Planning & Environment Committee - 9 July 2024
Date: Tuesday, 9 July 2024 at 9:30AM
Location: Noosa Shire Council Chambers , 9 Pelican Street , Tewantin , QLD 4565 , Australia
Organiser: Noosa Shire Council
Duration: 00:21:23
Synopsis: Endorsement of Unitywater growth assumptions to 2046, Kept separate from infrastructure plan, Wastewater concerns, Dispute over population projections vs dwelling targets, Referred to General Committee.
Meeting Attendees
Committee Members
Amelia Lorentson Tom Wegener Brian Stockwell Non-Committee Members
Executive Officers
Acting Ceo Larry Sengstock Director Strategy & Environment Kim Rawlings Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Director Community Services Kerri Contini Apologies (Did Not Attend)
AI-Generated Meeting Insight
Key Decisions & Discussions Amelia Lorentson: Confirmed quorum, noted Crs Wegener and Stockwell present; Cr Wilkie on leave; minutes of 11 June confirmed unanimously (00:00–01:10; Minutes 1–2). Amelia Lorentson: Introduced sole agenda item: Unitywater Noosa Netserv Plan – Planning Assumptions; sought officer overview (01:10–01:42; Minutes 5.1). Kim Rawlings: Sought Council endorsement of Unitywater DMAT planning assumptions and growth projections to 2046 and “ultimate,” under SEQ Water Restructuring Act 2009 s 99BK; not an LGIP endorsement yet (01:42–04:20; Minutes 5.1). Kim Rawlings: DMAT inputs include Noosa Plan provisions, constraints overlays, QSO projections, and SEQ Regional Plan dwelling targets; forecasts by 5‑year increments and site readiness (01:42–04:20; Minutes 5.1). Tom Wegener: Queried meaning of “constraints”; officers clarified overlays include biodiversity, riparian, bushfire, flooding; state MSES also applied; flood is a hard constraint (04:27–06:59; Minutes 5.1). Officers (Kim/Anita): Model is conservative, iteratively updated with approvals that mitigate constraints; models “highest and best use” allowed under zoning (05:11–09:22; 17:11–18:34; Minutes 5.1). Kim Rawlings: DMAT informs but is separate from Council’s LGIP; LGIP five‑year review has commenced and will consider updated projections post planning scheme amendments (06:59–08:10; 07:30–07:45; Minutes 5.1). Brian Stockwell: Clarified acceptance of meeting dwelling targets while disputing SEQ Regional Plan population projections due to unrealistic occupancy rates; officers agreed (11:12–11:44; Minutes 5.1). Amelia Lorentson: Probed water demand, sustainability, and Burgess Creek wastewater discharge implications; officers said endorsement limits to planning assumptions, Unitywater’s schedule of works handles upgrades (12:01–12:54; Minutes 5.1). Officers (Kim/Anita): Works likely occur in Community Facilities Zone; triggers for approvals depend on scope; Unitywater better placed to answer operational/licensing impacts; they will attend General Committee (13:43–15:38; Minutes 5.1). Brian Stockwell: Noted STA raises total nightly population from ~70,800 to ~81,000; DMAT does not include day‑trippers’ load; infrastructure modelling typically delivers ~75–80% of “ultimate” (15:47–16:50; 19:50–20:14; Minutes 5.1). Decision: Committee unanimously resolved to refer Item 5.1 to the General Committee for further consideration and questions to Unitywater (20:14–end; Minutes 5.1). Contentious / Transparency Matters Amelia Lorentson: Sought clarity on environmental impacts (e.g., Burgess Creek discharges), indicating desire for public assurance on sustainability of growth‑driven upgrades (12:01–12:54; Minutes 5.1). Committee: Opted for General Committee escalation and pre‑submitted technical questions to Unitywater, improving transparency and accountability (15:28–15:38; 20:14–end; Minutes 5.1). Brian Stockwell: Publicly distinguished between dwelling targets (acceptable) and population projections (contested), flagging transparency in Council’s growth stance (11:12–11:44; Minutes 5.1). Tom Wegener: Challenged assumptions on constraints and occupancy norms to avoid “flawed assumptions,” prompting clearer articulation of model conservatism (08:41–09:22; 17:45–18:34; Minutes 5.1). Legal / Risk Statutory basis: Endorsement sought under SEQ Water Distribution and Retailing Restructuring Act 2009, Ch 4B Pt 1 s 99BK; scope limited to planning assumptions, not Unitywater works (01:42–04:20; 12:34–12:54; Minutes 5.1). Planning consistency: DMAT aligns with Noosa Plan constraints (local and state MSES) and will be validated against outcomes of current planning scheme amendments before LGIP update (04:42–07:45; Minutes 5.1). Environmental approvals risk: Potential upgrades may trigger development assessment or environmental licensing depending on works and zone; officers deferred to Unitywater for specifics, indicating pending compliance mapping (12:54–15:38; Minutes 5.1). Population metric risk: Council rejects SEQ Regional Plan population projections’ occupancy rates; adopting DMAT for dwellings while disputing population reduces exposure to over‑sizing or misallocation (11:12–11:44; Minutes 5.1). Demand modelling gap: DMAT excludes day‑trippers, posing potential underestimation of peak loads on public infrastructure, though core water/sewer focus mitigates scope creep (16:50–17:02; Minutes 5.1). Planning Scheme, LGIP, and Growth Targets Kim Rawlings: DMAT indicates Noosa can meet SEQ Regional Plan dwelling targets; figures inform