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 (Attending Via Microsoft Teams) Director Corporate Services Trent Grauf Director Strategy And Environment Kim Rawlings Acting Director Infrastructure Services Shaun Walsh Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray AI-Generated Meeting Insight
Key Decisions & Discussions Clare Stewart: Council unanimously approved remote attendance for Frank Wilkie and Karen Finzel under s254K Local Government Regulation 2012 (00:04; Attendance & Apologies). Clare Stewart: Council authorised the CEO to lodge Noosa’s submission on the Draft SEQ Regional Plan 2023, make minor changes, and submit a Housing Supply Statement (HSS) (09:34; Item 2.1 A–C). Brian Stockwell: Secured unanimous Amendment D directing CEO to ask the Minister to amend the Planning Act 2016 to exclude STA in detached dwellings from s260 “existing lawful uses” and s31 “claiming compensation” protections, unless ancillary to a principal residence (23:07–28:48; Amendment No.1). Rowena Skinner: Advised Noosa’s dwelling targets are theoretically achievable under current scheme but more feasible with the pending scheme amendments awaiting State sign‑off for consultation (04:01–05:28; Item 2.1 context). Rowena Skinner: Clarified the submission addresses growth, housing diversity, infrastructure gaps, and height language concerns; HSS will quantify timing, mix and tenures to meet targets (05:30–09:34; Item 2.1). Clare Stewart: Summarised submission concerns: unrealistic short‑term population allocations, lack of funded infrastructure, ambiguous “four–eight storey” language, and risks to Noosa’s iconic values and low-height character (09:34–15:21; Item 2.1). Rowena Skinner: Noted mismatch between small households and predominance of 3+ bedroom stock; HSS to prioritise smaller dwellings and diverse models (co-living, rooming) (05:41–09:34; Item 2.1). Amelia Lorentson: Raised land banking; staff will address delivery speed via currency periods (currently six years) and potential tools (charges/incentives) in the HSS; CEO to include a land‑banking signal in main submission per debate (16:09–18:10; Item 2.1). Kim Rawlings: Confirmed SEQRP does not set Noosa heights; Noosa’s scheme limits generally to two storeys and rejects medium/high‑rise in low‑density zones; submission states this explicitly (21:54–22:55; Item 2.1 submission content). Council (Unanimous): Adopted the substantive motion with Amendment D; final decision carried unanimously (52:29–end; Council Resolution). Contentious / Transparency Matters Karen Finzel: Sought Amendment E to publicly commit Council to consider landowner requests to change regional land-use categories and advise State; defeated 5–2 as redundant to established State-led process (29:00–42:49; Amendment No.2). Frank Wilkie: Proposed adding analysis of three‑storey units in low‑density zones; staff showed it’s already addressed in submission; amendment lost unanimously (43:57–51:24; Amendment No.3). Clare Stewart: Framed Noosa’s position as non‑negotiable on height and iconic character, citing clear community sentiment and prior housing work ignored by State (21:54–22:55; 09:34–15:21; Item 2.1). Joe Jurisevic: Criticised the State’s “reactionary” approach, short consultation windows, and failure to deliver public infrastructure and social/student housing (01:00:11–01:03:47; Item 2.1 debate). Amelia Lorentson: Questioned who benefits from growth without social impact studies covering traffic, schools, visitor load, and affordability; urged local authorship of destiny (01:03:57–01:06:23; Item 2.1 debate). Legal / Risk Council: Remote attendance complied