lifestyle and economic well-being as a consequence the Noosa Shire community seeks a built environment which fit into and do not dominate the natural environment it's one of the core values of our community that you can go to Tinbeerwah and you can go to panorama drive and you can look down over a population of 30 to 40,000 people and not see a roof not many from timber, who I certainly panorama. And B: confidence that the population growth and associated change does not adversely impact upon the character, lifestyle and environment enjoyed by its residents. Now if that was and the State government acknowledged it then, this regional plan should acknowledge it now. That is at the heart of what our community has asked us to stand up for. What's the most important part of this resolution? The most important part is C. And it says to authorise the CEO to prepare and submit a Housing Supply Statement. Why is that important? Because within the regional plan, there's a whole lot of things we wouldn't like to see happen if you don't have one. And I'll read them out. It talks about although voluntary for local governments to participate in preparing a Housing Supply Statement, DSDILGP are looking to amend the planning regulations. 2017 to provide greater certainty for build to rent. Set minimum lot sizes for zones. Set dwellings per hectare density expectation for residential zones. Implement diversity done well, gentle density model codes. For gentle introduce capped levels of assessment density products. The way to keep planning controls within our Shire is to do a Housing Supply Statement. Otherwise, we're going to be guided and hopefully in some. May turn out to be dictated to across codes developed by state government. Now, we've seen this in local government in other states and it was part of a process of gradually taking away the planning powers of Councillors. In some states, you have one Councillor who sits on a board to review planning applications. Okay? So it's really important that we get this housing supplied and we demonstrate we can meet the dwelling targets, not the fictitious, smodelled population target, which has been shown in this report to the high growth target of the government's statistician. It's likely that the model did exactly what our infrastructure model did. It modelled the maximum capacity for every dwelling, whether it's in residential or tourist zone, and it said if it was developed for its maximum capacity, and we know that doesn't happen, and the report outlines why it doesn't happen. We know that's important if you're developing long-term water and sewage plans, but it is not realistic we heard, you know, a 3% gross rate until 2026. It's not going to happen. So it's important that these things are stated, but it's also important that we say, here's the bone that state government has given us. Our bone is the housing plough statement. We can use the amendments we've already proposed to show how we can meet realistic dwelling targets to achieve the same outcomes. Because what's driving the State government's review of the regional plan is exactly what's driving us in the review of our Planning Scheme. We just have to make sure that they align and that they understand that Noosa's iconic values are just as important today as they were when they were amalgamating us earlier this year. Decade. Send jury. Thank you. Clare Stewart 01:00:07.881
Councillor Stockwell. Anyone else? Senator spich. Joe Jurisevic 01:00:11.899
Shut the gate! The horse has bolted! Oh my god! They've run away. Why? Here we have the State government once again being reactionary rather than visionary. A lack of forethought, a lack of planning. Suddenly two million people are coming. How are we going to accommodate them? There's already a housing shortage. There's already a worker shortage. There's already so many means that this state typically is 20 years behind in its process in planning and development. And once again, this is a reactionary statement. With a very short time frame that was given, and only extended after a lot of from councils with regard to that short timeframe and the general public to respond. I want to thank the staff for through this as thoroughly as they have in the timeframe allowed and making such a detailed and well thought out submission to the State. Elements that are missing are the elements of land banking that I think we've addressed here that need to be acknowledged that this does occur. The seems to deny that occurs but it does occur and I believe studies have been done to undertake an assessment of how much available land is out there and approvals that have been currently done. It all seems that the blame seems to come back to Council. But I don't see universities creating student accommodation anymore. I see student accommodation being put into the private sector. I don't see the State governments of most of the states of this country developing social needs housing at the level which it needs to be developed anymore. I see them subsidising rentals in the private. Rental market. All of this drive and all of this push to the private rent. I don't see hospitals building nursing accommodation anymore. All of these things were, you know, were commonplace. I see the State driving all of this and other states as well, driving all of this into the private market. Well, when you take up and saturate the private market with all of your responsibilities, guess what? Availability decreases, affordability. Decreases, rentals increase, and you have housing stress, which is exactly where we're at. So to react in the way that the State is, a response to the fact that there's been a lack of forethought and planning for the future. We talk about infrastructure. I mean, infrastructure in Queensland is miles behind. And quite often, as populations increase incrementally, infrastructure fails to keep up. But I can't, you know, I've seen where planned development can actually work. And you put the infrastructure in place, first and foremost, and you ensure that, you know, bus services are available so that when people move in, they've got services available. Not trying to play catch up as we are here and as I said, we've been doing that with public transport for many, years and advocating the State for the number of things that don't exist for the residents of Noosa and the elements that they are in control of. And the elements they are in control of, you know, you don't need to go and ram down people's streets to try and make change. You need to be not reactive. You need to be visionary, not reactionary. And all those things. So I think the, so I commend the staff once again for their, report, the information within it. And I hope that the State actually sit down and listen and take note because the Planning Scheme amendments that we proposed and have been held up by the State addressed a lot of the issues that they want us to address. Clare Stewart 01:03:46.845