Council’s Housing Supply Statement to the State (10:21–10:46; Minutes 5.1). Officers: LGIP five‑year review underway; updated DMAT projections to be incorporated post‑consultation and any scheme amendments, ensuring statutory alignment (07:30–08:10; Minutes 5.1). Methodology: Highest-and-best-use modelling prevents low‑intensity outliers skewing capacity; approvals feedback loop refines forecasts (17:45–18:34; 09:22–09:56; Minutes 5.1). Engagement: Sunshine Coast and Moreton Bay also use DMAT, increasing State acceptance of the methodology and comparability (10:57–11:12; Minutes 5.1). Short‑Term Accommodation and Population Load Brian Stockwell: Resident population forecast ~58k→68k; including STA ~70,800→81,000, affecting network demand planning though day‑trippers excluded (15:47–16:50; Minutes 5.1). Officers: Infrastructure typically delivered at ~75–80% of ultimate capacity, moderating overbuild risk under STA variability (19:50–20:14; Minutes 5.1). Environmental Concerns Constraints handling: Biodiversity, riparian areas, bushfire, and flooding mapped as overlays; constrained land removed from developable area unless later mitigated via approvals (04:42–06:59; 05:11–09:22; Minutes 5.1). Burgess Creek: Chair flagged wastewater discharge implications of growth; Unitywater’s schedule of works to address, subject to applicable permits (12:01–12:54; Minutes 5.1). Integrated water management: Chair asked if DMAT influences funding of Council’s integrated catchment plan; officers said it sits outside this item’s scope but acknowledged its importance (14:02–15:38; Minutes 5.1).
Official Meeting Minutes
MINUTES Planning & Environment Committee Meeting Tuesday, 9 July 2024 9:30 AM Council Chambers, 9 Pelican Street, Tewantin Committee: Crs Amelia Lorentson (Chair), Brian Stockwell, Frank Wilkie, Tom Wegener “Noosa Shire – different by nature” PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 9 JULY 2024 1. ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES COMMITTEE MEMBERS Cr Amelia Lorentson (Chair) Cr Tom Wegener Cr Brian Stockwell NON COMMITTEE MEMBERS Cr Karen Finzel EXECUTIVE Acting CEO Larry Sengstock Director Strategy & Environment Kim Rawlings Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Director Community Services Kerri Contini APOLOGIES Cr Frank Wilkie 2. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES Council Resolution Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener The Minutes of the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting held on 11 June 2024 be received and confirmed. Carried unanimously. 3. PRESENTATIONS Nil. 4. DEPUTATIONS Nil. 5. REPORTS FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE COMMITTEE PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 9 JULY 2024 5.1. UNITYWATER NOOSA NETSERV PLAN - PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Brian Stockwell That Planning & Environment Committee Agenda Item 5.1 be referred to the General Committee for further consideration. Carried unanimously. 6. REPORTS FOR NOTING BY THE COMMITTEE Nil. 7. CONFIDENTIAL SESSION Nil. 8. MEETING CLOSURE The meeting closed at 9.52am
Meeting Transcript
Amelia Lorentson 00:00.000
To clear the meeting, open at 9:30. Firstly, I would like to begin by an acknowledgement to Country. I would like to respectfully acknowledge the Kabi Kabi people as the traditional custodians of the lands and waters that form the region we call Noosa. Council pays its respect to Elders past, present and future and welcomes ongoing role that Indigenous people play within the Noosa community. I'll start with attendance and apologies. I note Councillor Wegener and Councillor Stockwell are in attendance. I also apology from Frank Wilkie who's on leave at the moment. Can I please request before the meeting starts that everyone has their phones on silent or turned off. And I would also like to remind councillors of their obligations under the Council Code of Conduct to treat fellow councillors and council employees respectfully. I'll start firstly with confirmation of minutes. Can I have a mover and a seconder please? Brian Stockwell 01:09.549
Happy to move. Amelia Lorentson 01:10.209
Thank you. Tom. No discussion. All in favour? Thank you. There are no presentations and no deputations so we'll go to the only report for consideration on the committee. Unitywater Noosa Netserv planning and planning assumptions. And I'll move it over to Kim and ask if you can start with a summary or an overview. Kim Rawlings 01:42.618
So councillors, the purpose of this report is to seek council's endorsement of the planning assumptions and growth projections derived from Unitywater's DMAT model and tracking, it's a demand modeller and tracking tool, we call it draft technical note is attached to this report and it provides the methodology, planning assumptions and growth forecasts for forecast for Noosa Shire's population, dwellings, gross floor area, employment and network demand in five year increments up to 2046 and ultimate, so the ultimate capacity of Noosa Plan. So they've requested that we... that council endorse these assumptions under Chapter 4B, Part 1, Section 99BK of the South East Queensland Water Distribution and Retailing Restructuring Act 2009. So we have been involved in the preparation of this model. So we work closely with Unitywater and