with s254K LGR; decision recorded and unanimous (00:04; Attendance & Apologies). Brian Stockwell: Amendment D targets Planning Act 2016 ss260 and 31 to enable councils to lawfully curtail STA in detached dwellings in residential zones without triggering “existing lawful use” or compensation claims; aligns with national/international STA reform trends (23:07–28:48; Amendment No.1). Kim Rawlings: Warned that absent an HSS, State may standardise “gentle density” model codes, minimum lots, and densities via Planning Regulation, diluting local control; HSS is protective (55:23–59:59; Item 2.1 debate). Rowena Skinner: Pending scheme amendments are at State interest review stage; staff ready to resubmit with minor changes for consultation, mitigating delay risk (04:31–05:28; Item 2.1 context). Clare Stewart: Submission documents lack of State-funded infrastructure to support imposed targets, elevating service‑delivery and amenity risks if enforced (09:34–15:21; Item 2.1). Council: Height provisions remain under local scheme; SEQRP language ambiguity poses perception risk but no direct statutory override on building heights (18:56–22:55; Item 2.1 discussion). Planning Scheme, Zoning & Height Rowena Skinner: SEQRP pushes “low‑rise” diversification in low‑density areas, defining low‑rise up to three storeys; Noosa submission rejects 3‑storey outcomes in low‑density zones (18:56–21:54; Submission content noted at 49:51–51:02; Item 2.1). Clare Stewart: Submission challenges medium‑rise (4–8 storey) references as misleading for Noosa; reiterates two‑storey norm and four‑storey cap exceptions (09:34–15:21; Item 2.1). Brian Stockwell: Anchored resistance in Iconic Queensland Places Act values: built form must not dominate landscape; growth must not erode character/lifestyle (55:23–59:59; Item 2.1 debate). Kim Rawlings: Confirmed Noosa Junction and Peregian Beach Village added as “great places,” with unclear implications; Council already advancing placemaking (Pomona pilot) (09:34–15:21; Item 2.1). Short-Term Accommodation (STA) & Housing Supply Brian Stockwell: Identified STA conversions of detached dwellings as a major constraint on rapid housing response; legal reforms sought to prioritise permanent housing (24:01–26:29; Amendment No.1 rationale). Joe Jurisevic: Supported Amendment D, citing Noosa as a locality where STA measurably impacts residential availability; expects Ministerial review (26:51–28:07; Amendment No.1). Rowena Skinner: HSS to address delivery speed and tools to disincentivise land banking, including adjusting approval currency and leveraging charges (16:09–18:10; Item 2.1). Clare Stewart: Submission documents mismatch of household size to dwelling size and proposes diversity pivot to smaller formats and alternative tenures (05:41–09:34; 09:34–15:21; Item 2.1). Population, Infrastructure & Employment Clare Stewart: Noosa assigned +19,100 people to 2046—second lowest absolute but second highest proportional growth; 2021–2026 implied 3.9% p.a. is historically unrealistic (09:34–15:21; Item 2.1). Council: Submission argues State provides no committed infrastructure for the growth; transit references omit a firm link to Noosa’s major activity centre and lack northern rail duplication beyond Beerwah (09:34–15:21; Item 2.1). Joe Jurisevic: Noted State withdrawal from direct delivery of social/student/worker housing, shifting burden to private market and intensifying affordability stress (01:00:11–01:03:47; Item 2.1 debate). Clare Stewart: Raised employment base concerns for thousands of new residents; prosperity theme lacks pathways to jobs/innovation locally (09:34–15:21; Item 2.1).
