Special Meeting, 5 December 2024
Date: Thursday, 5 December 2024 at 8:30AM
Location: Noosa Shire Council Chambers, 9 Pelican Street, Tewantin, QLD 4565, Australia
Organiser: Noosa Shire Council
Duration: 03:15:27
Synopsis: Amendment to Noosa Plan adopted w/ State submission, Housing supply advanced: 20% GFA rental bonus and zoning tweaks, Consultation endorsed, Short‑stay rules tightened, Environmental setbacks corrected.
Meeting Attendees
Councillors
Frank Wilkie Amelia Lorentson Jessica Phillips Brian Stockwell Tom Wegener Nicola Wilson Executive Officers
Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Community Services Kerri Contini Director Strategy And Environment Kim Rawlings Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Acting Director Infrastructure, Shaun Walsh Apologies (Did Not Attend)
Meeting Transcript
Frank Wilkie 00:00.581
Declare the meeting open at 8:30am. I'd like to acknowledge that we're meeting on the traditional lands of the Kabi Kabi people, pay my respects to their elders past, present and emerging, and reiterate their continual invitation for us to join them as joint custodians, respecting and caring for this beautiful place that we all love, and respecting and caring for each other. Note all Councillors are in attendance. And today's Special Meeting is to consider the Noosa Plan 2020 proposed amendments number two. Finally, post public notification for final state government ministerial approval, and we have Director Kim Rawlings and strategy and sustainability manager Anita Lakeland here for this report, as well as other supporting staff. Would you please give us the summary of sure. The report, Anita? Anita Lakeland 00:49.144
I'm bringing this report to you on behalf of the strategic planning team, so I just want to acknowledge the huge amount of work that everyone's done to contribute to this report and the attachments, and as you know, it's a hundred page report, so I'd just like to acknowledge tara, Rowena, Glenn and Michelle in contributing to this report, and Rebecca of course, and Richard and the DA team as well, and anyone else from across Council. So Councillors, this report seeks Council's endorsement of changes to proposed Amendment No. 2 to Noosa Plan 2020, known as the proposed. Amendments, following an extensive public notification and community engagement process and receipt of public submissions. You'll recall that last year in January and in April 2023, two reports were brought to Council proposing the amendments on the back of implementing the recommendations of the Short-term Accommodation Monitoring Report and. And the Housing Strategy, both of which were endorsed by Council, as well as a review of the Tourism Accommodation Zone review and other planning matters. Council endorsed those reports in the proposed amendments for the purpose of public for first aid interest check. Kerri Contini 02:02.637
They were forwarded to the State and underwent a really lengthy process with the State, quite a protracted process, and we finally got ministerial approval to publicly notify in April this year. Anita Lakeland 02:16.272
Following that, Council its meeting in May endorsed the proposed amendments for public notification. We commenced public notification in late May for a six-week period. It was then extended another two weeks, so the consultation period went from late May to late July. We undertook a very comprehensive public notification and engagement program. We had public notices, media releases, radio interviews. We had dedicated Your Say page, web page. The Your Say page had fact sheets. 12 fact sheets, facts and Q &As. We had all the draft amendments on there in track form, as well as mapping changes, as well as a range of other explanatory material, including how the provisions of the extra story for affordable housing might look in demographic form. We had undertook seven pop-ups throughout the Shire and we spoke to hundreds of people at those pop-ups. We had an open-door policy so people came in, spoke to us, phoned us, emailed us, asked for meetings with us and we engaged with a lot of people through that process. We specifically notified by letter anyone with a proposed zone change as well as all the adjoining owners as well. We also notified all the community groups, industry groups, we had an industry stakeholder briefing. And housing stakeholder briefing as well, group briefing. So the range of engagement was quite extensive during that eight week period and we know we had thousands of hits on the Your Say page and many downloads of information so it was quite extensive. So as a result of that we've received 475 submissions many of which addressed multiple issues. We also had one online petition with 600 signatories. All the submissions have been summarised in table of submissions in attachment one and that table has a summary of the submission as well as a response and then a recommendation as to whether a proposed change is recommended or not. There was a huge range of issues but we have synthesised it into really ten key issue areas that some of which have resulted in recommended changes some which have not the ten key issue areas are the Noosa Junction Hospitality Precinct in terms of hours of operation extension and amplified music definition, the Noosa Business Centre short-term accommodation as an inconsistent use in medium and high density residential and centre zones, the Tourism Accommodation Zone review with specific sites being proposed to be rezoned, dwelling houses becoming inconsistent in the medium and high density residential zones, the size of small dwellings, mandatory small dwellings in the medium and high density residential zones, and dual occupancy becoming inconsistent in medium density residential zones on lots 600 square metres or the affordable rental premises, definition and proposed provisions, associated bonus provisions including the additional height on certain sites. Kerri Contini 05:52.513
The environmental conservation management zone changes resulting from Voluntary Conservation Agreements and the setbacks associated with that, and community facilities zone around affordable housing. Are specific. Some of those issues have resulted in recommended changes. They're outlined in the body of the report as well as in attachment to where they're itemised and numbered for reference. Anita Lakeland 06:23.197
There's an additional attachment three, which is minor clarification and errors and miscellaneous stuff that we've identified either through a submission or. Just ourselves, which have no policy implication, but are also listed there. It's an opportunity to make those changes as well. So following, in terms of process, following Council's endorsement of the revised amendments, a consultation report will be prepared which will be made available for the public on Council's website and every submitter will be notified of that and they can search their submission number and see how their been addressed and what the recommendation was and what Council's decision is today. This together with some other formality reports will be submitted to the State government and for ministerial approval for adoption. It's the following ministerial approval a further report will be submitted to Council for final adoption. So I guess that that's an overview in terms of going through the changes. We could go through the changes listed in attachment 2 and have a discussion around that if you like or. Kim Rawlings 07:41.049
Frank do you want more detail on the changes in attachment 2 or do you want to. Frank Wilkie 07:45.823
Oh questions, look, I will let there's probably Councillors who would like. Kim Rawlings 07:48.724
So just before we do that then I might just add to that. Thanks Anita. Just to remind Council about the stage we're at, Anita has talked about the process but I just did want to emphasise that we are at the stage of councils consideration. We follow a very clear and strict legislative process that is governed by the ministerial rules that guide an amendment process and this is the stage where it's Council's consideration at this stage. We've been through extensive community engagement. This stage is not about further community engagement. This stage is about this Council considering all of the information and the submissions and weighing up all of those issues in terms of how you would like to move forward. Frank Wilkie 08:37.548
I'm glad you clarified that. There seems to be some confusion about whether this is an opportunity for further submissions from the public. That's right. It's not. Kim Rawlings 08:46.401
It's not. That's not the purpose of this stage. Did we extensive community engagement. It was extended. This is very much now, as specified in the ministerial rules, that Council is now required to consider those submissions, consider any changes in response to those submissions and consider how they would like to move forward, how Council would like to move forward and submit that to the State for then consideration. That is what this stage is about. So, you know, it's really important for you to remember that. You know, you've also been involved in hours of workshops. I think we've had just under 15 hours of workshops going through each of the issues. You know, this is not. This has not been a rushed process. We've had months and of considering submissions. You can see how many people around the table have been involved in reading all 450 submissions, hours of. Discussion and analysis and consideration about how best to respond to those submissions and the changes we will make. We've taken you through all of those changes step by over a series of workshops. And you can know just to I guess reinforce the very strategic nature of this amendment. Has a number of things in it but strategically it is about advancing your Housing Strategy. It's also about strengthening you know, maintaining your commitment to strengthening your approach to managing short stay. You know two very important aspects for our community and this package of amendments advances those. So you know I would also say that the amendment process in chain for three years and there is a lot in this that is necessary for to advance for our community. We need to obviously consider all the issues that the submitters have raised but we also need to ensure that our Planning Scheme continues to be a framework. That guides the future and provides a strong framework to guide our development going forward. So I would urge you to consider how long these amendments have been in consideration in information you consider you know this really important package of amendments today. Frank Wilkie 11:23.080
Karen. Karen Finzel 11:23.941
Thank you just through the Chair to receive a question through the Chair to the CEO given the number of emails I've received with regards to notification of this meeting can you just let me know at what date was it posted that this Special Meeting was to happen. Larry Sengstock 11:50.876
Thank you. Appreciate it. So we're sorry thank you through the Chair we're obliged to give two days notice for special meetings but this has been officially we are we notified on Monday. Frank Wilkie 12:04.900
Get the ball rolling and move the process along I'd like to move a motion the staff recommendation along with a technical amendment to correct a small error that was detected in there. So I'll read the change which is to section C under section 19.1 of the Minister's Guidelines and Rules endorse the changes proposed to Amendment No. 2 to Noosa Plan 2020 as outlined in this report and summarised an attachment to an attachment three and authorised the CEO to make the changes in any other consequential changes as required prior to submitting to the State government with the correction on an error an attachment to page three item seven second dot point that should read optional development bonuses including an additional storey two metres in height on key sites if providing 20% of the total GFA as affordable rental premises. The error had it at 10%. May I have a seconder from this place? Thank you. Councillor Wegener. Look Councillors I think we're at the point at the pointy end of what might perhaps have been the longest Planning Scheme amendment process in the Noosa Council history. There are elements that were beyond our control with the amount of time that these amendments were held up with the State. We also willingly extended the consultation period and there was the caretaker period also with the State government. Was the number of submissions that staff went through, also the time that they spent engaging with Councillors through a series of workshops, 15 hours of workshops where every element was clearly explained. So these amendments to the Planning Scheme seek to improve housing choice and affordability for residents and key workers. I thank the community and the industry for their patience over this unusually protracted process. Today we finally can give industry and residents some certainty about short-term accommodation. Provision of affordable housing incentives and dwelling supply. These amendments take on board the impacts of short-term accommodation as recommended in the short-term accommodation monitoring report and Noosa Housing Strategy in 2022. To further term accommodation to medium, high, rural, and residential neighbourhoods and business centres. Incentives are proposed for landowners to provide affordable rental accommodation in conjunction with community housing providers as well as amendments to promote the construction of a range of different dwelling sizes to suit a range of budgets. The amendments help ensure all residential neighbourhoods work as intended, having taken on board resident feedback during consultation, changing the amendments to permit houses and duplex on small lots and medium density zones up to 500 square metres and 1,000 square metres respectively. Houses and duplexes. Council sent these proposed amendments to the State interest review in April 2023. They were with the State until early this year and were not available for public consultation until May 2024, when a six-week consultation period two weeks longer than required was extended for an extra two weeks. The State have signed that these amendments are in alignment with and comply with state policy, which includes providing for adequate lands to support housing to meet the needs of our community and economic considerations, which they also meet legislative requirements. Confusion in the community that this is also another consultation period and that submissions are to be taken on board to this phase. The submissions have been taken on board during the extended eight-week period. The feedback from those submissions during the consultation period have been worked into the final recommendations of staff and we are now in the decision-making phase. I thank the staff for their patience and their enormous amount of work that's gone into this and the community and industry for their patience during this protracted period. And I endorse the recommendations as contained in the report. Any other questions or people who wish to speak to the motion? Questions please. Questions. Councillor Phillips. Thank you. Jessica Phillips 16:44.290
Good morning. Thank you very much for the reports. I just want to clarify something because I spent up to 2am. Going through submissions again. With what I see in the attachment, does that include the 300 people from pop-ups and the additional 80? Public inquiries over the phone all through that document? Anita Lakeland 17:07.948