have done over many years refining the model. It is a population and development forecasting tool which takes the provisions of Noosa Plan and forecasts what the development what the development capacity is of the plan and how it will develop in five year increments and then the ultimate capacity. So there's a number of inputs to that plan. So all of the provisions of Noosa Plan including the constraints on land, so they remove the constraints and then they forecast how much development can occur on that based on the provisions of Noosa Plan. They've considered Queensland Statistician's Office projections as well as the SEQ Regional Plan dwelling targets and projections as well. So they're all inputs to the model and then they put it into the mix. They do the modelling and then forecast how that pan out in five year increments based on which land would develop more likely before other parcels based on their readiness and attractiveness for development. We're not asking council to endorse this for our LGIP at this stage because we do have the planning scheme amendments out there so there might be some changes to that. The model can be amended following the consultation phase if things change for of our LGIP planning. Amelia Lorentson 04:20.288
I'll throw it to the table, Councillor Stockwell will webmark any questions of staff? Tom Wegener 04:27.008
Not at this stage. The constraints that they talk about, the land constraints, can you just elaborate on that a bit? Because it just was a bit light on detail, it seemed to me, what it really meant by constraints and examples. Kim Rawlings 04:42.094
So the hazards and constraints on the land are what we see as overlays in Noosa Plan. So the overlays represent the constraints on the land. So for instance, things like biodiversity, riparian, bushfire, flooding, those kind of constraints which limit development. So they consider those constraints on a parcel of land and remove them from the developable area to come up with, well, what do development capacity is on that site. Anita 05:11.532
Some constraints can be mitigated through the development assessment process and they consider that more so after the fact. So if a development has been approved and they've been able to mitigate some of the minor kind of constraints, they'll put the outcomes of that approval back into the model. So they take a conservative approach. They say, well, you know, these are the constraints on the land. You know, we conservatively think that this is how much development capacity is left once you take those constraints away. Tom Wegener 05:45.304
You could Kim Rawlings 05:47.604
Yeah. So flooding, you know, flooding is generally a fairly hard constraint. And, you know, the biodiversity is riparian as well. Tom Wegener 05:59.205
And those constraints are, those are, those were put on by council, they're not state restraints, those are our own council. They also consider the MSES and other state planning constraints on the site as well. So they don't just say these are, they can look at a state restraint and say, oh, we can drop that state restraint as well. No, no, you can take... Take that constraint into account. So our planning scheme represents both local overlays and state overlays. So state mapping as a state significance is reflected in our planning scheme. when we talk about constraints, it's both the State level ones and our own, but they're both taken into account when the model looks at what the development capacity of the site might be. And when they look at other things like our roads and roundabouts and the whole philosophy that was, the whole transportation philosophy that was built considering the population cap, saying this is our carrying capacity, that doesn't weigh into their consideration with this plan much, I would suspect. No, so they're only provision concerned with of the water and sewerage. Our own local government infrastructure plan, the LGIP, considers all those other types of infrastructure, so what roads and roundabouts and what the philosophy is about transport and movement. We consider that in our own equivalent plan, which is the LGIP, which will come to you later in the year. Anita 07:30.206
So we're in the process of starting that review process of the LGIP, the five-year review now. Tom Wegener 07:36.806
Will this plan... this plan, if endorsed, will in effect have influence over the next version of the LGIP? Kim Rawlings 07:45.515
The projections? Yes. Yes. So currently, the current LGIP has the previous... previous projections that were done also by Unitywater in collaboration with us, so when we review the LGIP we'll consider the new projections based on any amendments to Noosa plan, so depending on what the outcomes So the figures will change. Tom Wegener 08:10.773
And lastly, I feel when I read this like there's not a lot of option to not approve it. Kim Rawlings 08:16.413
Well what we're doing is we're endorsing their assumptions to say that they are consistent with our planning forecasts as well. And they are, because we've been working collaboratively with them based on the current Noosa on the current Noosa Plan and what the amendments might include as well. Anita 08:34.531
And it's a necessary process to form a plan for water and sewage infrastructure for the future. Tom Wegener 08:41.671