Official Meeting Minutes
MINUTES Special Meeting Tuesday, 3 October 2023 12:30 PM Council Chambers, 9 Pelican Street, Tewantin Crs Clare Stewart (Chair), Karen Finzel, Joe Jurisevic, Amelia Lorentson, Brian Stockwell, Tom Wegener, Frank Wilkie “Noosa Shire – different by nature” SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES 3 OCTOBER 2023 1. ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES COUNCILLORS Councillor Clare Stewart (Chair) Councillor Karen Finzel (attending via Microsoft Teams) Councillor Joe Jurisevic Councillor Amelia Lorentson Councillor Brian Stockwell Councillor Tom Wegener Councillor Frank Wilkie (attending via Microsoft Teams) EXECUTIVE Acting Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Community Services Kerri Contini (attending via Microsoft Teams) Director Corporate Services Trent Grauf Director Strategy and Environment Kim Rawlings Acting Director Infrastructure Services Shaun Walsh Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray APOLOGIES Nil Council Resolution Moved: Cr Clare Stewart Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That in accordance with Section 254K of the Local Government Regulation, Crs Wilkie and Finzel are approved to attend the Special Meeting dated 03/10/2023 via Microsoft Teams. Carried unanimously. 2. ORDINARY MEETING REPORTS 2.1. DRAFT SOUTH EAST QUEENSLAND REGIONAL PLAN 2023 UPDATE - NOOSA COUNCIL SUBMISSION Motion Moved: Cr Clare Stewart Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson That Council note the report by the Principal Strategic Planner to the Special Meeting dated 3 October 2023 regarding the SEQ Regional Plan Review and A. Authorise the Chief Executive Officer to make a submission to the State Government based on Attachment 1 to this report; B. Authorise the Chief Executive Officer to make minor changes and amendments to the submission prior to submitting it to the State Government; and C. Authorise the Chief Executive Officer to prepare and submit a Housing Supply Statement as required for State Government consideration and review. SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES 3 OCTOBER 2023 Amendment No. 1 Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That Item D be added to read: D. Authorise the Chief Executive Officer to write to the Minister requesting the state government consider amending the Planning Act to support those Council's 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 - Existing lawful uses, works and approvals' and '31 - Claiming compensation' unless those uses are ancillary to the premises use as a principal place of residence; Carried unanimously. Amendment No. 2 Moved: Cr Karen Finzel Seconded: Cr Brian Stockwell That Item E be added to read: E. 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. For: Crs Finzel and Wilkie Against: Crs Jurisevic, Stewart, Stockwell, Lorentson and Wegener Lost. Amendment No. 3 Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Joe Jurisevic That Item E be added to read: E. Include in the submission to the state, an assessment of the impact of permitting three-storey unit developments in low density residential neighbourhoods. Lost unanimously. Council Resolution Moved: Cr Clare Stewart Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson That Council note the report by the Principal Strategic Planner to the Special Meeting dated 3 October 2023 regarding the SEQ Regional Plan Review and A. Authorise the Chief Executive Officer to make a submission to the State Government based on Attachment 1 to this report; B. Authorise the Chief Executive Officer to make minor changes and amendments to the submission prior to submitting it to the State Government; and C. Authorise the Chief Executive Officer to prepare and submit a Housing Supply Statement as required for State Government consideration and review. SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES 3 OCTOBER 2023 D. Authorise the Chief Executive Officer to write to the Minister requesting the state government consider amending the Planning Act to support those Council's 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 - Existing lawful uses, works and approvals' and '31 - Claiming compensation' unless those uses are ancillary to the premises use as a principal place of residence. Carried unanimously. 3. CONFIDENTIAL SESSION Nil 4. MEETING CLOSURE The meeting closed at 1.42pm
Meeting Transcript
Clare Stewart 00:04.860
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. Thank you Ma'am. Today's Special Meeting is to consider draft South East Queensland Regional Plan 2023 update, 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 01:01.730
Just cancel this report basically outlines the drive to secure regional plan. The update, the 2023 update that the State released in August this year, it's been through community consultation from that stage up until now. The 20th of September, where, um, the State government presented the draft as an update to the 2017 shaping SEQ but existing one and based around the same five things 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. Kim Rawlings 01:49.565
One of the primary drivers underpinning the 2023 update of Shaping SEQ is to ensure that the land and housing supply settings are responsive to current growth and processes are in place to accelerate delivery of more housing. The draft update is underpinned by a new population projection model which projects SQ to be home to nearly 6 million people by 2046. Rowena Skinner 02:18.950