Through the Chair, no, unless it was a written submission it hasn't in that. So a lot of people came to us and discussed some issues and some may have put that into a written submission which is considered in that document. Others felt their answers had been, that they got their answers throughout the engagement and chose not to make a submission. Jessica Phillips 17:32.800
Another question then to follow that up. So as a Councillor I can't have, can I get that information at some point around what this, was discussed out of those 300 pop-ups and the 85 calls through or is that. Anita Lakeland 17:49.076
The Chair? No they were informal discussions and we advised them if they wanted to take it further they could make a written submission so it was more an inquiry based discussion a lot of the time. Jessica Phillips 18:01.900
Okay thanks for clarifying. So then my follow-up question around the 475 submissions that I was trying to read through last night. How many was the outcome being that the recommendation from Council that we will make changes? Does that make sense? So when I was reading through it we've got recommendations on the column that says, I think the first page, that no change be made to the proposed amendments as a result of this submission out of the 475 how many changes did we make? Kim Rawlings 18:40.579
I couldn't give you that number off the top of my head, Jess. We'd have to go. Through. Attachment 2 has the changes. Yeah, so attachment 2 lists the ones that we've made changes to and then says which ones we haven't. So it's in that. But off the top of my head, unless any of you know what that number might be. I don't know what the split is. You will see in the attachment 2 that there are a number of submissions around the same issue. So, you know, we might have got 80 submissions around a similar issue and there's been a change made in response to that. So, table 2 is very clear about where the submission has resulted in a change and where the submission hasn't resulted in a change. In terms of the exact numbers, I couldn't give you that, Jess. I'd have to go through and count them. Jessica Phillips 19:28.623
Well, I tried to count them, just given that I went through each one and then highlighted where we changed and where we didn't. And I don't want to quote this number because it might not be right. I was hoping you would, but I had 18 changes. So I guess my follow-up question to that is, would it be common out of 470.475 submissions that we would only make such a small change from the community's voice? Kim Rawlings 19:54.828
Yeah, like I just said, we had about, you know, on some issues, 18 issues resulting in changes. It's fairly substantial changes. It's not like there's just 18 changes. There's a group of changes. So there's a number of changes through the scheme. And we may have had 80 submissions on one of those change. So 80 submissions could have resulted in one change. So it's not accurate to we've say made 18 changes in response to 18 submissions. We've made 18 changes in response to 450 submissions. Frank Wilkie 20:28.689
Just to clarify, that's because there are similar themes that arise through the 400 submissions. That's exactly right. Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 20:40.254
Just in terms of the attachment with the list of submissions, I might have missed it but that was the first time that came to my attention. Was it the first time that the Councillors were privy to the submissions? The 136-page submission. Kim Rawlings 21:03.080
Yes, as a consolidated lot, yes, that is the first time you've had those submissions. Obviously many of you were forward many of the submissions, many of you forwarded us many of the submissions, so you have had some of them, and we also went through the submissions at each of the workshops. Amelia Lorentson 21:21.259
And just for clarity, workshops are not decision-making forums, is that correct? Kim Rawlings 21:32.263
Yeah, that's absolutely correct, yeah. Amelia Lorentson 21:36.944
And again, for clarity, and only because this is always brought up in community where councils have workshops and there's an implication that we. The reports that come in front of us are endorsed by us. The level of detail that is in front of us today, that often gets provided in the reports, is that correct? Kim Rawlings 21:59.907
The reports do often contain a lot more detail because they've got a lot more attachments things. I never, yeah, I absolutely have not even suggested or meant to infer that are decision-making, they are not, but what they are is an opportunity to take you through the range of issues that have come up, take you through the issues that have come up through submissions, put a range of options and workshop them, which is exactly what we did. Frank Wilkie 22:35.140
Any further questions? Anyone who wants to speak to the motion, move the amendment? Councillor Wilson. Nicola Wilson 22:42.955
Can I move a procedural amendment to defer the matter? Frank Wilkie 22:46.030
You can. Thank you. Seconder for that please? Councillor I'll second. Phillips, Councillor Councillor Phillips? Councillor Wilson, you have four. Nicola Wilson 23:16.062
Thank you. Our standing order is 4.2. State that agendas should be made available to Councillors as early as practical to allow Councillors sufficient time to consider items on the agenda. When we had the workshops, our final workshops on this matter, I did request that we get more than two days to be able to read the report and time I had no idea how extensive that report would be. We have worked through workshops on summaries of the submissions and the issues and the proposed recommendations but this was the first time we actually got to submissions in detail and I feel like I'm not able to do my duty as a Councillor without being able to read those more thoroughly. So I've spent a lot of time the last two days reading those submissions but I'm still not sure I can really. Hand on heart say whether all of those submissions have been addressed in the report and therefore whether I agree with some of the recommendations made I have made raised concerns before about having special meetings and not only having two days notice and partly because Councillors do have other commitments in the diary and that makes it very difficult to actually drop everything and read 167 pages thoroughly and really understand them so yeah I really feel like I'm not doing my due diligence as a Councillor if we to vote on these matters today. Frank Wilkie 24:43.458
Councillor Stockwell. Brian Stockwell 24:44.700
I'll give the alternative view. Is in reading the report and looking at the attachments I have no new information that I didn't receive as part of the fifteen hours of workshops. The staff have accurately portrayed verbally what the key issues are. The staff have clearly articulated what the issues raised in the 457 submissions were, in a clear and concise way. The report is clearly set out as to what are the substantive changes from that which was advertised, and the reasons for it. As a Councillor, we sit here as a board making strategic decisions. I'm of complete faith in the strategic planning team that they have accurately and fairly assessed more submissions as a result of the community's input which has been stated was extensive opportunity. There is nothing in this report or the attachments that are at variance to what has been verbally advised to Councillors in the several workshops and nothing in terms of what has been recommended change that has come as a surprise. What this vote will come down to is clear, some Councillors have identified just a few issues they would like to see a different approach. That's what we should be discussing today. The need to read every word of the large submissions table is a choice you make. The ability to assess that, to rapidly look at those submissions, to check what the applicant or the submitter has said and to look at what the response and to see if that's consistent with what's in the report is something that didn't take me many hours. It's something perhaps I've got a fair bit of experience that I could do within a reasonable timeframe since this agenda came out. I believe as staff have said we've had an extended period and now we're looking at what are the key changes as a result of submissions and I think that something that should be we should take time today in analysing and determine at the end of the proceedings whether it is necessary to defer because from my understanding think the most Councillors around the table are very clear about what they do and don't support I. Frank Wilkie 27:20.042
A technical question if this procedural motion lapses are we able to and we have a an open discussion and all questions are asked and information can be shared at this opportunity is there an opportunity to move another procedural motion to the third at the end rather than the start this okay so I'll speak to this motion of the stage I think for us to shut the meeting down now and move it to another date before all Councillors had an opportunity to ask all the questions they want to ask in an open forum with a gallery and live audience I think it's a missed opportunity and it's akin to gagging debate and it will be a missed opportunity so if at the end of today's session there is still appetite for deferring I think that would be the session there is still appetite for deferring time to move a deferral motion so at this point I'm not willing to support this procedural motion. Yeah. Tom Wegener 28:30.220
This yeah this was the plan today that's my understanding was to go through we have our fantastic staff here today we got plenty of time let's just go through ask our questions before the deferral we all have some questions to ask let's just move through this let's take advantage of this opportunity instead of just deferring it for a few days. Amelia Lorentson 28:50.436
I Councillor Lorentson. Also agree we've already flagged that there will be deferral motion up for debate at the end of the meeting again I think let's not waste you know it's a really good opportunity to discuss and understand better the decisions that we postponing for next week to make this is an opportunity I think we need. Frank Wilkie 29:21.989
All any other Councillors wish to speak to the motion? Karen Finzel 29:26.470
Just to clarify is there an opportunity to suspend the Standing Orders while we do the discussion and the questions? Is that a lead? Frank Wilkie 29:37.481
Okay. Just in answer to your question Councillor Finzel, Standing Orders allow questions to be asked as part of the formal debate as. Well. Any number of questions that you have, you're free to ask. Karen Finzel 29:50.254
Thank you Mr Mayor, just seeking clarification on the process. Frank Wilkie 29:53.237
Thank you. Any other Councillors wish to speak to Councillor this procedural motion? Councillor Wilson, do you wish to close? Nicola Wilson 30:06.494
Yes. The reason I raise it now is it seemed like we were about to start putting through amended motions and things. And I didn't feel equipped for that part of the debate at this point, and so I'm still seeking time to actually keep on reading the submissions that we've had, and therefore I've questions answered by email satisfactorily, but I don't necessarily see the benefit of having questions through a debate when there's still information that I'm trying to read and absorb. Frank Wilkie 30:42.493
I'll put it to the vote. Those in favour of deferring? That's Councillor Wilson. Those against? That's Councillor Finzel, Stockwell, Lorentson, Wegener, Phillips and Wilkie. Notions lost. So we go back to questions or amendments. If any Councillors wish to test amendments. Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 31:05.269
I will. I'll test an amendment. And which one do you have for me? Kabi, thank you. That item C be amended to read C under section 19.1 of the Minister's Guidelines and Rules. I might just read my changes if that's okay. With proposed changes in response to public submissions identified as 1.1 and attachment 1 should be replaced with the following. To public regards to the Noosa Junction precinct, operation of hours definition and of amplified music. Should be so proposed changes response to public submissions identified as 1.1 and attachment to, be replaced with the following wording. A, retain the current hours of operations in the hospitality precinct for food and drink outlets until investigation. Have been undertaken into suitable precinct management frameworks as per the notice of motion endorsed by Council on October 2024. B, no amplified music is to be considered on site indoor /outdoor beyond 9pm unless treated acoustically until to appropriate investigations into precinct management framework are complete and see once these investigations have been completed, consider any recommendation including changing operating hours for food and drink outlets in the Noosa Junction Hospitality Precinct as part of a future Planning Scheme amendment to the Noosa Plan 2020. Unidentified Speaker 32:44.163
Is it supposed to have the word no employment? Is it not to be located in the hall? No, no, no. Frank Wilkie 32:51.283
Okay, we have a seconder for Councillor Lorentson's amendment, please. Councillor Phillips, Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 33:01.243
The proposed planning amendments have caused some concerns. Some concern across the Shire. I just think what I've put in front of us is a more balanced approach that considers both the interests of residents and business owners. Residents have come, made deputations, submitted feedback and have expressed concerns about potential noise and disturbance. From extended operating hours of food and drink. Maintaining the status quo until or allowing time for thorough investigations or insuitable management frameworks I believe is the better forum to address these, the possibility of extending the hours. I think we need to really understand the real impact of the proposed changes. That needs to be fully understood. And there's lots of we need to understand. I think I sort of started when I read this. I needed to understand where's the data? What are the implications? If we do extend the hours, what does in terms that mean in terms of how many more restaurants? Part and of my research, I, discovered that a lot of these businesses have interchangeable use rights. Important part of the business. Interchangeable use rights mean that you can have an adult shop or an office or a health care service that can vary the business types at any time. And what I was concerned with if we allowed operating hours 'til midnight, does that mean that we may have health care services open 'til midnight? We may have adult shops open 'til midnight? So I really wanted the opportunity to unpack that. Also the opportunity to unpack that. Also in terms of the amplified music, that also raised a bit of concern with some of the small businesses. In specifically the requirement that the sites have got to be acoustically treated to appropriate levels. Again, my amendment requests deferral and to revisit and to revisit this. When we look into investigating precinct management frameworks. I believe that we've not adequately consulted with the small business owners, particularly with this part C, sorry part B, in terms of acoustically treated levels. I think including a provision like this without thorough consultation may present, you know, sort of onerous requirements on small businesses. I just think that we risk just causing a bit of division in the community and creating just angst amongst the business, small business owners. Small businesses need our support and I think that support must include a thoughtful understanding of how these sorts of conditions can impact and potentially jeopardise their operations. So what I urge is a deferral and that we look at this and we talk, consult with stakeholders. Residents and business owners as part of our investigation into precinct management and frameworks. Unknown 36:51.007
Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. Frank Wilkie 36:53.950
Just to move things along, I really appreciate what Councillor Lorentson is trying to do in terms of investigate further what needs to happen down there, but I think deferring just adds to, deferring is going to drag out an inequitable situation that's existing down there that we're trying to address, and add to the confusion. So, currently, the inequity we're trying to address is that some businesses can operate to midnight, others cannot. This amendment seeks to make it 12 midnight, 7 days a week for all businesses in the junction. Also, it seeks to give some certainty about amplified music down there because the current hours in the current Planning Scheme, they're a little bit ambiguous, hard to understand. Now, if we ratify the amendments today, that does not preclude further investigations being done. There will be some certainty until any changes that need to be done as part of future Planning Scheme amendments to the Noosa Plan 2020 are done. So so, this, if we ratify it today, we can have some certainty, address an inequity, we can do the investigation and make any future changes that come out of that investigation so I'm not supporting this. Amendment because I believe it today, will we can have some an inequity certainty, and confusion address inequity, we continue to exist in the junction and it can doesn't stop future investigations taking place and future Planning Scheme amendments. Brian Stockwell 38:25.548
I just have a question. There was some changing in what was on the screen and the whole motion wasn't read out. And I suppose it has to be to staff because I know you assisted it. The item refers to the proposed changes in response to public submissions identified as 1.1 in attachment 2. Item 1, there is a 1.1, a 1.2, a 1.3 and a 1.4. The way Councillor Councillor Lorentson was speaking, I presumed that she was thinking that items 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 are also being amended, but that's not how the motion reads. Can you clarify, please? Kim Rawlings 39:13.382
Yeah, that Council Stockwell, you're correct. That is what the intention of what Councillor Lorentson was hoping to achieve, is my understanding, Councillor Lorentson? Yeah. So that would need to capture in a.2, 1.3. Unidentified Speaker 39:36.293
Just that, 1.2, 1.3, thank you. Brian Stockwell 39:42.233
The Council has to be happy with that thing. Frank Wilkie 39:45.053
You're happy with those changes, Councillor Lorentson? Thank you very much, yes. Brian Stockwell 39:47.933
No, the whole Council is happy with the Standing Orders. Frank Wilkie 39:51.093
All right. All Councillors happy with that technical amendment to make it more accurate and correct? Brian Stockwell 40:00.553
I don't think it's. Frank Wilkie 40:02.526
Agree. Just in consensus? Jessica Phillips 40:05.671
I'd like to seek some clarification maybe, Chair, just when I think about the junction precinct, I feel like there's two elements to that. The amplified music and then it's the trading. Frank Wilkie 40:20.343
Councillor Phillips, are you addressing the question about changing the amendment to 1.1, 1.2, 1.3? Jessica Phillips 40:29.343
It probably will relate to that because I want clarification around whether this amendment will seek to bring, let me get there. The question is around the current proposed amendment. To bring everyone on par with the music. Does Councillor Lorentson. It's probably a question to you. Does this bring the music, amplified music, on par. This to address that every site should be on an equitable playing field? Can I clarify? The music and the hours of operation are two separate things. Can you clearly tell me how this motion defines the two, please? Kim Rawlings 41:18.705
So that Councillor Lorentson is seeking to address two things. One is the hours of operation, which is the level playing field that about and then two is how amplified music is treated going forward in the junction. This motion seeks to pick out both of those, there's two separate amendments in the Planning Scheme. And defer them until precinct wide management considerations are done and that both of those things, hours of operation and how amplified music is treated. Unidentified Speaker 41:54.158
Are dealt with at a later stage. Okay, thank you for clarifying that. Frank Wilkie 41:59.305
Are you comfortable with 1.1, 1.2, 1.3? Jessica Phillips 42:02.044
I am, yes. Thank you for the clarity. Frank Wilkie 42:03.984
Councillor Finzel. Karen Finzel 42:04.964
Yes, thank you. Just for clarification around the process, and I guess it's a question, I guess, through the Chair to the CEO, it could be staff. In our readings, it says any change to the extent the hospitality precinct would be considered a significant change and require further public notification, and therefore cannot be considered as part of this amendment process. I'm just concerned. Like where Councillor Lorentson's going with this, to get clarity on a complex issue, which would also include going back to community consultation, and we need to do that in a meaningful manner. So is this part of the process that we should be, like, debating this matter today, or is it too significant and it should be deferred to another time? Kim Rawlings 43:00.659
Thanks for the question. Good Just for clarification, the reference to the change to the hospitality precinct being a significant change was about a submission that requested an extension of the boundary of the hospitality precinct to be included in the hospitality precinct. That was considered a significant change. So it actually refers to a different issue. Councillor Finzel? Thank you. Councillor Stockwell? Brian Stockwell 43:28.140
Further clarification in summary table 2. We have, as I mentioned before, 1.1 to 1.4. On the left hand column it says introduce a new definition of amplified music. To enable application of the same provisions as live music to amplified music. Does this amendment, in your opinion, affect whether that definition goes in or not? Kim Rawlings 43:57.265
No, I don't think so. I think it's still necessary to have clarity around the definition. Brian Stockwell 44:03.965
So just to carry that, the omnibus recommendation would still cover that definition? It's not mentioned on the right hand column, so I'm wondering if it is picked up as a part of the recommendation. Michelle 44:19.364
Is it existing? Anita Lakeland 44:21.433
No, no, it new, has it's changed. New. Yeah. It's yeah not it's not listed in column, the right hand column, because there is no proposed change to what was proposed, which is a definition for amplified. That's why it's not listed. Brian Stockwell 44:37.524
That was in the amendments that went out to the public. Yes. Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 44:42.172
That Councillor Lorentson. So just a question. So if this amendment doesn't go through, my question is, what are the implications if we do we allow do businesses to operate till midnight, understanding that a lot of these businesses have interchangeable use rights? And can I first ask two questions? Can you what interchangeable use rights are and whether what I said earlier you know an office or a café that's operating today could its potentially essentially change its use to a an office at an adult child health service store without my understanding is they don't need to come to Council for approval that interchangeable use right allows them to do it and provide flexibility and I think that's great but I again I think it's important that we understand the economic social implications of excuse me so my question is you can you give me numbers? How many businesses are we going to see in the next four years or the next 12 months that are going to be operating till midnight? Kim Rawlings 45:58.804
I'm going to go to your previous question first around what to it means to be interchange business uses in a centre zone. In the Noosa Plan 2020 we made a substantial shift to enable flexibility for businesses in centres to be able to change, you know, over time, change tendencies. So if you originally opened up an office and then over time wanted to change that to a café, you could do that without needing to apply to Council again. In terms of hours of operation, that the specifically relates to food and drink. So it doesn't relate to hours of operation to a adult shop or a health food shop or an office. So the hours of operation don't carry over if you change use. This is specifically to food and drink. Just also I'm harking back to another question that was. In what you talked about. In terms of what it actually means to change the hours and Michelle can I ask you to talk to that and then I'll loop back to the question of numbers if it's still needed. Michelle 47:10.367
So through the Chair so with the interchangeable use obviously they don't come to Council but they do need to it's called accepted development subject to requirements and there's specific requirements set out in the table of assessment in the Planning Scheme and they're acceptable outcome provisions and they still have to comply with those acceptable outcomes in the Planning Scheme so it's not just changing and then they can do what they want to they really still need to comply with those acceptable outcomes in the Planning Scheme operation hours is one of those acceptable outcomes so if they wanted to change from an office to a food and drink and they comply with all those AOs in the Planning Scheme they don't need to come to Council and one of those AOs would be that new change to operation so they could operate till midnight seven days a week but obviously they need to comply with provisions in the Planning Scheme under that AO around those noise conditions. Amelia Lorentson 48:11.252
Thank you that's great explanation. Brian Stockwell 48:12.598
Sorry, one more point of clarification, I think it's the last one. 1.3 which is now being deleted. In terms of the submission recommendation read: amend amplified music provisions to apply to inside and outside the venue unless acoustically treated in appropriate levels. Can you explain to me what not including that in this amendment does in terms of any loopholes we're trying to address? What was the reason that amendment was put through and what would be the implications of the change? Michelle 48:47.201
Through the Chair, that change would allow currently under the Planning Scheme the operational hours for amplified live music only apply to outside a venue and not inside so this was ensuring that both inside and outside the venue that operational would apply. Brian Stockwell 49:05.507
Just follow up. So the problem being addressed is the noise nuisance and that noise nuisance can come just as much from inside as it was open and could be treated as a canton on the outdoor dining area. Is that what correct, yes. Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 49:24.502
Can I ask have the property owners, those that do have live music inside their premises, are they aware of this change? Michelle 49:37.661
So this change was advertised? Oh, that wasn't advertised, no, so it would be an amendment, but currently the noise issues are obviously through liquor licensing and gaming, and they're the compliance authority, so in terms of the provision, they still need to comply with the liquor licensing approvals today, so we're just saying that they need to comply to the liquor licensing rules regardless. We only look at operation hours, so still the noise provision need compliant. They still need to meet those requirements under liquor licensing in terms of noise. Amelia Lorentson 50:18.110
Okay, so is the inclusion then redundant? Do we need it? Michelle 50:25.110
I think through the Chair it just provides more clarity and certainty around what's in the plan. That issue we have with the confusion around liquor licensing and operation hours and where and amplifying music, I think it just provides clarity for people. You know, amplifying noise leaving the site, whether it's inside or outside, needs to comply with the liquor licensing provisions. Amelia Lorentson 50:46.601
Would deferring consideration of these changes to a future Planning Scheme, probably my question is when is the next package of planning amendments? We but go that's an into easy question? One. But that needs to be made clear because, again, I think there's a misunderstanding that we've got to wait four years. The deferment could be until next year. Kim Rawlings 51:14.578
Yeah, look, as Councillors would know, this is a continuous process. We are always updating. Reviewing, maintaining the Planning Scheme. So we already, even though this amendment package is not finished, we've already started the list of the next round of amendment package. So it is a rolling cycle. I can tell you that for the sanity of these fabulous people. We won't be starting that until this one's finished, but it's a roll, you know, it's not another four years away. The process will start next year, but this one's taking three years, remember. Amelia Lorentson 51:54.929
In terms of the notified motion, Kim, so we've endorsed through Council notification, notified motions to investigate precinct management frameworks and we've had, actually done quite a bit in that the space at the moment, would, in your opinion, would deferring these two matters and bringing them to, you know, a business framework discussion with all stakeholders, residents, business owners, small businesses, impacted residents, not impacted residents, would you consider that to be an appropriate? Forum to tease out or at least understand the implications of what's been suggested? Kim Rawlings 52:42.561
I'm not going to exactly answer your question, but what I will say is there are a couple of things to balance here. Yes, absolutely, looking at a precinct-wide approach for the issues at the junction is a great strategic way to look at the issues and the nature of businesses, noise, impacts, hours of operation, all of that will be part of that consideration. But balancing that, we have got some inequities and not a level playing field that is occurring at the moment for businesses in the junction. The original intent of this amendment was in response to business needs in the junction so these amendments seek to be responsive to that. So deferring them could also have implications to businesses who currently say they can't actually properly function for instance businesses that are lucky enough and popular enough to be running two sittings they can't actually do it functionally within the hours so there are a range of things that need to be considered here about you know which is that which is best approach you know so these amendments would respond to that and given we are there's no certainty around the time frame for this next phase of the process around the precinct management approach. Future amendments in terms of timing I think yeah I'm avoiding the answer because you need to weigh it up. Amelia Lorentson 54:34.638
