Special Meeting - SEQ Regional Plan Submission
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 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 00:04.780
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. I note that all councillors have been in attendance and that councillors Wilkie and Finzel have requested to attend via Microsoft Teams. I will move the motion to allow the councillors the councillors to attend via Microsoft Teams, they'll have a second, please. Thank you, Councillor Wegener. I want to speak to this. All in favour? Carried unanimously. I welcome the councillors Wilkie and Finzel. Today's meeting. Thank you, ma 'am. Today's special meeting is to consider draft South East Queensland Regional Plan 2023 update. Noosa 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 01:01.920
Yes, Councillor. 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 the 20th of September where the State the State Government presented the draft as an update to the 2017 Shaping SEQ plan, specifically not a new plan but an update to the existing one and based around the same five themes that the current one is, 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 Shaping SEQ is to ensure that the land and housing supply settings are responsive to current growth and the processes are in place to accelerate delivery of more housing. 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. Accordingly, revised population forecasts have been assigned to each local government area in the South East 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 make a submission before the 9th of October which is the deadline for local governments to make their submission. Thank you. Clare Stewart 03:10.740
Any questions for Aurel or Kim? Tom Wegener 03:15.300
Should we mention that we need to unmute? Brian Stockwell 03:19.480
Frank, Clare Stewart 03:23.600
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 03:38.976
Can you hear me? Joe Jurisevic 03:41.056
Yes, clearly. Karen Finzel 03:44.116
Yes, I have no questions at the moment. Thank you. Any questions? Amelia Lorentson 03:48.073
I have one question. Karen Finzel 03:48.156
I have one questions? Amelia Lorentson 03:50.053
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 04:01.053
Councillor, I think when we talk about the growth targets, my focus is on the dwellings. And I believe, theoretically... 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 04:24.365
Where are we with those planning scheme amendments? Where are they at with the State government? Because they've been there since February. Rowena Skinner 04:31.605
They have been with the State since February. Basically at quarter past five on Thursday afternoon we got some advice saying that we we were closer to being able to make 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 05:28.300
Councillor Wilkie. Frank Wilkie 05:30.580
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 05:41.920
MS EASTMAN: Counselor, the submission goes 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 on the theme of sustain. It talks about it talks about some of the matters under the theme of prosper and also connect and the theme of 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. Looking at the different types of dwelling sizes, the different tenures, the 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. keep on a par with the State's targets. One further question to follow on from something that you said earlier with regard to the members that are 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 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- 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. 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 Um, I'm going to go ahead and stop the recording, because I have, um, I'm Um, 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, um, our 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 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. Thank you. Clare Stewart 09:34.489
The report before us outlines the draft shaping SEQ 2023 update which has been in community consultation from the 20th of August 2023, September 2023. Specifically, 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 in Noosa Council's submission to the State Government in regard to the draft regional plan include: the short-term allocated population growth 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... people a place can support. Population housing targets are exclusive of tourist and tourist accommodation. Significantly, there is no state-funded infrastructure proposed to support requested growth. Language in the 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 city symbols, substantial areas of open space. Lack of recognition of the considerable work undertaken to date by Council in preparing and endorsing a housing needs assessment, housing strategy and associated planning scheme amendments. Lack of that genuinely supports locals and residents. Similarly, residents have provided over 200 written submissions as well as 150 residents who attended face-to-face 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, with an increase in attached low-rise dwellings, one to three storeys, and an increase, although less, in attached medium-rise apartments, four to eight storeys. no support in Noosa planning scheme for anything over four storeys, nor does it reflect there's absolutely 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, and a target of 20 per cent, this has yet to be informed by 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 The plan refers to proposed extensions of high-frequency public transport connections from Noosa to Maroochydore and beyond, but this ignores any connection to Noosa major regional activity centre and future transit hub, and similarly, although the plan refers to the Birbarra-Nambour rail upgrade, there is no commitment of track duplication or noticeable improvements north of Birwar. makes positive statements positive statements around sustainability but 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. There are no specific details as to the implications of being a listed great place. Placemaking is promoted as improving urban places 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 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 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 the expectation that by 2026, which is only three years away, our population will be 11,200 persons higher than the 2021 figure, which would rely on an average annual increase of... Over 3.9%, which has not been experienced by Noosa's 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 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 regards to this paper and their submission. I think it's a terrific submission. I think it outlines the concerns that... 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 15:21.583