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. And also central to the plan is housing diversity and housing affordability within each local government. So this report brings forward details on that 2023 update with the recommendation that Council submission before the 9th of October, which is the deadline. For local governments to make their submission. Clare Stewart 03:10.909
Any questions for or document? Unknown 03:14.008
Okay. Should we mention that. Unidentified Speaker 03:21.125
In a mute. Clare Stewart 03:21.685
It's in a Frank, could you put your microphone on mute please? Thank you. Any questions? I can't see Councillor Finzel. So Councillor Finzel, any questions? No, no one's answering. Karen Finzel 03:38.902
Can you hear me? Yes, clearly. I have no questions thank you. Any questions? Amelia Lorentson 03:48.007
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? Kim Rawlings 04:00.028
Councillor, I think when we talk about the growth targets, my is focus is on the dwellings and I believe I 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 04:24.653
I'll start with those planning scheme amendments. Where are they at with the State government? Because they've been there since February. Rowena Skinner 04:32.073
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 since. 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. Clare Stewart 05:27.222
I have a question. Councillor Wilkie. Frank Wilkie 05:30.622
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 guess- the rate of growth that's expected, but it also does talk about some of the matters under the theme of sustain, it talks of prosper and also connect and live, 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. Different types of dwelling sizes, the different tenures, the range of accessible housing, affordable 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. Unidentified Speaker 07:17.367
One further question to Joe Jurisevic 07:18.747
Follow on from something that you said earlier with regard to the members that are currently for the State 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. Kim Rawlings 07:47.943
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 a zone to properties and then all those zones have an assumed density or yield attached to them whether that's going to be a detached house. 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 households with something like three-quarters of our households are small households are just one or two people whereas similarly over 75 of our dwellings are at least three bedrooms or more. Rowena Skinner 08:48.105
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 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. I'll put you second. Thank you. The report before us outlines the draft shaping SEQ 2023 update, which has been in community consultation from the 20th of August 2023, September Specifically, today's meeting relates to 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 6 million people by 2046. Consequently, revised population and dwelling targets are assigned for each local government area. Key concerns which are raised. Regards to council's submission to regards. 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. Genuinely supports locals and residents. Similarly, have provided over 200 written submissions, as well as 150 residents who attended face-to consultations. There are five themes of 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, the 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 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 and a target of 20%, this has yet to be informed by independent modelling. Prosper. Karen Finzel 12:19.626
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, Clare Stewart 12:28.546
Business or innovation? Positive talk around sustainable transport hierarchy, but new and improved infrastructure needs to be retrofitted in existing road reserves and corridors. Karen Finzel 12:40.439
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. Makes positive statements around sustainability where 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 added to 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. Clare Stewart 13:26.064
There are no specific details as to the implications of being a placemaking is promoted as improving urban places in rural towns Nicola Wilson 13:34.002
And Noosa Council is already undertaking work in this space with our first placemaking project, pilot in Pomona. Karen Finzel 13:41.802
Specifically, concerns as outlined on page 14 of the agenda state. In general, there is a lack 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. Clare Stewart 14:20.753
I want to thank, and lastly, similarly on page 17 of the agenda, which is very important, there is Karen Finzel 14:30.773
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 Noosa has been experiencing just over a 1% growth rate since that time. Clare Stewart 14:57.130
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, expertise and their advocacy in regard to this paper and their submission. I think it's a terrific submission. It outlines the concerns that have been raised, the concerns of this Council, 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. Recommendation authorises CEO to prepare and submit a Housing Supply Statement, which you made reference to, Rowena. My question is in terms of land banking. I'm as 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 use it sort of law lawfully sunset clause and even a discussion around compulsory land acquisitions. Rowena Skinner 16:09.698