Can I ask, I think we had an application to Council a few years back one of the restaurants Herbert, excellent restaurant unfortunately no longer their excellent restaurant but at the time they came to Council and requested extended hours can that still be given that even if we endorse the amendments today there is still a process so it still has as you go back to state public interest like there's a process before these are actually ratified and up and running. Kim Rawlings 55:06.223
Yeah there's definitely a process still to go it's got to go back to the State for consideration minister and then back here so there's some months. Richard do you want to talk about the process? Richard MacGillivray 55:17.875
Through the Chair there is obviously a process where anyone can apply to seek a variation or change of use or a change to their conditions obviously that has to be assessed on its individual merits in terms of what scheme of objectives are being sought obviously you know it's in our views better if the scheme is leading what those expectations are as opposed to you know specific sites noting that you've got to look at the wider context as part of that assessment but it doesn't preclude any applicant lodging an application at any time and we'll have to assess that on its merits. Frank Wilkie 55:55.713
If an applicant it's wanted to take that course wouldn't there be money involved whereas if we gave them the certainties for the Planning Scheme as a almost as a right. Richard MacGillivray 56:07.050
Yeah that's correct yeah so that's exactly right. Brian Stockwell 56:11.424
Sorry I did find another what I think was a consequence of the amendment that is something we need to think about and that in 1.2 has similar words to be except in 1.2 it talks about that applying from Sunday through to Thursday so is the if this amendment was to go through it would mean new businesses couldn't only operate at 9:00pm. Seven days a week rather than the current requirements in the current scheme that allows extra operating and noise and music after the hours of 9:00pm. On Friday and Saturday and would that be a reduction in any new business it'd be a diminution of what any other business set up to date would have. Michelle 56:57.101
Um through the Chair the current operation hours for food and drink in the hospitality precinct are till 10pm. Sunday through Thursday and then 12 Friday and Saturday so they would be the operation hours yeah yeah that would be applied. Brian Stockwell 57:15.558
So the answer is yes this amendment A and B actually would reduce they couldn't go to 12pm. Friday and Saturday because it says a name for mine and my music is located on site beyond 9pm. But it doesn't specify any different arrangements for Friday and Saturday night does it? That was. Jessica Phillips 57:36.114
Much pretty much my question. Was at the very start because I was trying to clarify whether this changed the trading hours or the amplified music hours because of that exact I just didn't answer it the way I wanted it to after a late night reading amendment so sorry can I have some clarification around that please that's a big that's a big deal. Amelia Lorentson 57:59.253
That wasn't the intent of the motion there was no intent to reduce the hours so I think that was just little sleep communicating the middle of the night and this is the outcome why a deferral motion and respecting what the Councillor Wilson said before that we really need time to digest but no that's just an error that was supposed to be included. Jessica Phillips 58:31.847
I want to support everything that Councillor Lorentson said I just want clarity around the operation hours in it. That's all I'm asking because I think everything makes sense. Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 58:42.966
Can I ask through the Chair whether Council would make changes, the technical changes to catch up that there is no reduction in amplified music over the weekend, that status quo remains? Thank you. Yeah, thank you. My pleasure. Thank you. We need to get we'll pick up. Frank Wilkie 59:08.025
Councillor Stockwell, Thank you. Brian Stockwell 59:09.945
Are we all happy? The one in turn looks at changing a bit of line, but if that was the intent, we'd better capture it. Amelia Lorentson 59:18.205
Thank you. Karen Finzel 59:29.449
I'm a bit uncertain. I just. Want to make sure to make sure that if we're going to proceed forward with debate and discussion around this, that we do have that wording correct. I do feel a little bit unsettled. I feel it's a little bit like on the hop. I feel personally more comfortable if we, yeah, were. Respecting the proposed changes in response to public submissions, like even with the removal of 1.3 with the amplified music provisions. I'm happy to move forward if people are happy with this wording. I just feel that, like I said, I feel like we're trying to address a broader complex issue around a precinct management framework that I personally feel could be better managed if it was offline and we were actually, you know, really taking. On board what the public submissions have said about this, the complexities that even ourselves here at the table are going. Is that operating hours? Is that amplified music? I just feel personally that we're getting into, you know, real. Policy changes, looking at management precincts, which is a huge body of work, which includes consultation, meaningful process again. So I just want to make sure that if we're going to continue this debate and questions that I'd like to see through the staff that they're comfortable with that wording, that we have worded it correctly to continue the debate reasonably. Can I ask one more question? Anita Lakeland 01:01:08.448
Can I just confirm that the proposed amendments relating to the hospitality precinct in Noosa Junction related to hours of operation and amplified music. I think what this is saying is that we retain the current provisions and we don't move forward with those changes until a precinct must- a precinct approach has been done. I think it might be just one, alternate recommendation which, yeah, is what I'm thinking. Amelia Lorentson 01:01:39.528
That's spot on. It's basically horse fun. Not that this is going to not happen. I believe in equity. So, you know, operations of ours, I would love to see that happen. But I just feel that at the moment, the best course. Okay, so, but I'm responding to the answer. That is the intent, Anita. So, retain the status quo and give further consideration and also opportunity to speak to potentially the affected property owners in terms of the acoustic treatment. And in response to Councillor Finzel, respect what you're saying, but the. Thank you. But what I've proposed is actually a reflection of those very, very many submissions that are made in 136 pages for the adjoining residents that are concerned of impacts. And so I think this is the balanced or more. The balanced approach. It respects feedback from the residents in the surrounding areas and it also respects property owners who I've been notified in the last can 12 I have a comment? Frank Wilkie 01:02:55.158
Thank you. Councillor Finzel. Karen Finzel 01:02:57.421
Yes, a question through the Chair to Councillor Lorentson. Thank you for the clarification and the intent. That's made it much more easier to understand where we're heading. So question, are you prepared to change this with the recommendation from the staff for the wording to make this more succinct to represent your intent? Amelia Lorentson 01:03:21.889
Absolutely happy. Retained status quo and further consideration is the intent. And again, really making clear that future Planning Scheme amendments have already started, so this can be included. Frank Wilkie 01:03:37.446
Just to dispel any confusion that may be occurring here, is the staff's position that the planned amendments about music to 9pm on west acouston street and 12 midnight for all food and drink already responds to business and residence submissions. And this would defer implementation of an amendment that responds to residence and business submissions. Kim Rawlings 01:04:09.520
Staff recommendation is as per the report to proceed. Frank Wilkie 01:04:13.458
And this is saying we would not implement the staff recommendation, we would defer the staff recommendation. Michelle 01:04:21.125
That's correct. Brian Stockwell 01:04:24.465
I speak to the right of you. What we have in front of us now is basically 1.2 and 1.3 just stated in different terms. So the only substantive change that this amendment is 1.1. So the substantive change now is that there is a change to the music requirements so that it's 9pm Sunday to Thursday. What's not changed is the increased operating hours from 10 o'clock to midnight seven days a week. So, that is something that we did get lots of submissions on and I believe a lot of the submissions were based on the thinking that would also allow music to go from 10 to 12:00 'clock. 11:00. So this is one that I hadn't made up my mind whether it's a good thing or a bad thing. The argument is if you have a nice quiet restaurant that's popular they get to trade to midnight which is a. You would want to put them through a large planning process. The reciprocal argument is even if they're acoustically treated if they're getting out and getting in their cars after midnight that does disturb the surrounding residents. So I'm going to listen to the debate. Unidentified Speaker 01:06:04.043
Are you changing your amendment? We've given, there's new words. Amelia Lorentson 01:06:08.762
Oh with the new words that would be great, thank you. Karen Finzel 01:06:11.262
Do we have to say we're all agreeable to that amendment? We did that. Oh we've done that before. Thank you. I'm going to just put them up. Unidentified Speaker 01:06:17.320
Now. Brian Stockwell 01:06:17.584
We're so blind. We couldn't do that. Well I, no I don't think so either. What we couldn't say to no that. No, I don't think so either. Oh, we're going to debate it. So you can move that again, thanks. Yeah. If it's deferred to next week, then move it again. Unidentified Speaker 01:06:34.360
We can just, yeah. So you're voting on this amendment? I'll speak to the amendment. Tom Wegener 01:06:42.698
It seems to be clear that going through the whole process we want to iron out the lumps, the unequal playing field original in the junction. This amendment actually the original amendment, not the motion here, settles that. And I think that moving forward with what Amelia wants to do with the hospitality precinct, well, you can base it actually on a structure of a level playing field. So let's get to the level playing field, exactly what has been asked for by the community for years now. And so that's what the amendment gives us. Just stick with that. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 01:07:20.210
So just to clarify, the amendment you're referring to is the staff. Tom Wegener 01:07:25.416
The staff recommendation. You're not supporting this? No, I'm not supporting this. Is the motion. Frank Wilkie 01:07:31.664
This is the amendment. If not a Planning Scheme. It's an amendment that relates to a Planning Scheme amendment. Question Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 01:07:41.458
Now can I just close if that's alright? Frank Wilkie 01:07:43.780
Perhaps if no other Councillors wish to speak. Yes you may close Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 01:07:49.987
So Councillor Wegener, I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying. What I'm asking is that there is confusion still in what our community in understanding what actually is being proposed. The amendment seeks to. Allow community residents to understand what's actually being proposed. I don't think that been made clear. So not disagreeing with the equal level plan. Playing field. Not at all. I'm saying is can we just put it on post? We have another process underway, an investigation in the precinct management framework where the intent of that is for every stakeholder to sit around the table and to discuss in a community manner the importance of live music, the importance of a good night's sleep and the importance of getting along. I just feel that by not supporting them this motion we're going to be creating division, uncertainty and fear and in terms of small businesses what I'm so concerned with is that I have been notified that businesses am so concerned with is I have been notified that owners are unaware of these changes and we're playing with their business I know that you know it's encapsulated under the liquor and gaming regulations but as it's worded it's if I'm a small business owner I'm thinking isn't the role of Council to support small business and reduce regulation are we and I'm not saying we are but I'm saying are we through our wording actually giving the you know giving them misconception that we're making it hard for businesses to operate, not easier so the amendment is not that it won't happen it's just can we put it on pause look at it as part of the investigation precinct management plan or just look at it as part of a future planning amendment which starts next year it's just putting it on pause for a few months not that it's not going to happen. Frank Wilkie 01:10:00.851
I'll I put the amendment those in favour. Councillor Phillips and Councillor. The amendment those in favour. Councillor Phillips, Councillor Lorentson those against. Councillor Finzel, Stockwell, Wilson, Wegener and we Wilkie. Have any other amendments? Councillor Wegener. Tom Wegener 01:10:22.023
There is. I have my little amendment which is just concerning the we'll find it up here. Concerning the Noosa Business Centre up there. We discussed having the 10 metre you very much. Just looking for it up here. Yeah. That item to be added to item C2 with the exception of the proposed change in response to public submission.5. In addition to attachment to that this proposal change referring to seven to a seven metre landscape buffer along Hofmann Drive be removed from the amendments. And we've discussed this in the various meetings. We'll oh, yes. Get a you signal. Oh, Oh yes. Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Yeah, just Councillor Finzel saw that and said, we don't think that that's actually what came out of the meeting. And so we just want to go back to the original amendment because that that's what we feel is always agreed around the table. Jessica Phillips 01:11:34.301
This might be a bit quick now, I'm just going to show support for this because I also agreed and then that will move this one a little bit quicker. Frank Wilkie 01:11:40.560
Just clarifying the notes, do you mind? No. Tom Wegener 01:11:43.520
In the workshops? Frank Wilkie 01:11:44.160
Oh, not yet, consensus. Yeah and I'll just use my opportunity to speak to say that there was, my recollection was there was, among Councillors, there was a variety of views around the table that we were looking at was the staff recommendation, not, in a sense, the Councillors. I just think it's very important to make that clarification. Brian Stockwell 01:12:12.494
I'll take stop you. The motion. It's a complicated issue that currently relates to an application. There is a diversity of opinions about how to achieve the overall objectives. In area, but because it's subject to appeal, I think the amendment that Council proposes is probably the safest way ahead. In it. Frank Wilkie 01:12:43.794
Else wish to speak to the motion? To the amendment before Councillor Wegener McLeod used to go to this Council. No, thank you. Okay, put the amendment to the vote. Those in favour? That is unanimous. Do we have any more proposed amendments? Amelia Lorentson 01:12:58.528