Thank you. Mr. Tristich. Amelia Lorentson 01:03:57.748
I'll speak to it. I'll be brief. My question from the moment that the SEQ Regional Plan came out was, and this is in the Noosa context, who are the winners and who are the losers? Are the women over 55, are they going to be the winners? Our vulnerable people, are those on low income, are they going to be the winners, our essential workers, our lifeguards, our teachers, our doctors, our Noosa's, those in hospitality and retail? And does more housing equate to more affordable housing? Where has been the debate about density? Where's the debate about maintaining lifestyle? The debate about traffic congestion? Schools? About visitor numbers? About labour force? Where has been the debate about population levels? Where's the social impact study? What are we losing so that more people can come in and are we okay with it? What does that mean in terms of lifestyle and more importantly in terms of community? What happens after 2046? Do we shut the gate? And finally do we have the right to say no? Do we have the right as a local Council with the mandate of this community under our Planning Scheme be allowed to be the authors of our own Destiny? I'd like to acknowledge all the staff and join them in urging the State government to work with us and not against us. Noosa has not just happened and this Council and this community will work together to ensure that it just doesn't unhappen. There's a saying good policy making is a game of inches not knee-jerk reactions meaning critical problems like our housing crisis requires careful, detailed, well thought out solutions. Clare Stewart 01:06:07.441
Thank you Councillor Lorentson for the answer. We'll be. Karen, pardon, Karen, sorry, I can't see your hands. Thank you, Karen. Finzel. Karen Finzel 01:06:23.676
You're on mute. Yes, thank you. I'd just like to briefly say I'd like to echo everything that's been said around the table. I think we want to reflect the values of our Noosa community, fostering a rich and resilient community life, supporting iconic values, collaborating in a meaningful way with our community, and we want to build thriving communities into the future with informed decisions. Making that ensures that our most vulnerable and everyone in our community is included in the opportunities afforded to our population in terms of access to services and education while valuing our environment and our social cohesion. I'm sitting at the heart of all we do is our people and I'd like to acknowledge the staff that have worked in this process I'd like to acknowledge the community that have taken the time to engage with each of us and also like just also thank all the Councillors and CEO that have worked in this space together we strengthen communities and hopefully we can stand and work hand in with all levels of government moving forward to ensure that we have equity good governance and provide a strong voice to our people when it comes to these critical issues are facing us as we move into the future thank you. Clare Stewart 01:08:02.465
Thanks Councillor Finzel. Councillor Wilkie. Thank you Ma'am. Frank Wilkie 01:08:07.971
Well I guess we can add a shock state planning review to a global pandemic. Rise of short-term accommodation, floods, fires and two land valuations in a row that we've had to adapt to very quickly and the staff have been at the forefront of responding. Every time. So I think the Councillors have said it well. I'd also like to thank Rowena and Kim from the strategic planning team for responding so well to this disruption that does threaten what's NUS stands for, also the Councillors for being firmly behind the staff submission on this. It's good that we're all united. We understand what makes Noosa different and what's important to this community. So thank you Mary for your staff. Clare Stewart 01:09:02.984
I think it's all being said. Again, I want to thank staff for Kim and Rowena's great submission. I think this Noosa Council submission says two things. The draft South East Queensland plan is not acceptable to Noosa and we're not negotiable. What is in there, we will not negotiate on, as has been reiterated around the table time and again. The values that have been fought for so long to keep Noosa the way it is to put our environment first, to put our people first, to put our residents, our community. Our amenity. It's not negotiable and we'll continue to fight if we have to on that. But this submission says very firmly and strongly, states our position. It's a position that is, as Councillor Wilkie said, we're united on and it. We're united and we stand with our community on it. So thank you again for your staff. I will put the recommendation to a vote. All in favour? That is unanimous. Councillor Finzel, thank you. I can see your hand. Thank you very much. You, Kim. You, Rowena. That brings us to the end of the meeting. It is 1:42. Thank you very much. Thanks, everyone. Well enjoy your holiday, Fran. See you. Bye, Karen. Karen Finzel 01:10:18.661
Thank you, Madam Chair. Amelia Lorentson 01:10:23.961
Let me get the big one. Yeah. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