Yes Councillor, as 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 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 releasing just one boxes. 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 new houses at once or supply a great number in any given year so we will be talking to the State in there about length of currency periods which are currently six years and they can seek extensions to that in so long and about various I guess tools to encourage the swift delivery of housing whether that's through infrastructure charging or. Perhaps not so important as you're saying Joe Jurisevic 17:36.545
Thank you thank very much yeah my question 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 authorised CEO to make any minor amendments whether we can include a statement or a summary of land banking issue that's mentioned in the housing statement in our main submission to the State I think the it deserves consideration to be included Unidentified Speaker 18:08.907
Yes that's possible maybe we'll question some words make that any of these new ones ideas and that come to the table today where we're able to add them to content. Thank you very much. Clare Stewart 18:25.078
Who else would like to speak to this? Frank Wilkie 18:27.358
Can I just try and excellent thanks for your summary. I have a question for staff. Where does the proposal to allow up to three storeys of unit development on each low density residential lot sit in the shaping SEQ review proposal? And will our submission back to the State be made in comment on that specific aspect? Rowena Skinner 18:57.100
Councillor Wilkie, the SEQ original 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 that a range of low density, rise housing products would be suitable for that zone. And then it goes on to elaborate in the definitions that low rise is considered anything up to three storeys. So I guess as the Mayor alluded to, the language within the plan is unfortunate in that it leaves the door open to sort of fears of three storeys 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-checked. 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. Joe Jurisevic 20:30.324
We'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 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? Kim Rawlings 20:53.850
Councillor, the State government planning sessions, the community consultation sessions. I can't tell you what they told anybody at those sessions. Rowena Skinner 21:04.184
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 and 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 a proportion of medium-rise buildings within Noosa and certainly the planning scheme does allow for 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 is based on what was written, rather than verbal communication, actual facts and figures outlined in 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 to then be in response to the written draft that the State government have put forward. Kim Rawlings 22:33.861
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 those issues in the submission. Amelia Lorentson 22:55.807
Which is what you have to do irrespective of what was said or alluded to at community consultation. That's right. We have respond to what was in writing. Clare Stewart 23:04.078
Yes, thank you. Brian Stockwell 23:07.558
I'd like to move an amendment. 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. 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, we could have now thousands 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 We've seen the massive growth of online booking of tourist accommodation within our residential zones and the large community backlash against it 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 to other councils in similar situations to ours by suggesting that a tourist use of for 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 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. Clare Stewart 26:27.677
Any questions? Unidentified Speaker 26:29.157
Do other states, Queensland I believe is the only state that has a provision of paying change of use? Brian Stockwell 26:37.977
I'm probably not up to date but I know Queensland's endurance affection have historically been the most beneficial to develop interests of any state in Australia Joe Jurisevic 26:51.184
I'll 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 land. 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. Looser isn't immune. 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 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 27:58.578
Thank you Mr Driscoll. Does anyone else have something to add to this? Unidentified Speaker 28:02.878
Can't commend Councillor Stockwell on this amendment and it's just obviously Clare Stewart 28:30.900
We'll put the amendment to vote in favour that is Councillor Finzel I can't see your hand Karen Finzel 28:42.380
Can you see it now? Clare Stewart 28:48.257
Is that a yes that's a yes I support that amendment thank you that is unanimous now forms part of thank you Councillor Wilkie I see your hand a substandard motion and I would like to you go Councillor Finzel Karen Finzel 28:50.197
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. Clare Stewart 29:29.971
Can we have a seconder for Councillor Finzel's amendment? Councillor the floor is yours. Karen Finzel 29:48.711
Thank you everyone. The reason I raised this additional recommendation is firstly that I want it on the public record in addition 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 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. Clare Stewart 31:18.199
Thank you. Councillor Finzel. Fienzel. Any questions? For staff around this? Unknown 31:23.992
I have a question. Frank Wilkie 31:25.552