I have another amendment in relation to medium density residential zones. If I could have that up please. But items 2, 3 and 4 will be added to item 2, the proposed changes in response public submissions identified as 4.1, 3.2 and attachment 2 and be replaced with 4.1 retain the current provisions of Noosa Plan 2020 that allows the dwelling houses accepted development subject to requirements in the medium and high density residences. Residential zones. Is this the correct wording, Kim? I'm unsure if this is the correct wording. Yeah, it is. Yes. Yep. Regardless of lot size, can I have regardless of lot size added to 4.1? Okay, is that again? Yep. Yeah. And three the and 3, the proposed changes in response to public submissions identified as 6.2 and 6.3 in attachment 2 to be replaced with 6.2, retain the current provisions of Noosa Plan 2020. Allows dual occupancy as code assessment in the Noosa medium density residential zones, regardless of loss size. Karen Finzel 01:14:37.041
Can I get a second? Frank Wilkie 01:14:38.261
Seconded by Councillor Wilson. Councillor Lorentson. Set. Amelia Lorentson 01:14:44.292
This particular planning amendments caused widespread concerns across the Shire from Noosa Heads all the way to the hinterland. There was a petition presented to Council with over 600 signatures and multiple deputations. Council highlighting strong community opposition to these changes particularly in the medium density zones. The residents feel that these changes have created confusion and fear and the economic and social impacts they don't believe and I don't believe are fully understood. What has been requested through submissions and deputations is for the status quo to remain that allows single dwellings or duplexes on their land. Regardless of lot size to remain. Residents have expressed and submitted feedback that there was lack of proper notification and they have also expressed that this amendment in particular and I'm quoting, was an erosion of property rights and a threat to Noosa's character, a community character. They strongly oppose the restrictions on rebuilding single dwellings on medium density land, a property right that has been held long in Noosa. Many believe that the changes unfairly shift the responsibility for addressing housing issues onto individual landowners. The residents also make clear that they do support addressing housing supply. They do support diversity and affordability. They just reject an approach that potentially undermines their property rights. So the amendment in front of us reflects what I believe the community are asking for, which is that Council preserve their property rights and achieve a balance by retaining the status quo and still allowing multiple dwellings in medium density as an opt-in and additional right. Frank Wilkie 01:16:56.422
Thank you. Question is quite correct. We did receive a lot of submissions on this. Could you, when there were changes made to the proposed amendments as a result of the submissions, would you please articulate what those proposed changes were in response to the submissions? Anita Lakeland 01:17:13.701
So there were two proposed changes. One was that we recognised that on lots of 500, up to 500 square metres are small and it may be difficult to get a dual occupancy to work on those sites in some instances. So we indicated that all three or more dwellings as well. So the change that we're proposing is that dwelling houses be consistent on lots up to 500 square metres. And inconsistent beyond that. And with regard to dual occupancies on medium density zoned land. The proposal, the proposed amendment was that dual occupancies were inconsistent on lots 600 square metres or greater. The proposed change is that increased to 1000 square metres or greater in recognition that was coupled with our requirements that you had to also have three or more dwellings and recognising that on some of the smaller lots it may not be it may not work from a feasibility perspective so we opened up the flexibility there you can still do three or more dwellings if but it's an opt-in provision allowance basically. The purpose of the medium density zone is to provide for multiple dwellings. Frank Wilkie 01:18:40.686
Just to clarify, if you own a lot, up to a thousand square metres which is sizeable, you can still have a duplex? Correct. You can have more than one? If you have a lot up to 500 square metres in a medium density zone, you can still have a house? Correct. And also in a high density zone, after 500 square metres you can still have a house? Correct. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 01:19:03.895
I have a question about the implications if Councillor Walsh will agree to this amendment. We have targets set for us in terms of buildings in the Noosa, Tewantin, Cooroy, Doonan, Kabi Kabi regional plan. Our Planning Scheme amendments were framed to. Achieve those targets in a way that kept the Noosa character. If this amendment would have been true, that would put a. Dint in our ability to meet the targets. Anita Lakeland 01:19:37.055
So that's correct. We have modelled our dwelling supply based on the highest and best use to be achieved on these lots. The medium and high density zones are specifically to deliver that smaller dwelling. Supply so if these lots were to be underdeveloped for one or even two dwellings, then it would ultimately impact on what we deliver to make that housing supply target. Have to report on that annually to the State. Brian Stockwell 01:20:06.357
I'm going to speak against the amendment. The overarching driver for these amendments is the housing crisis we have. The amendments were framed to achieve an increase in housing choice and housing affordability. It would increase the supply of dwellings in proximity to where employment is so that we can get unit accommodation for key workers. We know from the State facilitated development process that the last government, and I know from the policies of the incoming government, that the issue of providing housing is a high priority. And we know, or we have gained good commitments from the current government as to the to use these scheme amendments in the consideration of state facilitated development, that there is a range of other proposals embedded in the original plan. Proposals that the Local Government doesn't seem to be carrying in its weight. So that the State will come in over the top. One of those proposals, for example, is as the right new collectors throughout the low energy residential zone up to 30 storeys high. So, Councillors, we do have to make our decisions. If we just continue to make decisions so that we can upset people, and most then other levels of then our levels of economic decisions are going to go down. Likely to a greater extent. The changes from what was advertised to what was proposed is a good middle ground. The suggestion that you can't rebuild a house if it's burned down ignores the statutory right of all existing utilities. What the proposals are is for new development, for redevelopment, is that we're not the mikanetsu residential zone into a zone where people build new mansions. We're trying to turn it into a zone that is allocated to achieve the sort of housing that is in considerable demand in Noosa. Fact that one- or two-bedroom units to meet the demand for the majority of our households, which are one or two people, is where we need to address these amendments. This is about creating housing choice. It is about creating housing affordability. Creating a housing crisis. And yes, a change is the same. It doesn't address property rights. Your freehold property rights always relate to what the existing set of laws allow you to do. And the Planning Scheme has always faced certain limits. And Planning Scheme limits always make some changes. This, as proposed by staff, is a good compromise between what's advertised, it meets the objectives, and it is unlikely to make any significant change. To meeting those targets that we are asked to do in the SDG originally. Jessica Phillips 01:23:24.074
A couple of questions. Firstly, I wasn't able to get this information so if I could just ask, how many medium density sites exist under 500 square metres in Noosa? Unidentified Speaker 01:23:49.623
I could find the exact figure but I think it's 30 something from memory. Most of those are at Sunshine Beach. There's a historical subdivision behind where the Sunshine Beach shops are. Very small lots. So most of them are in that area and most of them are already substantially developed with a house on edge. There's a few others, there's a couple at Noosaville, there's a couple around toowongtoow predominantly. Heard on plane. That play there in sosnovich. Jessica Phillips 01:24:28.446
Okay, so then I guess a follow-up question is, if these changes in the proposed amendments fail to incentivise development, then what's the projected economic impact on Council's including revenue, development, income and rates revenue assumptions for our project, is that the still term? Kim Rawlings 01:24:49.111
No, it's not possible to answer that on the spot, but as Rowena said, there's around 30 lots that we're talking about here. But no, that's not possible to provide you that information now. Brian Stockwell 01:25:05.193
30 Lots below 500, there's a large number between 500 and 1,000 which would make the like to do, please. That's all I have to say. Amelia Lorentson 01:25:15.483
Just clarity. The continued allowance of multiple dwellings in medium and high density residential zones is still allowed under this. So this is an additional, it's basically what we're doing for some of the tourist zones. And I referenced, my question is, can I just seek some clarity that what has been proposed is retain the status quo plus the opportunity or the opt-in of building extra multiple buildings. It's not reducing the amount as Councillor Stockwell sort of indicated, it's allowing residents rather than taking away their rights. Brian Stockwell 01:25:58.156
It's not reducing the amount of stock. As Councillor Stockwell sort of indicated, it's allowing residents rather than taking. Frank Wilkie 01:26:06.716
Away get to your point, sorry, what order did you take you it? Can I take get it? Yeah, I'm, willing. I'm, I would, I'm sorry, I'm not what actually asking Councillor Lorentson, so could you please just ask a question and answer. Amelia Lorentson 01:26:21.030
Thank you. Through the Chair, can I also address the tone of voice of Councillor Stockwell? I would like him to understand that his tone causes stress amongst gallery. Right way to people and also amongst Councillors, and I request that he speaks respectfully to staff, Councillors and respect the people in the gallery. Frank Wilkie 01:26:46.265
The point of order was asking a question, not debating, so if you could stick to that. I have acknowledged acknowledgement you of that first, please, and then, Councillor Stockwell, did you mind following your tone? Brian Stockwell 01:27:03.773
Yes, certainly, I apologise, I did get that. I did note that the Standing Orders were reached, and in the point of order, it is appropriate for a Councillor to sit down while they're pointing to orders. A Councillor didn't wish further offence at any Standing Orders. So, as long as all Councillors have identified Standing Orders, then I will never keep my orders in the fire, and I'll say nothing of those things until I get. Frank Wilkie 01:27:25.405
Back to my office. Thank you. Council note, could you ask your question? Amelia Lorentson 01:27:29.208
I will. But, Keith, can I ask if you could just clarify that what's being proposed is an addition, not an erosion of existing property rights. Kim Rawlings 01:27:44.761
What's being proposed by the amendment is not an addition, it's reverted the status quo. What currently exists in the Noosa Plan. So it's not adding anything, or changing anything, it's reverting to the existing provisions. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 01:28:02.645
I'd like to ask a question. During Councillor Stockwell's comments, speech, he referred to the SEQ planning process. And he mentioned that there were intentions to introduce, the proposal to introduce, two level two practices in medium density, sorry, in residential, low density residential levels, if we argue our planning targets. Could you, just sort of expand um, on. Expand on that in relation to what your experience with the State planners are and what pressure they are putting Noosa Council under and what the community may face if we don't make our zone work as intended. Kim Rawlings 01:29:00.593
Yes, we have been working with the State government for a long time around regional planning. As you know, a new regional plan was. A for reviewed regional plan was developed last year. A major component of that regional plan was about housing supply, diversity and delivery. That was really the key driver of that. And there was lots of. To-and-throwing and lots of pressure put on local governments to take more growth. And Noosa is not immune to that. We were required to take our fair share and to demonstrate that we were able to meet the dwelling targets. And we had to do that in comprehensive a way. Comprehensive and rigorous way. We had to submit a raft of information including a Housing Supply Statement to demonstrate that. As Anita had said those dwelling targets then form a process of where we're monitored against those dwelling targets. They are the things that we are monitored against and you know it was very important for this Council and the work that we did that we were able to meet dwelling targets in a manner that was appropriate and of scale intensity to Noosa. To lifestyle, to character, and to how our community expects our Shire to develop. So we were very careful and considerate in how we could meet the dwelling targets that worked with the zones we had and use the zones that we have the way they're intended to be used for medium and high density housing. We have some of those zones that are not utilised to their full extent and that's okay, but over time we are going to need those zones to meet what they're intended if we are going to meet our dwelling targets. We were able to satisfy the government of the day that we had made enough changes. These amendments were part of satisfying the government of the day that we could meet dwelling targets but there's no doubt that we have been given indications that there will be future pressures. This new government has already made the statement that they will be reviewing the regional plan. That will happen in the next two years. So there will be more pressure to take I have no doubt. We need to continue to be able to demonstrate that our Planning Scheme, in all its provisions, encourage the best, most efficient utilisation of the zones in a manner that is appropriate and considers Noosa design, Noosa character, Noosa lifestyle. Frank Wilkie 01:32:17.936
And just further to that, what were some of the proposed solutions by the State planers that could take place with no density residential neighbours? Kim Rawlings 01:32:28.695
Yes, there was a proposal. There's a range of things put on the table, local governments were given the opportunity to either make, do a local response or there would be a state response. One of the State responses was that they would allow dual occupancy to occur in all low density, potentially up to three storeys. As a bit of a one size fits-all approach um obviously like the local governments, not just us, but many objected to that approach and said let us demonstrate that we can actually cater to the dwelling targets but within a manner that works for our community and is responsive to local needs and expectations. So to date, we've been able to do that. Again, these amendments are important in that demonstration. Um yeah, you know, those are the sorts of things we'll need to face in the come 12 months, 24 months. Frank Wilkie 01:33:32.658