I guess being somewhat autistic, getting wrapped up in the constraints being taken away and then all of a sudden there are flawed assumptions. The foundation of the plan isn't actually So when we say the constraints aren't taken away, the constraints are considered. Anita 09:00.922
So if you've got a parcel of land and half of it is constrained. Then the development portion is only assumed on the other half. So if half of it is constrained by flooding, bushfire, biodiversity, then the first assumption is that only the half can have development capacity on it. Kim Rawlings 09:22.572
As Anita said before, what then happens, cause it's an iterative model, is if there's a development approved on that site that might mitigate some of those constraints or manage some of the flooding, and more than half of the site's developed, the model then takes into account what's approved as well. So it's both assumed on the planning assumptions, there are a number of inputs into this model, it's not just the planning scheme and the constraints and the assumptions, it's then validated with if there's a development approval as well. So it's both assumed on the planning assumptions, there are a number of inputs into this model, it's not just the planning scheme and the constraints and the assumptions, it's then validated with if there's a development approval as well. Amelia Lorentson 09:56.604
I might throw some questions in, I'm going to start with the draft, so this Queensland regional draft plan, how can DMAT forecasting leverage to oppose the State's proposed mandatory growth targets, and can we present this forecast to strengthen our pace against mandatory growth? Kim Rawlings 10:21.365
So you can probably read in here that the model indicates that we have enough supply to meet those targets. We indicated that back to the State in our housing supply statement to say that we have been working on this model and we know that we have got capacity to deliver the targets, so we are using it for that purpose. Anita 10:44.875
And it will continue? Kim Rawlings 10:46.215
Yes, and ultimately the figures in here form part of the planning scheme too when we do an amendment to the LGIP. Anita 10:57.426
We're not the only local government that uses DMAT, so Sunshine Coast and Moreton Bay also use the DMAT model, so the State do take it into account. So we do need to continue to use it. Brian Stockwell 11:12.071
Can I just have a clarifying? There's two different terms. The regional plan sets dwelling targets but has a population projection. This report... report identifies that we meet the dwelling targets but still disagree with the population projection 'cause they've used unreasonable average occupancy rates. So in agreeing to this report, we're not agreeing to the forecast population SEQ Regional Plan. We're saying we can meet the dwelling targets. Is that right? Kim Rawlings 11:44.436
We don't need to meet those projections. need to make those projections. They're not targets. And as I think in the report, they're based on unrealistic occupancy rates that aren't consistent with Noosa occupancy rates. Amelia Lorentson 12:01.792
So I'm going back to the report. How is this to affect the management of water demand and supply? What will improve efficiency, sustainability and water usage? And I'm referencing, you know, wastewater discharge levels due to this forecast in Burgess Creek. So how is that... that identified and managed? Or is that a separate process to this? Kim Rawlings 12:34.798
They have a schedule of works, similar to how we have a schedule of works, which are informed by their forecast as to what... upgrades they may need to do to their infrastructure. But we don't need to endorse that. They've not asked us to do that, that's their own plan. It's just about the planning assumptions. Amelia Lorentson 12:54.323
So, given significant changes in population or water usage patterns and, again, that question of community water, will these sort of adjustments, will they involve in, will they trigger in development processes like a material change of use? Will it trigger environmental permits and regulations? I'm just wondering. the moment we've got a licence to allow X number of people. This will involve an increase. What are the implications in terms of, just Just in terms of planning and zoning regulations and processes. Kim Rawlings 13:43.492
So I guess that most of their infrastructure is probably in the community facility zone. So it would depend on, I guess, I don't have it offhand, what the level of assessment is for what works they're doing. And how it fits within the scope of that. I don't have it in front of me, I'm sorry. Anita 14:02.675
Yeah, I think, Councillor Lorentson, we have actually got Unitywater lined up. Because we thought transfers might want to, you know, get into the model. And then what that means for Unitywater. You know, endorsing this, we're not endorsing what that means for Unitywater's ongoing schedule. of works and their legislative triggers and things. But no doubt this will, like it does for our LGIP, underpin their schedule of works and what the triggers might be. So, you know, I think probably you'd get a better answer or a more comprehensive answer from Unitywater. Yes, questions. I've only got a couple. terms of... So, in terms of their discreet. So, we have an integrated water catchment plan that's been identified for funding through council. My questions are, does this influence the funding of this catchment plan? Does it sort of highlight the influence of... Of funding integrated water catchment plan, given that there are going to be some significant population changes to Noosa? I think that question is probably outside the scope of this report. Amelia Lorentson 15:26.999