Yeah, Thank you. Mayor. Question for staff. Is it the case that the State government is not proposing any extension to Noosa Council, Shire urban boundary, and nor is Noosa Council supportive of any extension? To the urban boundary under the SEQ plan? Kim Rawlings 31:55.012
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 South 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 32:40.762
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 32:53.474
That's my understanding, but Councillor Finzel may wish to talk to it, but we had a conversation that this is to put 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 will need to consider the information. That's, when it's provided to us. Joe Jurisevic 33:22.921
Thank you, I understand that. So yeah, I didn't quite understand, sorry can you just minimise? So the Council, 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 are made available to the State government. Is that the intent of this amendment? Karen Finzel 33:45.916
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. Into 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 made. Joe Jurisevic 34:21.995
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, where 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 34:45.998
We've just recently become aware of submissions and we haven't as a team 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 35:00.780
But as far as those submissions, were they made to Council or to the State government? No, they were made So is already aware so what I'm alluding to is the amendment here with regard to considered submissions and present They've already been presented Kim Rawlings 35:16.521
I think this is, and provide council's position on these submissions to the State government. Okay, so the element here is provide provider's its position. Submissions were made directly they ran the processes. 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 35:49.157
Sorry, I misunderstood the question. I clearly now see that it's talking about providing council's position. Karen Finzel 35:54.684
And also, I just wanted 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 36:14.831
Councillor Finzel now. Councillor Lorentson and Stockwell, we both will start at the same time. Councillor? Amelia Lorentson 36:21.011
Just so that I can understand the process, so Councillor Finzel has alluded to transparency and openness. What is the correct process? That's the next question, thank you. Well, the process that's been undertaken Thank you. So not. There's no. Kim Rawlings 36:37.579
Yeah. 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 for 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 37:17.526
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. Were to the State. Kim Rawlings 37:30.869
I can't say what the State process is going to be about making submissions public, Councillor Jurisevic. I'm not sure whether the State will do a consultation report. And summarise submissions like we do when we put something out to the public. We 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. Brian Stockwell 37:56.902
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 38:31.292
I would actually suggest that you change it to reflect a 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. 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. Karen Finzel 39:08.109
Yeah. Do you want me to comment on that? Thank you Councillor Finzel. Thank you. Yes, I'm happy to take the staff recommendation to change the wording to reflect what she just said. Unidentified Speaker 39:23.074
Is that the recommendation from the staff? Clare Stewart 39:28.175
Alright. We'll put that to. Is 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 39:44.473
That's the language, that's the correct language used in the regional plan. Thank you. Clare Stewart 39:52.073
Changes to the regional land use category. Kim Rawlings 39:54.911
Incorporates any application for expansion. Thank you, I think I understand. Yes. But Rowena is correct in that the submissions could be the other way. That's right. Clare Stewart 40:09.191
So just to confirm that wording. Kim Rawlings 40:12.991
Delete, No, no, Go back to from landowners. And provide. Just up to from land owners. Extension to the end of the benefit. Clare Stewart 40:28.510
And extension. Karen Finzel 40:33.530
Should that be expansion or extension? No, that's coming out. Thank you. Clare Stewart 40:39.890
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 40:57.348
So is this asking you to do anything you weren't already going to do anyway? Kim Rawlings 41:02.768
No, it's not. That's the process we'll be going Clare Stewart 41:08.468
Through. Would anyone else like to talk to this amendment? Amelia Lorentson 41:21.920
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 41:36.724
I won't comment on whether it's redundant, but that is absolutely what we're doing. So, yes, it's Thank you. Joe Jurisevic 41:45.364
So, can I make a comment there? No, you've spoken to it, you Clare Stewart 41:50.384
Councillor Finzel, you can wait for the close on that. Thank you. Joe Jurisevic 41:53.484
So, yeah, whilst I'm 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 Clare Stewart 42:07.509
Again. Hey, Councillor Jurisevic, would anyone else like to talk to this? Councillor Finzel would you like to close? Karen Finzel 42:19.105
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 42:49.262
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. Councillor Wilkie is in favour. Against? Jurisevic, Wegener, Lorentson, Stockwell, Stewart. Motion is lost. Thank you, Councillor Wilkie and Councillor Finzel. Thank you. 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 43:30.579