Just to clarify, you also mentioned that if these amendments are passed regarding the median list and high list of residential zones, residents that own a house in those zones. If it burns down when you place it, they can build like for or they can build something larger under a superseded planning scheme, apply under a superseded planning scheme. If it's up to 500 square metres, they to 1,000 square metres, they can build a house, or a house, and up to 1,000 square metres, under these. Use 5,000 metres, they can still have a cheap house. Nicola Wilson 01:34:07.705
That's correct. Thank you. Can I ask a question, please? I believe, or understand that in this round, we are actually upzoning any lots to meeting density. Is that correct? Unidentified Speaker 01:34:22.437
Or not very much? There's a few. There's a couple of sites in Cooroy, which are already. Some of them are already used as a duplex, so it's community housing. And there's a strip in Ben laxton drive, Sunshine Beach, which is going from low density to medium density, but they're the only ones. Nicola Wilson 01:34:47.194
In the original 2020 plan, I believe there was a more significant uproar in the community against T-Pain. Would you be able to give me an idea of what's happening with T-Pain? Unidentified Speaker 01:35:02.021
I couldn't give you a number at the moment. In 2020, we had a whole suite of new zones, so we had to do a translation of what the 2020 Planning Scheme zones were, because with legislation we were given a suite of zones that we had to use. We could only choose from these, and we had to translate. Kerri Contini 01:35:30.804
From what the zones were to what the new zone would be at. Unidentified Speaker 01:35:35.627
That time there was sort of a default position that you know certain zones would translate to that default. If anything was not of the default position then obviously. Kerri Contini 01:35:52.054
We did consultation with the owners at the time as well. Sorry I couldn't give you a number. Unidentified Speaker 01:35:59.556
But more significant. But that's still not over by me. Jessica Phillips 01:36:07.669
Thank you Tom. I will just give some context before I ask my question. So I will get to my question but when I talk about the submissions there's themes and the themes are around. Don't think anyone does understand the impact of growth in the State giving us those numbers but the one common thing that I tend to see and I would like maybe answered is how do we respond to the many property owners that feel that their land will be devalued in this process if it is pushed over. Kim Rawlings 01:36:50.856
Thank you. Want to click? Do you want me to? Go ahead. Look, it's, you know, it's an issue that is often put on the table when you make changes in a Planning Scheme. You know, in the past we've made changes to the Planning Scheme and the issue of property values has been a concern. Unidentified Speaker 01:37:22.407
Concern as times as time has gone on, the concerns haven't played out, haven't impacted property values in the way that people might have thought they would. We have, as part of these amendments, we have tested feasibilities. Frank Wilkie 01:37:41.406
You know, tested feasibilities, you know, what's being proposed is they've been tested. Kim Rawlings 01:37:49.536
So, you know, against contemporary market rates. So, you know, what I would say is that, you know, that's the process both that we've experienced in the past, and that's the process that we've, you know, undertaken. Of in terms the changes that we're recommending in response to those sorts of concerns. There were concerns about, you know, feasibility and things like that, and we did work to test those to make sure. And, you know, there's been quite a bit of a shift from what was advertised, you know, to now what's allowable. You know, the other thing I would say there is that are existing use rights. People, you know, have existing use rights. There is also a process of superseded Planning Scheme, so if any change is made to any Planning Scheme, anyone has the opportunity to apply under the previous scheme. Unknown 01:38:43.080
Good job, guys. But, yeah, that's the route of explanation. Thank you. Tom Wegener 01:38:50.707
I'll speak to the motion. I think that this. Think that this is really the heart of all of the Planning Scheme amendments, this is the key issue, and I want to support the staff amendment. And this is not something I would have voted for when I first became a Councillor five years ago. I would have thought, no, this is a heavy hand of government changing things, you know. And since being a Councillor, we've gone through this whole understanding of what planning is and how planning looks to the future. What do we want Noosa want Noosa to look like in the distant future? And coming from, you know, I live lots of different places in america where you have your mansions along the shore and then you go back a few blocks and you have where the people live and that's not the vision that I have for New Zealand I don't think that's the Australian vision of course that is the vision when you go to the east Coast of the united states so I see that this is this taking is control of the vision for where Noosa is what we want it to look like the Noosa that we want for the future and but of course there's I completely understand the people that oppose the amendment and I'm probably gonna lose some friends over it because they're gonna say my gosh what you've done I've always wanted a big place right on the river but now that when they buy the land they're not gonna be able to do that you'll tear it up house it down they're gonna be limited in there the future which is the vision for the news of that the majority want I say I my was really educated through the Short-term Accommodation Monitoring Report and the Housing Strategy and listening to and watching the questions go out having the community come back twice and say this is the vision of future that the future vision of Noosa that we have and that's very consistent with the amendment. Yeah so that's it this is actually the moment you guys this is it we know what it is we've been talking about it for a very long time we need to stand up for this and yes some people will it believe that they that it's not that's not good for them in the short-term pocket but this is where we stand up for the Noosa that we envision and then leaning on what the State wants us to do as well I mean my gosh that this that's a whole other issue that we're dealing with but I think that fundamentally we look at the Noosa that we want to live in. Nicola Wilson 01:41:23.112
Know we need housing solutions and I'm very aware of the dwelling targets in the SEQ plan I don't believe it's individual residents and property owners responsibility to facilitate the dwelling targets of the SEQ plan. We have people who bought houses in the medium density zone at a time when a single dwelling was consistent in that zone. We've had people rezoned in 2020 into medium density residential zones. At the time a single house was consistent in that zone. I don't believe it's fair to take away that right to increase or redevelop the size of their family home. I would ask Councillors not to make loaded comments like Mac mentioned. If people want to develop their family home then I believe they should have the right to do that. And therefore I support this motion. Thank you. Jessica Phillips 01:42:28.893
I'll speak to the motion in support as well but I probably can't. Trump that because that was exactly my feeling but I'll talk about it from my heart I guess because I've lived here my whole life and I see pioneer families that have sacrificed so much to buy land and they've got this little quaint little house on it and this will devalue. Their retirement and their kids and everything that I stand for in Noosa. So I support the amendment. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 01:42:59.890
Mr. I'll just make a note of the amendment. There is no evidence that this staff proposed amendment will devalue any property. Prices in Noosa have continued to increase despite negative comments after Planning Scheme changes. It will not stop property owners making an application on the superseded Planning Scheme to build a bigger house on the lot that they own. It will not stop them replacing like for on their property. If they own a property that is up to 500 square metres, size, they can still have a house in the medium and high density residential zones. If they have a lot up to 1000 square metres, they can still have a duplex, which I believe is the centre of a very heartfelt letter submission we have submission that we all received. This is a responsible plan. It does not diminish to what we're trying to achieve in the Planning Scheme. It recognises the submissions. I think it's a very good middle ground and I think it's responsible all the way forward. And I believe it will also prevent the State from leaning away on low density residential lots where people might have that house. A lot of single dwelling houses that Councillor Phillips talked about are currently in low density residential zones. Not medium density residential zones. If we don't have these provisions and responsible changes come in, the medium and high density residential zones, then they may not be able to do what they would like to do on the low density residential zones. So I can't support this in a conscious way. I do appreciate and respect the views that have been expressed because they're all my time now. Amelia Lorentson 01:44:52.322
Could I ask a question please? Councillor Wilkie mentioned you can build it like for My understanding that. Is the question, can you clarify if there was to be a significant change in the size and scale of the previous dwelling, would that trigger an impact assessable development approval, an MCU? So it's not as. My question is, it as simple as locking down a house and rebuilding? Frank Wilkie 01:45:22.995
Rebuilding just to clarify I did say you can replace that like the but if want you wanted to produce something larger, it would be an application on the superseded Planning Scheme. That's what I said. Kim Rawlings 01:45:37.343
Sorry, can you just. Amelia Lorentson 01:45:39.805
My question is, would an application under a superseded Planning Scheme require a Material Change of Use application? Richard MacGillivray 01:45:46.932
Yes. So a request under the superseded is a request to apply under the current Planning Scheme. So if it complied with the current provisions, no Material Change of Use development application would be required if it was a superseded request. Unidentified Speaker 01:46:07.096
If it complied with the scheme provisions, you'd still need to apply under the superseded Planning Scheme. Does that make sense? Nicola Wilson 01:46:17.517
Can I ask a question on that please too? Just to clarify that channel of opportunity is only for 12 months. Richard MacGillivray 01:46:26.200
That is correct. It's a 12-month provision that applies for all to succeed, if that makes sense. Frank Wilkie 01:46:37.615
Question to staff. Is it true that the vast majority of single drawings are in the latest in Noosa national zone, and we're looking at a small proportion worked a small portion the of single medium drawings, hundreds of years. Unidentified Speaker 01:46:47.567
That the vast majority of single drawings are in the latest yeah, obviously the vast majority of land in Noosa Shire is in a zone is in either the rural zone, the rural residential zone, or the low density housing residential zone. That accounts for probably 80-90% of the Shire. All of those zones allow dwelling house for a dwelling house as accepted development. Um, let me, there are. Hundreds of properties in the medium density residential zone, not thousands, but hundreds, there's 639 of them are less than a thousand square metres. Frank Wilkie 01:47:41.032
So they can have duplexes? Unidentified Speaker 01:47:42.245
And only 165 are above a thousand square metres and many of those are actually owned by the State. Frank Wilkie 01:47:54.185
We're talking about a minimum of people then on the property that's been affected. Before Councillor Lorentson closes, is there anyone else who would like to speak to the motion? Councillor Lorentson would you like to close? Amelia Lorentson 01:48:13.422
Just to address a couple of things that have just been raised. Our vision for Noosa. I've got a different vision. I don't believe what's been proposed is the vision for Noosa. I think we can work a little bit harder and find housings. Solutions. Or better housing solutions. My vision for Noosa is I look at Noosa Civic and think let's throw the high density over there. Let's leave our low residential, medium residential areas alone. Let's not. Sacrifice community values. Let's not sacrifice character. Let's not potentially devalue property prices. Let's respect and preserve our residents. Let's preserve. Let's do the job that we were paid to do as Councillors, which is preserve our residents' property rights, not erode them. Let's do what we're paid to do, which is to ensure that. To ensure that democratic processes, social inclusion, and that the community agree with the decisions that we make. I understand and I keep saying we're all part of the solution and Council is part of the solution and no one is disputing that. But I just think we need to understand what are the social. Economic impacts of our decisions. We need to unpack that. And what is the cost to our lifestyle and have we had that discussion with our community. And I think unless we're clear with our decision making and clear that we work for. I just think, you know, we're rushing. To make these decisions without proper consideration of the people that we as Councillors were paid to represent. Thank you Councillor. Frank Wilkie 01:50:20.727
I'll put the amendment those in favour. Councillor Wilson, Lawrence and Phillips, those against. Councillor Finzel, Stockwell, Wegener and Wilkie, the amendment's lost. Do we have any other amendments today? Could we have a break? There's been a request for a adjournment, a call to break. All Councillors in favour? Yes. Thank you Councillor. Frank Wilkie 02:05:21.695
Oh. That Councillors would like to test today? Councillor Lorentson? Amelia Lorentson 02:05:32.421
I do want to test one and I'm not sure whether it'll get any support but I want to test it. Can I put a amendment deferred consideration. It's is it a new one? It is. I threw it across and I was going to pull it out but I just like I said I don't not sure if it'll go up but I do want a discussion about this at a minimum. Deferred consideration of rezoning property properties from tourist accommodation to high-density residential until a thorough assessment of the touch on. Unidentified Speaker 02:06:18.337
The same thing like going into where is it going to be like an item under item C. Amelia Lorentson 02:06:24.574
It's in reference to the rezoning is it under item C though like can I ask for support from Kim if you could just help me I just want to play with this one. Unidentified Speaker 02:06:48.608
So she's not adding anything to item C no so it's so issue three there is no issue three that got. Kim Rawlings 02:06:56.136