I have a question through the chair. The recommendation authorises the CEO to prepare and submit a housing supply statement which you made reference to Rowena. My question is in terms of land banking. As part of that submission will we also be advocating to the State to investigate any relevant mechanisms to address land banking? as you know lose it or use it sort of law or sunset clause and even a discussion around compulsory land acquisitions. Rowena Skinner 16:09.448
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 mentioned fact that there are 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. There are I suppose Noosa doesn't have the large scale developments that see a rapid influx of new houses or at 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 can seek extensions to that example. And we will be talking about various, I guess, tools to encourage the swift delivery of housing, whether that's through infrastructure charging or something else as you said. Thank you very much. Yeah, my question was of similar nature and I asked 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 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. Amelia Lorentson 18:10.964
I suppose we will question some words that meet any of these new ideas that come to the table today. Frank Wilkie 18:31.661
Thanks for your excellent summary. I have a question for staff. Where 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 making comment on that specific aspect? Rowena Skinner 18:56.780
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 Saying that a 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 low rise is considered anything up to three storeys. So I guess as the Mayor alluded to, the language within the plan is unfortunate. that it leaves the door open to sort of fears of three storeys development in the 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 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 interest the South East Queensland regional plan, they will ask us a question as to whether we should be looking at three-storey height limits within that zone. Joe Jurisevic 20:30.284
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 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 20:53.873
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 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 a very small number of full-storey buildings in Noosa. Thank you. Clare Stewart 21:54.051
Rowena, and this is the 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 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 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 22:34.122
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. Clare Stewart 22:55.836
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. Brian Stockwell 23:07.300
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... Act to support those councils seeking to maximise housing rather than short-stay accommodation outcomes in residential zones by excluding any commercials or short-term accommodation occurring in detached dwellings from the current protections offered Offered by sections 260 of the Act, which is existing lawful uses, works and approvals, and section 31, claiming compensation, unless those uses are ancillary to premises used as a principal place of residence. Tom Wegener 23:59.880
Second the motion. Brian Stockwell 24:01.140
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 scheme, there is legal opinion which suggested that there was some lawful existing use rights if you'd been doing it up to the 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 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, 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 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... tourist use of a home or detached dwelling within a residential zone is not an 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. Resulting in council having to pay compensation. I think it's a sensible way ahead. 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. Any questions? Tom Wegener 26:29.383
Do other states, Queensland, I believe, is the only state that has that provision of paying change of use? Brian Stockwell 26:38.023
I'm probably not up to date, but I know Queensland's and Jurisevic's have historically been the most beneficial to develop interests of any state in Australia. Joe Jurisevic 26:51.216
I'll 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 accommodation does impact on residential, 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 isn't immune to 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 regard to short stay accommodation and reviewing how short 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. Tom Wegener 28:07.820
I commend 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. Clare Stewart 28:30.995
We'll put the amendment to a vote. All in favour? That is Councillor Finzel. I can't see your hand. Karen Finzel 28:42.399
Can you see it now? Is that a yes? Yes, that's a yes. I support the amendment. Thank you. Clare Stewart 28:48.179
That is unanimous. Thank you, Councillor Wilkie. I see your hand. That now forms part of a substantive motion. Karen Finzel 28:56.183
And I would like to raise... Oh, sorry. You go, Clare Stewart 28:58.903
Councillor Finzel. Karen Finzel 29:00.483
Thank you. I'd like to raise an additional amendment. Yeah. I'm seeking an additional recommendation following the 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 is that... Joe Jurisevic 29:30.606
Sorry, sorry, sorry. Can we have a second? Oh, I can't, sorry. I'm not sure I understand it, but I'll have to... Clare Stewart 29:41.958
I'll sign it for the purpose of the debate. Brian Stockwell 29:44.118
Okay, thank you, Councillor. Right, Councillor Finzel, the floor is yours. Karen Finzel 29:48.918
Thank you, everyone. The reason I raised this additional recommendation is firstly that I want it on the public record to support good governance, thereby providing reassurance 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 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 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 walking 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 31:18.088
Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Any questions for staff around this? Joe Jurisevic 31:23.960
I have a question. Frank Wilkie 31:26.400
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 nor is Noosa Council supportive of any Kim Rawlings 31:51.664
Thank you. Through you, Mayor. At this stage, yes, that's the situation. There are no proposed extensions to the urban boundary in draft SEQ original 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 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. Frank Wilkie 32:38.780
Follow-up question? 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? Kim Rawlings 32:53.380
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. So 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 extensions to the urban boundary, but we'll need to consider the information when it's provided to us. Joe Jurisevic 33:22.928
Thank you, I understand that. So, yeah, I didn't quite understand... Sorry, can you just minimise? I didn't quite understand, 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 of are made available to the State government? Is that the intent of this amendment? Karen Finzel 33:46.060
Yes, thank you, Councillor Jo. Yes, it is... 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... in a submission 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 34:22.004
So a 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 34:46.004
We've just recently become aware of submissions, and we haven't as a team yet had a chance to assess those, but we will do those very quickly, and there will be a conversation with council about those. Joe Jurisevic 34:59.640
But as far as those submissions, were they made to council? 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 consider the submissions and present them to the State government. They've already been presented to the State government. Kim Rawlings 35:16.680
I think this is, and provide council's position on these submissions to the State government. The submissions were made directly to the State government. They ran the process. It was a state government process, not a council process. Submissions were made directly to the State government. They ran the process. It was a state government process, not a council process. We hadn't, the submissions didn't come via They went to 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 35:49.024
Sorry, I misunderstood the question. Karen Finzel 35:51.044
I clearly now see that it's talking about providing 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 36:13.905
And Councillor Finzel now. Councillor Lorentson and Stockwell, we both will start at the same time. Amelia Lorentson 36:19.905
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. Kim Rawlings 36:30.885
Well, the process that's been undertaken is the correct process. Thank you. So There's there's no 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 to the State government for the process. Absolutely correct process. Absolutely correct. 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 37:17.529
Thank you very much. So in that regard, when would the public be made aware of any proposals from landowners for extensions to urban boundary that were submitted to the State? Kim Rawlings 37:30.389
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. consultation report and summarise submissions like we do when we put something out to the public. We'll 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. Brian Stockwell 37:57.209
My point of clarification, which I think may be desirable to change some words, because I've heard a lot of people talking about urban boundaries. 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... 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 38:30.645
Councillor, 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 that they're wanting to go into the rural living, for instance. It may be that they're actually wanting to go the other way from something back to a rural, regional landscape. I would just broaden it to any requests for changes to the original managers category. Brian Stockwell 39:03.261
Will that be up to the meeting? Yes. Clare Stewart 39:08.921
Do you want me to you do you want me to comment on that? Thank you Councillor Finzel. Karen Finzel 39:14.881
Thank you yes I'm happy to take the staff recommendation on to change the wording to reflect what she just said. Is that the recommendation? Clare Stewart 39:30.941
Let's let's say that so consider any submission made regarding changes. Changes to the land use category from landowners. Kim Rawlings 39:43.937
That's the correct language used in the regional plan. Clare Stewart 39:52.345
To the regional land use category. Kim Rawlings 39:54.445
So that incorporates any application for expansion. Thank you, I think I understand what you're getting at. But Rowena's correct in that their submissions could be the other way. Brian Stockwell 40:07.185
That's right. Clare Stewart 40:10.134
Just to confirm that wording. From landowners. Kim Rawlings 40:13.874
Delete, delete, delete. No, no, no, no, I'll go back to from landowners. Amelia Lorentson 40:18.714
And provide. Joe Jurisevic 40:21.234
Just up to from landowners. Okay. Kim Rawlings 40:24.814
Extension to the urban boundary, delete that. Clare Stewart 40:32.000
And extension. And extension. Karen Finzel 40:34.280
Should that be expansion or extension? I'll just delete it. Oh, that's coming out. Thank you. Clare Stewart 40:40.040
So it should read now. E, consider any submission made regarding changes to the regional land use category from landowners. from landowners and provide its position on these back to the State government. Any objection to that? No, thank you. So is this asking you to do anything you weren't already going to do anyway? Kim Rawlings 41:02.690
No, it's not. Amelia Lorentson 41:21.900
Sorry, just a quick question, Kim. Just to clarify, so this amendment is redundant? You're already going to be providing this information? Kim Rawlings 41:34.023
Is absolutely what we're doing, so yes, it's absolutely what we're doing. Joe Jurisevic 41:53.206
So, yeah, whilst I 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 the amendment. Clare Stewart 42:16.040
Councillor Finzel would you like to close? Karen Finzel 42:18.960