Mayor? Councillor Wilkie. Are any other Councillors present going to be moving any more amendments? If not, I would like to test one. Clare Stewart 43:40.764
I don't think so. 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 43:54.524
Thank you. Councillor. Wilkie. Frank Wilkie 43:57.064
I'd like to add, I think it'd probably be an E, reads: include in the submission to the State. I've sent a copy of this to Amelia if she wants to cut and paste. An assessment of the impact of permitting three-storey unit development in low-density residential neighbourhoods. Do you have that, Amelia? Karen Finzel 44:47.600
Yes, we've got that, thank you. Amelia Lorentson 45:35.202
Is that it Frank, that's the wording? Clare Stewart 45:38.642
I'll read it out Frank. Include in the submission to the State an assessment of the impact of permitting three-storey unit developments in low density residential neighbourhoods. Yes Sir, developments. Is that right, Councillor Wilkie? Flosstown. Councillor Wilkie. Joe Jurisevic 46:04.143
He's frozen in flosstown. Clare Stewart 46:09.603
You might have to hold him. Councillor Finzel, you have your hand up. Karen Finzel 46:19.820
Sorry, I'll put that down. Clare Stewart 46:22.420
Sorry, Councillor Wilkie, you're back. Yes, thank you. Was that correct, that wording? Frank Wilkie 46:29.500
I'm just trying to see it on the screen. Submission to the State assessment of the impact of permitting three-storey units to be installed in residential areas. Yes. Clare Stewart 46:38.147
Yes, thank you, Councillor Wilkie. Do we have a seconder for that? I'll second it for the purpose of discussion. Frank Wilkie 46:46.067
Yes, thank you, Mayor. Look, this was alluded to earlier in the reply to the question from one of the planners, Rowena, that there is possibility that three-story unit development could be or dwellings up to three stories 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 stories throughout the Shire show as well. I'm concerned about the uncertainty and the vagueness in the wording of the SEQ regional plan about that prospect. I just want 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. Wanted Clare Stewart 48:10.135
Thank you, Councillor. Will the Councillor Stockwell on his question? Brian Stockwell 48:12.235
I think this could be exactly what happened in the last attempt at amendment. My reading of both the report and the submission is we have dealt with this issue in a fairly comprehensive manner. I suppose the question is to Councillor Wilkie is when you 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 48:43.334
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. Karen Finzel 48:55.553
Think Councillor Clare Stewart 48:57.133
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 put forward in their submission about the impacts of the potential increase in height in the low density residential. Is that correct? Frank Wilkie 49:18.884
If there's already reference to an increase in density to three stories, in the letters low density residential neighbourhoods, then I apologise, I must have missed it. I thought it was worth pulling out because I wasn't certain it had been specifically identified. Joe Jurisevic 49:37.275
Thanks, Councillor. 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 storey developments on your behalf. Kim Rawlings 49:51.622
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 Council believes three storey units in low density neighbourhoods is not sensitive and builds these sorts of general statements of fear and non-acceptance and then again it is addressed in the live section on page, I'm getting there, seven. Under the 2.3.2 attached low-rise section where we specifically say that low density is limited to two storey 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 gross. Frank Wilkie 50:55.155
Thank you. Kim. I do apologise. I should know better. I'm happy to withdraw that amendment or see it voted down. Karen Finzel 51:03.035
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 Noosa Shire, nor for the most part the medium zone. So that's should add conflict to you as well Frank Wilkie 51:20.470
Thank you Mayor, I'm happy to withdraw. Thank you. Right so that, thank you Councillor Wilkie, so that brings us back to the substandard motion. Joe Jurisevic 51:29.470
Point of order Mr Chair, now that the amendment has mover and a seconder, I'm not sure whether it can be withdrawn or actually has to be voted upon. Unidentified Speaker 51:38.297
Passing. Unidentified Speaker 51:39.537
My understanding is it has to be voted upon. Clare Stewart 51:43.337
Advice is to vote on alright, so Councillor Wilkie, will we put in this amendment to vote just for the purposes of process? So all in favour, against? Unanimous, Karen, your hand is, I can't see it. Councillor Finzel, against? Pencil or for? Joe Jurisevic 52:07.967
I think we've lost Councillor Finzel. Karen Finzel 52:09.587
Sorry, no. My apologies. Are we voting, sorry, what for? The question that we're supporting Councillor Wilkie's amendment? No. Well, basically he's withdrawn and invading because it doesn't dog Councillor Wilkie has withdrawn. I don't support the amendment. Clare Stewart 52:29.083
I'll put it to a vote again, all in favour? Sorry, I beg your pardon, 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 I believe I'm the only one. Would anyone else like to speak Absolutely. Unidentified Speaker 52:55.001
Good question. I feel as though that Tom Wegener 52:57.821
