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
Declare the meeting open at 9:30. Firstly, I'd 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 emerging and welcomes the 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 note an apology from me. Mayor Frank Wilkie who's on leave at the moment. Can I please request before the meeting starts that everyone has their phones on silent fortune. Or turned off. And I'd 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? Tom Wegener 01:09.280
Happy to move. Amelia Lorentson 01:10.299
Thank you, 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 assumptions and I'll move it over to Kim and Anita and ask if you can start with a summary or an overview of the report in front of us. Anita Lakeland 01:41.140
Simple so Councillors the purpose of this report is to seek council's endorsement of the planning assumptions and growth projections derived from unity water's DMAT model and tracking it's a demand modeller and we call it DMAT to inform unity water's Netserv Plan the Draft Technical Note is attached to this report and it provides the methodology planning assumptions and growth forecasts 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 99 BK of the South East Queensland Water (Distribution and Retail 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 development the capacity is of the plan how and 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 remove the constraints and then they forecast how much development can occur on that based on the provisions of Noosa Plan. They've considered the Queensland Government Statistician's Office projections as well as the SEQ regional dwelling targets and projections. As well so they're all inputs to the model and then they put it into the mix that they do the modelling and then forecast how that might pan out in five year increments based on which land would develop more likely before other parcels based on their readiness and attraction. Attractiveness for development. So 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 might be some changes to that the model can be amended following the consultation following the consultation phase if things change. For the purposes of our LGIP planning. Amelia Lorentson 04:20.910
I'll throw it to the table. Councillor Stockwell would you like to make any questions of staff? Tom Wegener 04:27.539
Not at date this stage. Can straight to 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. Are what it really meant by constraints and examples. Anita Lakeland 04:43.441
So the hazards and on the land 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 what development capacity is on that site. 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 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 05:43.255
Like flooding. You can always you could, the flow. Anita Lakeland 05:47.539
Yeah. So flooding, you know, flooding is generally a fairly hard constraint. And, you know, the biodiversity is riparian as well. Tom Wegener 05:57.959
Those could be, and those constraints are, those were put on by Council, they're not state constraints, those are our own Council constraints. Anita Lakeland 06:04.717
They also consider the MACS and other state planning constraints on the site as well. Tom Wegener 06:12.676
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, Kim Rawlings 06:21.141
No, you can 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. So 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. Tom Wegener 06:48.406
When they're looking. They look at other things like our roads and roundabouts and the whole philosophy that was, the whole transportation philosophy that was built considering what the population cap. This is our carrying capacity, that doesn't weigh into their consideration with this plan much, Anita Lakeland 07:07.490
I would suspect. No, so they're only concerned with the provision of water and sewerage. Our own local so they're only concerned with the provision of 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. Will come to you later. Yes, so we're in the process of starting that review process of the LGIP, the five-year-old review now. Tom Wegener 07:37.250
Will this plan, if endorsed, will it in effect have influence over the next version of the LGIP? Anita Lakeland 07:46.691
The projections? Yes. So currently the LGIP has the 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's plan. So depending on what the outcomes are there. The figures it's like will change. Tom Wegener 08:11.357
And lastly, I feel when I read this like there's not a lot of option to not approve it. No option to not. Anita Lakeland 08:16.996
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. We've been working collaboratively with them based on the current Noosa Plan and what the amendments might include as well. Kim Rawlings 08:35.131
And it's a necessary process to form a plan for water and sewerage infrastructure for the future. Tom Wegener 08:43.238
I guess I get being somewhat up. 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 in reality. Kim Rawlings 08:55.673
So when we say the constraints aren't taken away, the constraints are considered. So if you've got a parcel of land, half of it is constrained then the development portion is only assumed on the other half. So if half of it's constrained by flooding, bushfire, biodiversity then the first assumption is that only the remaining half can have development capacity on it. As Anita said before, what then happens, because it's an iterative model, is if there's a development approved on of those concerns. Constraints or manage some of the flooding and more than half of the sites 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. Then validated it's then validated with approval as well. Amelia Lorentson 09:57.323
Throw some questions in. I'm going to start with the draft, so the 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? To change our life. Anita Lakeland 10:22.108
So you can probably read in here that the model indicates that we have enough supply to meet those targets. We have indicated that back to the State in our Housing Supply Statement to say that you know we've been working on this model and we know that we've got capacity to deliver the targets so we're using it for that purpose and it will continue yeah and ultimately the figures in here form part of the planning scheme too when we do an amendment to the LGIP. So they're our forecasts. Kim Rawlings 10:58.475