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 42:49.274
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? Frank Wilkie 43:34.160
Are any other councillors present going to be moving any more amendments? If not, I would like to test one. Clare Stewart 43:40.720
I I don't think so. Amelia Lorentson 43:44.797
I have an amendment, but I second the original debate, but happy with the inclusion through the CEO. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 43:57.057
I'd like to add, I think it would probably be an E. and it reads, include in the submission to the State. I've sent a copy of this to Amelia. 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 44:31.820
Include in the submission to the State. Yes, we got that. Thank you. Subtitles white. Joe Jurisevic 44:57.002
Hey white story. Is that it Frank? That's the wording? Clare Stewart 45:38.656
I'll read it out Frank. Include in the submission to the State an assessment of the impact of permitting three story unit development in low density residential neighbourhoods. That right Councillor Wilkie? Joe Jurisevic 46:05.600
It's frozen, we've lost him. Clare Stewart 46:10.194
Might have to hold it. Councillor Finzel you have your hand up. Karen Finzel 46:19.840
Sorry I've put that down. Sorry Councillor Wilkie you're back. Frank Wilkie 46:24.880
Yes thank you. Clare Stewart 46:26.320
Was that correct that wording? Frank Wilkie 46:29.400
I'm just trying to see it on the screen. Including the submission to the State assessment of the impact of permitting three story unit development in low density residential neighbourhoods. Clare Stewart 46:38.160
Yes. Yes thank you Councillor Wilkie. Wilkie. Do we have a second? Do we have a seconder for that? Joe Jurisevic 46:41.222
I'll second for the purpose of discussion. Clare Stewart 46:43.842
Thank you, Councillor Wilkie. Frank Wilkie 46:46.062
Yeah, thank you, Mayor. Look, this was alluded to earlier in the reply to the question from one of the planners, Rowena, that there is the possibility that three-storey unit development could be, or dwelling's up 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 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... likely to have just as big an impact should there be a dotting of four to 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, and I just wanted to articulate it and put it on the record that could we... there be a response using the best available understanding that we can glean from the document about that prospect should it become a reality. Brian Stockwell 48:13.317
I think we're at risk of doing exactly what happened in the last attempt at amendment. of both the report and submission is we have dealt with this issue in a fairly comprehensive manner. I suppose the question is, to Councillor Wilkie, is when you're thinking about the impact, is there something else additional staff have already said as to its unacceptability that you would like to include? Frank Wilkie 48:43.335
I apologise if that wasn't implied in the wording. It would have a negative negative impact on residential amenity, is what I'm referring to. Clare Stewart 48:55.426
I think, correct me if I'm wrong, Councillor. Well, 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 put forward in their submission about the impacts of the potential increase in height in the low density residential, is that correct? Frank Wilkie 49:18.940
If there's already reference to an increase in density to three storeys, 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 it had been specifically identified. Clare Stewart 49:37.226
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 unit developments in low density residential neighbourhoods on your behalf. Kim Rawlings 49:51.826
Thank you. Through you Chair, the submission does address the issue in a couple of places. So on page one of the submission says quite clearly that the council believes that three storey units in low density neighbourhoods is not sensitive and builds these 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-storey maximum and we refer to the iconic Queensland Places Act which sought to protect and identify a character so that we Thank you, Kim. I do apologise. I should know better. I'm happy to withdraw that amendment or see it voted down. Clare Stewart 51:02.551
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 zone. So that should add comfort to you as well. Frank Wilkie 51:20.309
You, Mayor. Thank you, Mayor. I'm happy to withdraw. Thank you. All right. Clare Stewart 51:24.110
All right. So thank you, Councillor Wilkie. So that brings us back to the substantive motion. Point of order, Mr. Joe Jurisevic 51:30.630
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. Clare Stewart 51:37.930
I'm passing. Joe Jurisevic 51:39.669
My understanding has to be voted upon. Clare Stewart 51:42.023
Okay. All right. So, Councillor Wilkie, will we put in this amendment to a vote just for the purposes of process? So, all in favour? Against? Unanimous. Karen, your hand is... I can't see it. Councils, Finzel, against or for? Joe Jurisevic 52:07.900
I think we've lost Councillor Finzel. Sorry, no, my apologies. Are we voting, sorry, what are we voting for? The question that we're supporting Councillor Wilkie's amendment? No, basically he's withdrawn and we're voting it because I it doesn't don't support support it, it's a dog. Karen Finzel 52:25.436
Councillor Wilkie has withdrawn. I don't support the amendment. Clare Stewart 52:29.116
I'll put it to a vote again, all in favour? 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 the purpose of the debate, alright. We are now back 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 anyone else like to speak to the original motion? Absolutely. Do you have a question? Good question. I feel as though that the South East Queensland plan actually makes the concept of the concept of good people bad because I've seen what the 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 you're going to do it really really fast. Is that an accurate view of what's happening here? Kim Rawlings 53:28.500
What I will say is that there has been significant amount of work that this council has done around 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 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 that work... have done and the amendments that we have 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 was led by Rowena and the team and supported by council that has occurred for our community over the last three years. Tom Wegener 54:35.846