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 going to do and it really, really fast." Is that an accurate view of what's happening here? Kim Rawlings 53:29.052
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. 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 Tom Wegener 54:34.598
You're gonna speak to them first I'd like to congratulate you on your work Rowena, Kim and 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 how Housing Supply Statement you know that it's just 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 55:18.334
I'll speak echo the quality of the reporting and the submission so it was um I always like to try and pick holes in reports and I couldn't find one but 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 in the 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 they said Noosa Shire community respects and appreciates its environment and has goals of environmental excellence quality lifestyle and economic well-being as a consequence and this is how our community seeks a built environment which fit into and do not dominate the natural environment it's one of the core values our community that you can go to Tinbeerwah and panorama drive look down over a population of 30 to 40 thousand people and not see a roof. Not many from Tinbeerwah, certainly none from 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 true then, and 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? Is C. And it says to authorise the CEO to prepare and submit a housing plies 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, DSDI LGB 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. Introduce capped levels of assessment code for gentle 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. The 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 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 as we heard, you know, a 3 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 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. Send jury. Thank you. Clare Stewart 01:00:09.677
Anyone else? Joe Jurisevic 01:00:11.577
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, planning. Suddenly two million people are coming. How are we going to accommodate them? There's already a housing shortage. Worker 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 response 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. State 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. 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 push to the private. 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, into the private market. Well, when you take up and saturate with all of your responsibilities, guess what? Availability decreases, affordability 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 I mean infrastructure in Queensland is miles behind, and quite often, as populations increase incrementally, infrastructure fails to know, I've seen 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. As I said we've been uh 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. You know, you don't need to go and ram down people's streets to try and make change. You need to be proactive, not reactive. Visionary, not reactionary and all those things. So I think the, so I commend the staff once again for their, report, 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. Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 01:03:57.266
I'll speak to it. I'll be brief. My question moment that the SEQ Regional Plan came out was, and this is in the Noosa context, who are the winners and losers? Are the women over 55, are they going to be the winners? Our vulnerable people, are those on low income, essential workers, our lifeguards, teachers, our doctors, Noosa's, those in hospitality and retail? More housing equate to more affordable housing? Where has been the debate about density, where's maintaining lifestyle, traffic congestion, about schools, visitor numbers, about labour force? 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, community? What happens after 2046? Do we shut the gate? And finally, have the right to say no? Do we 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 01:06:16.402
Karen. Karen Finzel 01:06:17.002
Well Finzel. 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 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 decision-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. Community that have taken the time to engage with each of us and also like to just also thank all the Councillors and CEO 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 01:08:01.896
Thanks, Councillor Finzel. Frank Wilkie 01:08:04.196
Councillor Wilkie. Thank well, I guess we can add a shock state planning review to a 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. I think the Councillors have said it well. I'd also like to thank Rowena and Kim and the strategic planning team for responding so well to this disruption that does threaten what Noosa stands for. And 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 the staff. Clare Stewart 01:09:02.504
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 time and again. The values that have been fought for, so long to keep Noosa the way it is, to put our environment first, people residents, our community. 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 it and 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 hand. Thank you very much. You, Rowena. That brings us to the end of the meeting. It is 1:42. Thank you very much. Enjoy your holiday, frame. See you. Bye, Karen. Amelia Lorentson 01:10:22.440
Well done, Shane. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