Lost on here no it's a new one not related not developed so it refers to recommendation C. Unidentified Speaker 02:07:06.110
Item C be amended to C so or. Amelia Lorentson 02:07:14.972
To remove or. To defer consideration to defer consideration of rezoning of rezoning properties from tourist accommodation to high density residential until a thorough assessment of the economic impacts you is conducted. Kim Rawlings 02:07:41.462
Suggest we just add after rezoning properties as identified in item three of attachment two. Unidentified Speaker 02:08:01.798
We're sort of not really saying where it is. This is what I hand don't and speak to this man, please? This is item C at the moment with a number one. Is this going to be a number two under item C? Currently, we've got item C saying that. Yeah. That's- Plus that. Is this to be an item number two under item C? Yes. Okay. Right, that's how item two will be added under item C. Unidentified Speaker 02:08:43.860
Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 02:08:56.675
Okay, so I'll just try and prep it, what have we, where are we going? Kim Rawlings 02:08:59.755
So, Councillor Lorentson, if okay with you, if we could just say defer consideration of rezoning properties from tourist accommodation--- To another zone. Yeah, because we inadvertently pick up other high density zones. Are potentially there. Okay. So you just want to defer any changes to the Tourism Accommodation Zone. Amelia Lorentson 02:09:21.780
Thank you very much. Until? Yeah. And it's an assessment of the economic impacts is conducted. Is that right? Thank you. Hmm. Oh, no, no. I mean, you just need to let that end. Can you second that? Nicola Wilson 02:09:57.987
Can you second what I'm saying? Frank Wilkie 02:10:01.087
Oh, this is it. Ancestors. Until then, this is no. Ancestors. You might want to second this. You can second this one as well. Are we, is that an acceptable, is that clear in its intent? Yep. Okay. Alright, can we have a seconder for this please? Karen Finzel 02:10:29.994
Happy to second for the debate. Frank Wilkie 02:10:31.954
Thank you Councillor Finzel. Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 02:10:35.234
I'm denied and I'm denied about this one, but we talk about, you know, what keeps us up at night. The implications of the decisions that we're making today, if it's deferred next week, that's what kept me up all night, I've had very little sleep. So every decision we make, Councillors, have short-term, medium term and long term implications. Every Planning Scheme change has those implications. I'm concerned about is have we properly understood the impacts that in particular this rezoning change is going to have on resort managers, on local businesses. You know, what keeps up at night. We make these changes. Have we, in essence, with the stroke of a pen rendered management rights of resort owners worthless? Have we disrupted the livelihoods of our residents and operations? What are the unintended flow on effects of these decisions? What does it mean to a business operator that owns, you know, boat operations or a restaurant owner or coffee owner? Have we fully understood the economic impacts of these decisions? And I don't believe we have. We keep talking about, you know, economic and social impacts of the decisions that we make. We need to understand these. A lot of these properties that are being transferred or proposed should be transferred from tourist accommodation zoning to high density residential zonings. A lot of them are resorts. Are purpose built to accommodate visitors. This is where we want our visitors to stay. So again, what impact does this decision have? What are the consequences of this decision for our tourism industry, our economy and our community, our small business owners who are our residents. What I'm asking is that we properly understand the economic impacts of these decisions before we proceed with any sort of zoning changes? What we're putting at risk is economic stability of our economy and again potentially undermining or inadvertently destroying small businesses. People own management rights. All the guys that hire out jet skis, boat operators, restaurant owners. I just think we need to just be really, really considered and know what we're signing off on. Brian Stockwell 02:13:49.137
I have a question. It is my understanding that the vast majority of all the properties proposed to go from Tourism Accommodation Zone back to a residential zone were those properties that were zoned tourist accommodation only four years ago in the 2020 scheme, that all those properties subject to that change had pre-existing use rights, that there's been no development in that zone in those locations in the last four years, so changing it back to a residential zone will have absolutely no impact on the pre-existing use rights. Was that a question or were you speaking. Not to ask that question. It have absolutely no no use? Anita Lakeland 02:14:31.176
Just in response to that, not all properties were previously in a residential zone that are proposed to go in a Tourism Accommodation Zone. So under the previous 2006 somewhere. So that's not entirely correct. Brian Stockwell 02:14:46.898
So just a clarification I believe the motion is targeting those that were in a residential zone went to the tourism accommodation zone in 2020 and are now proposed to go back to a residential zone rather than the other way around. Anita Lakeland 02:15:00.853
So the proposed amendments aren't purely changing it to a residential zone some of the changes are actually going to a centre zone as well so so under the previous scheme some of them you're correct were in a residential zone that moved into a Tourism Accommodation Zone some were yeah yeah and some are going back but that's not the case in all sites so yeah so doesn't impact existing use rights existing approvals they can continue so it doesn't retrospectively say you can't undertake short-term accommodation or visitor accommodation at all this is about future development of those sites should they redevelop in the future. Jessica Phillips 02:15:47.565
To Councillor Stockwell though for the past four years yeah my question is could the reason why they haven't redeveloped because we've just had a huge cost of living increasing materials less trades like would that be the reason why redevelopment hasn't occurred in the last four years. Kim Rawlings 02:16:10.929
Of these sites I'm these sites unlikely then, you know, many they're of these sites will continue as they are for decades and not redevelop so it's not like we I can't think of any that would probably have developed and redeveloped it or are due for redevelopment in the last four years so I think that's probably this is about very much about the future that if and when these sites redevelop that we are preferring residential outcomes because we need to continue to provide housing for permanent residents. It is not at all retrospective and they also have existing use rights. Amelia Lorentson 02:16:54.452
So clarify sign. So the current zoning already supports mixed use so both short stay in permanent housing. Does that not achieve what we're seeking to achieve which is housing diversity? The question is do we need the rezoning to achieve housing diversity? Anita Lakeland 02:17:23.133
Under the Tourism Accommodation Zone you're correct that multiple dwellings and short-term accommodation are both consistent uses. I guess the intent is that these sites provide an opportunity to deliver permanent housing with we've got a huge extent of land dedicated to short-term accommodation we've got interchangeable use rights that occur from pre-existing approvals from anything built pretty much prior to 2006 so this is about identifying opportunities for housing and the short-term accommodation report and I guess the review of the Tourism Accommodation Zone clearly identified that we have a huge extent of land dedicated to tourist accommodation and a huge extent of our residential zones that also allow for interchangeable use rights so we have enough. Terms of going forward of short-term accommodation opportunities this is about housing security and ensuring that those sites develop for permanent housing and aren't interchangeable so that we lock them in for permanent residents in the future. These sites provide redevelopment opportunities on the whole. Kim Rawlings 02:18:34.510
You'll also recall you know strong kind of demand from the community that we're really clear about how our zones are used so that there's not all we can do it any both anyway in that zone anyway know you we've moving been moving towards getting a lot clearer about residential zones being for residential uses, tourist zones being for tourist uses and tourism you know so this advances that to become clearer about you know where short-term accommodation and tourist accommodation is encouraged. Facilitated you know wanted and it should be able to develop freely you know there and where residential development should occur and that should be protected and managed for residential. You know we are our community have and continue to demand you know clarity and strengthening around both of those aspects. Frank Wilkie 02:19:31.151
Question, can you share a bit about how submissions have including those from the landowners tourist and the accommodation zone have actually prompted some of these proposed changes? Anita Lakeland 02:19:47.433
The proposed changes are specific to so if you like I could go site by So I guess an example is Halse Lodge to Halse Lane. Well that was just a realignment, so I I'll think about another one. An example is 48 Noosa Drive, Noosa Heads, which is the nomads backpackers site, which is 12 individual lots, which is currently in the Tourism Accommodation Zone. Um so under the current, just to give you an idea about, under the current requirements, they could develop each individual lot for a house, single house, under develop the site. They could also develop for, I guess, a resort, visitor accommodation, short-term accommodation. Over the site as well. And multiple dwellings are consistent under the Tourism Accommodation Zone as well. So this site in particular, being a large key site of 12 lots, or one whole lot, its location right in the centre of Noosa Junction. Identified it and with redevelopment potential. It's underdeveloped, it's got an old building on it now. It was identified as for future housing, high density, to deliver all those housing outcomes we want to see in terms of small dwellings, worker accommodation, right on the doorstep of. Bus interchange, all the services, work, the whole lot. So we had submission on that one that both from the tenant as well as a consultant on behalf of the owner that highlighting the importance still of low-cost accommodation to Noosa and that the intent you know of the tenant was that hopefully that the owner would redevelop it for um backpackers like as in re-establish the building and there were suggestions from them about why don't you look at a mix over the sites 12 sites it's a big site um and yeah so the importance of tourism was highlighted in the economy so in response to that given its 12 large sites we're proposing that it continue in a high density residential zone um because under our proposed amendments it will stop houses being built on those individual lots and under utilising. The site and provides the opportunity for bonus provisions for small dwellings there as well but in addition to that allow additional uses of low-cost accommodation in the form of backpackers and motel in response to that highlight the importance of low-cost accommodation to the local economy so we've responded there by you know allowing a mix of uses and greater flexibility over the site. Frank Wilkie 02:22:39.878
Which is what the landowner and the tenant want. Anita Lakeland 02:22:43.909
Um so there was a mix of responses but what was being highlighted was that the tourism component was also important over this site and we've responded to that but also in the context of the bigger picture and outcomes that we want to see in terms of our housing outcomes and the size of the site 12 lots it could be developed under a master plan arrangement where we've suggested that we'll no more than 40 percent of the site should be low-cost accommodation for tourism and the balance of the site we still want a housing outcome over that but leaving it up to the owner of the property or the applicant to come to us and demonstrate how that could be achieved over the site planning process. Frank Wilkie 02:23:30.532
You mentioned that all these changes were ratified in the sign off by the State. When the State is saying that they are okay with these amendments to proceed what consideration do they give to social and economic aspects? Kim Rawlings 02:23:49.713
So there's two state processes which we've moved through the first state process which is state interest check and the State interest check is against state planning policy policies and there's a number of those and also that it meets legislative requirements in terms of process and structure and drafting and there's a raft of state planning policies that needs that the amendments need to meet you know significant ones for this are around liveability planning for growth planning for housing economic development they're probably the key ones around this package of amendments and the State by getting us through the first state interest check endorsed that these amendments align and meet the requirements of the State site planning policy. Brian Stockwell 02:24:46.778