Oh, she's going to tell Anita 15:28.272
Yeah, it probably is outside the scope of this report. As you know, we are working in a phased approach to get to that integrated water management. Kim Rawlings 15:38.952
You know, it's a really important piece of work. yeah, it probably kind of sits outside the scope of this report. Amelia Lorentson 15:47.686
You could say, oh, so Councillor Stockwell, yeah. If you continue, I've got a totally different question. Oh, okay. I was going to just refer you to the general meetings, so we can ask some questions directly to you in any order, but you go ahead. Yeah, it might be one that they need to consider. I notice in the section in the section on population, it talks about resident population being forecast to go from 58 to 68, but when you include short-term accommodation, it goes from 70,800 to 81,000, suggesting at the moment we have about people per night staying in our, does the model, and it also models employee demand based on gross floor area, does the model include any forecast in terms of the demand on infrastructure from daytrippers? I don't believe so, no. It's people who are, I guess, staying overnight, so they're being, they're occupying a dwelling. Brian Stockwell 16:50.660
It's only really in public infrastructure, but I'm just thinking, like, if that, you know, if we're on a capacity yet, yeah. Tom Wegener 17:02.098
When you say, you know, you are working with the State on this, what is it, just out of curiosity, what does it look like for you, is it sending emails back and forth? Kim Rawlings 17:11.478
Working with Unitywater on this, yeah, so they... have a GIS format, so we have mapping and we'll cross-check and click on particular lots and see what the forecasts are and see if the assumptions are right, so we do some cross-checking. We make sure that they've put input... input the right development parameters as per allowed under particular zones, so we kind of work iteratively together, collaboratively. Tom Wegener 17:45.308
And, you know, because we've spoken about this before, where other places, they think, okay, if you have this lot above the beach, you know, somebody's going to want to put six units there, and other that's the norm, but when you're in Noosa and you're thinking somebody's going to build a bench and there are only two people in it, does that kind of go back and forth as to the planning where, you know, the assumptions are just a little bit skewed No, we model the highest and best use. Kim Rawlings 18:12.671
So what the full capacity is under the plan allowable on that lot. So if it's zoned for medium density and has capacity for 12 dwellings, then that's what I guess we need to use our planning provisions around not allowing a single dwelling to be developed on that land rather than this model. Tom Wegener 18:34.300
And then, last question. So Unitywater, they're relatively local, they're far from a state entity where Unitywater deals with our northern Brisbane, a handful of us. It's a smaller Kim Rawlings 19:01.183
So, like us, they've got to do their own equivalent LGIP, which is their Netserv Plan, to forecast how they'll supply that infrastructure for growth. They work with the State separately. us, yeah, they're a different entity. Tom Wegener 19:23.696
I'm glad that it's not a state entity, which may have a cookie-cutter approach, but they're not. They understand Noosa, they understand... Kim Rawlings 19:30.236
Absolutely, and that's why we've had a long relationship with them, understanding the nuances of Noosa, and also what our growth Which is about consolidation, not expansion, and that's reflected in the assumptions. Brian Stockwell 19:50.446
So, I agree that we should have a broader conversation with them. Just because I read out some figures, and everyone gets excited about population, is that elsewhere in the report it is noticed that when you're modelling for infrastructure, you're modelling for the ultimate use, but in reality in reality, it's somewhere about 75% to 80% of what's forecasted. I suppose that's important to understand. Amelia Lorentson 20:14.580
So, if okay with councillors, I move that we refer this report to our general meeting. And I'd also request if there are any technical questions or questions directed to you in the order that we send it to Kim, so that we can So that would be, you know, an opportunity to have a look at the questions in advance. But my, some of the questions I'm asking, they definitely need, you know, environmental impact assessment, treatment upgrades. So I'll give them the opportunity to respond. So, can I- Can I have a second? Fantastic, all in favour? Thank you. That's unanimous and we'll refer this to the meeting. I think that's it. There's no reports for no embodied meeting, no confidential session. I now declare this meeting closed at 9:51. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