First I'd like to congratulate you on your work Rowena, Kim and the team because it is Because it is substantial, and it's turned me around in my thinking towards 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 housing supply statement, you know, that it's just, it's fear-mongering in a way, and that we'll be able to submit a housing supply statement that is very consistent with what we're already doing, and they'll take it honestly, this is wonderful. Noosa, away you go. Clare Stewart 55:21.409
I'll speak. Brian Stockwell 55:23.809
I echo the quality of the reporting and the submission. I always like to try and pick holes in staff reports and I couldn't find one. But for the matter at hand, 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 and in the report, what's mentioned is these iconic values. And when we 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 declared iconic iconic 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, the Noosa Shire community seeks a built environment built environments 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 Timbewa and you can go to Panorama Drive and you can look down over a population of 30,000 to 40,000 people and not see a roof. There are many from Timbewa, certainly none from Panorama. And B, confidence that the population growth and associated change does not inversely impact upon the character, lifestyle and... Now if that was true then, and the State government acknowledged it then, 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 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 important. 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 amend the Planning Regulation 2017 to provide greater certainty for build to rent, set minimum lot sizes for zones, set dwellings per hectare density expectations 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 it may turn out to be dictated to across 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 So it's really important that we get this housing supplied and we demonstrate we can meet the dwelling targets not the fictitious model population target which has been shown by in this report to exceed the high growth target of the government statistician. It's likely that 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, as 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 Policy 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 iconic values are just as important today as they were when they were amalgamating us earlier this us earlier this decade, century. Clare Stewart 01:00:07.742
Councillor Stockwell, anyone has access to this bitch? Joe Jurisevic 01:00:11.562
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. many means that this state typically is 20 years behind in its process and planning and development. And once again, this is a reactionary statement with a very short timeframe that was given and only extended 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 going through this as thoroughly as they have in the timeframe allowed and making such a 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 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 at which it needs to be developed anymore. see them subsidising rentals in the private, in the private rental market. All of this drive and all of this push to the private rentals, 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, is a response to the fact that there's been a lack of forethought and planning for the future. mean, infrastructure in Queensland is miles behind. We talk about infrastructure. And quite often, as populations increase incrementally, infrastructure fails to keep up. But I've seen the opposite. I've seen where planned development can actually work. And you put the infrastructure in place first and foremost, and you ensure that bus services are available so that when people move in, they've got infrastructure. 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, 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... proactive, 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, for their report, the information within it. And I hope that the 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. Clare Stewart 01:03:47.026
Thanks Pastor Tristich Amelia Lorentson 01:03:57.157
I'll speak to it, I'll be brief. My question from the moment that the SEQ regional plan came out 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? Are our vulnerable people, are those on low income? 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? About 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 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. Joe Jurisevic 01:06:23.100
You're on mute. Karen Finzel 01:06:25.400
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. 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 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. Sitting at the heart of all we do is our people and I'd like 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 to I want to 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 hand with all levels of government moving forward. ensure that we have equity, good governance and provide a strong voice to our people when it comes to these critical issues are facing we us move into the future. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 01:08:10.671
To a global pandemic, the 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 The strategic planning team for responding so well to this disruption that does threaten what Noosa stands for. And also the councillors have been firmly behind the staff's mission 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 very much to the staff. Clare Stewart 01:09:00.676
Thank you, Councillor Wilkie. I think it's all been 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 on, as has been reiterated around the table time and time again, the values that have been fought for 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 a united... on it and we're united and we stand with our community on it. So thank you again to the staff. I will put the recommendation to a vote. All in favour? That is unanimous. Finzel, thank you. I can see your hand. Thank you very much. Thank you, Kim. Thank you, Rowena. That brings us to the end of the meeting. It is 1:42. Thank you very much. thanks everyone enjoy your holiday frame see you thank you madam chair well done Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