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 11:12.816
Can I just have a clarifying? There's two different terms. The regional plan sets dwelling targets but has a population projection. This report identifies that we meet the dwelling targets but still disagree with the population projection because 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 growing targets. Right? Is that right? Anita Lakeland 11:44.997
We don't need to make those projections they're not targets yes yeah and as I think in the report that they're based on unrealistic occupancy rates that aren't consistent with noosa's occupancy rates. Amelia Lorentson 12:02.157
So going back to the report, how is this to the look management at the of water management of water demand and supply? Will it improve efficiency and sustainability by stormwater discharge levels due to inversion. To this forecast in Burgess Creek? So how is that identified and managed, or is that a separate process? Was a to Anita Lakeland 12:35.280
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 declining the planning assumptions. Amelia Lorentson 12:55.651
So given significant changes in population or water usage patterns, and again maybe a question of Unitywater, will these sort of adjustments, will they evolve, be able to be mature? They trigger in development processes like a Material Change of Use, will trigger the earnings of paper. Permits and regulations? I'm just wondering, you know, at the moment we've got a licence to allow x-and-a-hundred people and this will involve an increase the implications in terms of, just in so on. In terms of planning and zoning regulations and processes? Anita Lakeland 13:44.308
It, so I guess most of their infrastructure is probably in the community facilities zone. So it would depend on, guess, I don't have it off hand what the level of assessment is for what works they're doing and how it fits within the scope of that. Yeah, I don't have it in front of me, I'm sorry. Kim Rawlings 14:03.826
Councillor Lorentson, we it. Have actually got Unitywater lined up because we thought we might want to get into the model and then what that means for Unitywater, you know, endorsing this, we're not endorsing what that means for unity water'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. Amelia Lorentson 14:36.530
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. And in terms of, Burgess Creek, 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 funding in trade. Integrated with the 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. Kim Rawlings 15:27.545
Yeah, it probably is outside the as you know, we are working in a phased approach to get to that integrated water management, you know, it's a really important piece of work. But yeah, that probably kind of sits outside the scope of this report. Amelia Lorentson 15:50.958
If you continue, I've got to tell you a different question. Oh, okay. I was going to just refer you to the general meetings, so we can ask some questions directly to you. Brian Stockwell 15:59.858
Yeah, it might be one that they need to consider. I noticed 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 12,000 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 day trippers? Anita Lakeland 16:36.318
I don't believe that. So, no. It's people who are, I guess, staying overnight, so they're being. They're occupying a dwelling. Brian Stockwell 16:50.468
It's only really in public interest. Infrastructure, but I'm just thinking, like, is if that. Amelia Lorentson 16:54.898
Good question to ask, yeah. You know, if we're on a capacity yet. Yeah. So, could say, it's like. Oh, sorry, I can't hear you. Tom Wegener 17:02.551
When you think. When you know. Working with the SEQ on this, what does it. Just out of curiosity, what does it look like? Sending emails back and forth to. Anita Lakeland 17:11.711
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 input the right. Development parameters as per allowed under particular designs. So, we kind of work mutually. Together Tom Wegener 17:45.949
And, you know, because we've spoken about this before where other places they think, okay if you a of have this lot above the beach, you know, somebody's going to want to put six units there, and in other places that's the norm, but when you're in Noosa, you know, you're thinking somebody's going to build a bench and there are 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 Anita Lakeland 18:09.168
Here? No, we model the highest and best use. 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 will be modelled. I guess we need to use our planning provisions around not allowing, you know, a single dwelling to be developed on that land rather than this model. Tom Wegener 18:34.889
And then, last question. So, Unitywater, they're relatively local. They're far from a state entity where Unitywater deals with our really northern Brisbane, there's a handful of us. It's with the a smaller group than dealing so they're intermediaries. Intermediary between the State and local government in a way? Anita Lakeland 18:55.124
Well, they're infrastructure supply authority for water and sewer. 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. To us. Yeah, there are different. Entity. Tom Wegener 19:24.198
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 us. Anita Lakeland 19:30.556
Absolutely, and that's why we've had a long relationship with them. The nuances of Noosa, and also what our growth model is, which is about consolidation, not expansion. And that's reflected in the thank you. Brian Stockwell 19:50.126
Okay, so with you. I agree that we should have a broader conversation with them. Just because I read out some figures, I also said, 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, it's somewhere about 75 to 80% of what's forecast. That's important to understand. Amelia Lorentson 20:15.235
So, if okay with Councillors, I move that we refer this report to our General Committee. And I also request if there are any technical questions or directed. To you in the order that we send them to Kim so that we have the opportunity to have a look at the questions in advance. Some of the questions I'm asking, they definitely need environmental impact assessment. I think that's it. There's no reports for note. We've got a meeting, no confidential session. I now declare this meeting closed at 9:51am and thank you everyone. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