Thank you. Mr. Stockman? I'll speak against the amendment. Are about adopting the change to achieve the housing outcomes and tourism outcomes that we have been planning for since well before 2022.2022.2022 was a housing news assessment we also had a housing the year tourist assessment. Accommodation we also had the STA review. The planning and the scheme sets the future desired vision. The concept that changing the zone affects management rights and existing lawful use is italicised. The what the real economic impact of continuing to defer everything is, we fail to address the crisis in housing, which means we fail to provide businesses with a secure supply of workers. Just this week we had a meeting with one of the Shire's largest employers to look at their sustainability initiatives. But repeatedly what we heard is their biggest challenge is retaining staff, and they talk about how their base level hospitality workers travel an hour to get to work, but they also talk about how their executives for maybe only six to eight weeks because they can't afford to rent. The challenge facing our economy is one about keeping the balance right between permanent residence and tourism. We heard in the report that the estimate is we have a current accommodation for 30,000 visits as we have here now. So if we were to be full house in tourism, there'd be about if we were to be full house tourism, there'd be about a third visitors, two-thirds residents. In-thirds residents. And we know that at the moment, according to Tourism Noosa figures, is sustaining about a third of our gross regional product. Our economy is already supported by about a third of the gross regional product comes from tourism. And the suggestion from staff was we have enough. And I think the suggestion from what we hear in the community is we have too much particularly to attend. When we look at the specific about a changes and I forgot about some of them, but the ones, I think the majority of them were in that translation process from the old zone to the new zone in 2020, we put quite a few hectares of land that previously was both a mix of residential and when we tourism operations into the tourism accommodation zone. A lot of these changes are rectifying what was probably over zell's approach in 2020. And remember that amendment was based on conditions in 2018. The world has changed. We've had COVID, we've had a whole lot of growths in other forms of tourism. This set of amendments is about looking at the long-term form of the Noosaville and Noosa Heads area and Sunshine Beach and saying, "Do we want to have residents who can walk to the river? Or should that all go to tourism uses? Do we want to actually encourage that housing choice at the top end so that perhaps the supply at the lower end can become freed up? Because if you're all we're doing creating the opportunity for tourism accommodation at the top end in the most desirable locations then that has a triple down effect on what's available to our residents. So some of these amendments are about saying this is a great place to live and long term we think these are locations where we should have residents. There will always be a mix of residents and tourism but we're looking at where we're heading. We heard about the nomads and that's a classic case. It is an excellent site for that key worker accommodation and it's big support a substantial redevelopment for the current use of backpackers as well as perhaps other forms of accommodation if those backpackers want to stay for longer than three months and work in Hastings Street. That's what the amendments allow. To list whole of the potential implications of this zoning change that aren't really based in fact is not a plausible argument in my perspective. The decision as councils we make today is where we want our residents in the future. Is the extent of tourism accommodation zone need justified and or is there a need to make it very clear where we want our residents in the future and to zone it. Frank Wilkie 02:29:56.766
Of motion, I'm sorry, against the amendment. Any other chance to speak before or against the amendment? I'll president: speak, I'll against the amendment. This is a retrograde step. As we heard from the staff, before it even gets to this stage it has to pass state interest checks. That takes into account social as well as economic development implications. To defer only adds to confusion and uncertainty, industry and the community needs certainty. This process has already been retracted. Enough. I would be very disappointed if this was supported and we have to engage yet another consultant to do an expensive consultancy to tell us something that we probably already know and get back to this point where we are today. So for those reasons and more I cannot support the amendment. Amelia Lorentson 02:30:57.938
I will and I respect conversation around the table. Like I said I just wanted to tease this out. I'll probably be, like I said, what keeps me up at night. I keep asking, you know, what are we endorsing today and where will we be in four years time? Are we actually going to be delivering more housing to house our residents? Are we actually going to be providing affordable housing or is the. Or are we simply going to be just increasing supply and diversity? Appreciate the conversation around. The table and I'll vote against this as well. Frank Wilkie 02:31:38.127
Thank you. The amendment to vote those in favour, those against. That's unanimous. Now move on. Any other amendments? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Jessica Phillips 02:31:58.161
I really wanted to bring that up. Our Council mapping, could we? Is that possible to do? Which side? Just with my amendment for 247 to 257. It'll be in the report. Anita Lakeland 02:32:12.655
In attachment two. Oh no, there no, was it's not no change. Jessica Phillips 02:32:16.631
I'll read a change. I'll read this while. Frank Wilkie 02:32:29.077
Yeah, I hit them all up last time. Jessica Phillips 02:33:08.140
I'll just start. That item 2, the added item, that C, including an additional proposed change in response to public submissions to attach to as follows, A, 3.12, remove 2.257 Gympie Terrace, Noosaville from the proposed high density residential zone and the site remain in its current Tourism Accommodation Zone. And B, 3.13. All proposed amendments referencing the site be reverted back to the existing wording. It kind of flows on from the discussions. Frank Wilkie 02:33:47.645
We'll just give you a second. That's fine. Sorry. Yeah. Go ahead. I do. Didn't. Thank you. Jessica Phillips 02:33:59.403
Yes, please. I had it up last night. In fact, I went through every single address that is. Me just bring this up. With the rezoning from tourist to high density zone, I went through each specific address that we have here on our Council mapping facility, which is a great tool, especially with the colours, so I really like that. And what it highlighted, if we can get that mapping up, please, because that will reinforce my point. Overlay of the. Thank you. You could even go out even further. Thank you. Okay, perfect. So, Gympie Terrace, a stretch of businesses relying heavily on tourist accommodation. Again, I don't know how many times I've said I've lived here my whole life. So, to reinforce, this stretch of Gympie Terrace has always been tourist accommodation. For purposes the of all the businesses and residents, because I frequent there a lot. If we all of a sudden shaded in one lot, I think it's this lot, to high-density. Residential. I feel it is really inconsistent with the entire streetscape of gimp Terrace. I support any residential where it would have access from Edward Street, James Street. That all makes sense to me, because it's residential. I can't understand why we would start changing accommodation along the river and to reaffirm that I am about residents first. But our residents own businesses and they need tourists. It's been a tourist town for 39 years. I don't want to see those businesses start failing because we don't have tourists to go and. Buy coffee go to the hairdresser, all those things, which, yes, residents do, from a short walk from Elizabeth, Edward and every other street where our locals live. So, again, I just. It does not make sense that all of a sudden I'll have mapping up there and three lots will be red. For urban design, purposes, from every other aspect I can look at, it just doesn't make sense. I can't. I would like to see that returned to tourism because it. Makes sense to me. Brian Stockwell 02:37:26.051
I have a question can staff explain what was proposed to the site? Anita Lakeland 02:37:32.705
Yes, so there's a proposal on Gympie Terrace from.ie James Street down to the site that has been highlighted which is the 247 that whole frontage as well as what's coming down this is the proposal so it's not an isolated site that's proposed for inclusion in the high density it's a strip and a precinct that was identified particularly from James Street down to Edward street, is all residential permanently occupied buildings and then from Edward street down to 247 Gympie Terrace is mixed-use allowed under the sorry they're mixed-use buildings which have commercial ground floor some seconds story with a mix of uses which are both office local services as well as some restaurants and the like so the proposal is that section be included in the high density residential and continue to allow for a mixed-use ground floor outcome and a broader range of business types but when it should redevelop and quite a few properties there have redevelopment potential it would be allowed to go to three stories with permanent residential dwellings above. Jessica Phillips 02:39:04.704
And if that was to work that question if that was to be re-developed does this kick in the hundred square metre um yes that's what we're proposing would be re-developed today to be affordable residential units between that so I understand. Anita Lakeland 02:39:29.760
As proposed by these changes the small dwelling size was reinstated at a hundred square metres and it's an opt-in the high density residential if they want the bonus provisions. These particular sites of fronting and Gympie Terrace do have a different gross floor area outcome that is permitted, which is higher, but it's not mandatory that they must be small dwellings. So the intent here was that this, you know, to reinforce what was already happening there, which is predominantly a permanent residence, recreate that residential neighbourhood, along with that being a local centre, services visitors as well, but should it redevelop, that those dwellings be for permanent residents and that permanent residents have the opportunity to also live in high amenity areas on the river as well. Brian Stockwell 02:40:23.813
Just clarifying something you said, that it would retain the mixed use with a broader suite of uses permissible. Is that suggesting, like I know in the tourism accommodation there's a limited set of commercial, the way we've set up to actually increase the different businesses that could establish there for the pre-development, is that what you're saying? Anita Lakeland 02:40:44.772
I'll have I will have to check the detail but that was the intent of all of these and the same with the change of inclusion and district centre zone, that the range of commercial uses been broadened because under the Tourism Accommodation Zone, the range of commercial uses are limited and are meant to focus on tourism outcomes and tourism uses and supporting visitors as opposed to residents. Amelia Lorentson 02:41:12.013
Just out of curiosity when I've just googled 247 Macy's secret restaurant is that listed as of some heritage significance? Yes it is of local significance. As thank you. Frank Wilkie 02:41:31.663
And the Councillors wish to speak to the amendment before Councillor Phillips closes. Anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I'll speak against the amendment. I think the staff, Councillor Phillips rightly questioned what she expressed. She would like to understand the reasons for the changes. The staff have given the answers. I hope that's been helpful. I support the staff recommendation that these changes allow our residents also to live permanently by the river. I don't share Councillor Phillips' concerns. That the businesses along the river will have any shortage of visitors to buy the coffees. I think residents love buying coffees as well. And I don't think these changes will adversely affect the operation of businesses along the river. But I but do I do thank Councillor for bringing ask concerns to our attention. Jessica Phillips 02:42:44.780
A quick question before I close then. If, good point, thank you for maisie's being heritage, does that mean that ever can be redeveloped if it's turned into high density? Anita Lakeland 02:42:58.582
It sits in at the front of an existing site that already is developed and so there is no development potential probably left on that site that was a the change of its inclusion in the high density was about you know guess from a land use planning perspective saying well this is the permanent dwellings because the majority of those dwellings are occupied by permanent tenants permanent residents so rather than it being a redevelopment opportunity on that particular site. Frank Wilkie 02:43:25.615
Just to clarify this is an important point saying this proposed change reflects use existing. There. A lot of permanent residents do already live there. Jessica Phillips 02:43:34.622
I will close and it probably came off the amendment that Councillor Lorentson put in around the economic value of tourists. I can't. I'm just asking Councillors to hang on. Heart can we say these changes aren't going to impact our businesses and I fully support residents. I know we buy coffees, I do. It's not just about that. It's about making sure that for longevity we have a balance and for that reason I really feel that particular site can stay in tourist accommodation because it makes sense. Frank Wilkie 02:44:23.722
Thank you Councillor Phillips. We put the amendment to the vote. Those in favour? Councillor Phillips. Those against? Councillor Finzel, Stockwell, Wilson, Lorentson, Wegener and Wilkie. The amendments lost. Does anyone have any other amendments they'd like to. Councillor Wilson. Nicola Wilson 02:44:41.366
I do, yes. Relating to the islander resort, please. So the. Oh, sorry, I don't need a seconder. So I want to amend item 3.9 in attachment 2 to read lots 20 to 28 GTP2026. And lots 1 to 3 GTP2743 fronting Gympie Terrace and now adding and lots 1 to 5 GTP2026 fronting Thomas Street at 185 Gympie Terrace be removed from the proposed district centre zone and Main Street Precinct and remain in the Tourism Accommodation Zone. Could we have a thank you to Councillor Phillips. This is an item where I would have liked more time to get into the detail here. An example of where although we have talked about this one in the workshops and there was a change made already, so originally the recommendation was to put the lots fronting Gympie Terrace into the district centre zone as well and then it was just, they were put back into tourist accommodation and now just five lots on Thomas Street are proposed. So I guess the reason I'm writing this now is because I hadn't actually read the full submission on this matter before so we kind of talked about parts of it. I'll read a few parts out so I've got a few extracts from that submission. "Commercial lots along Thomas Street have common property areas, shared infrastructure, toilets, pathways, bin bays and security gated access that cannot be redeveloped without all owners voting at an EGM. For commercial lots already built to the three levels under the plan, there's no opportunity to add extra floor. The current approval on the site allows for short-term accommodation and permanent accommodation anyway. We suggest it's uneconomical to introduce a district centre that opens the scheme to small dwellings. Residents. These redevelopments or uses are best left to the current zoning to give owners this choice. Over the years many owners have chosen permanent letting over short stay and we will expect this will continue. And so. I had more time to dig into this one, I guess I'd want to be thinking about the body corporate and the decisions that would need to be made and whether it's really worth singling out five lots from such a big resort that might just cause a lot of issues for the owners. Arms there um I really have any questions yet. This is one I'd really like to spend more time talking about but at this point I don't think it's a good thing necessarily any urgency to take those five lots out of the Tourism Accommodation Zone. Frank Wilkie 02:47:29.756
To assist all Councillors could you give us an explanation on what's driving the proposed changes there please? Anita Lakeland 02:47:42.552
Sure part of the review of the Tourism Accommodation Zone across the area and particularly in Thomas Street was the opportunity to create a true local main street or district centre main street for Noosaville which doesn't exist because it is a tourist accommodation strip with the extension of the district centre zone which is over what is now you call it maybe big box development but to get a real main street outcome in Thomas Street. So the intent there was that a district centre zone with a main street precinct be applied to that area. And I guess the inclusion of. These lots in Thomas Street I guess if there wasn't a big resort there they would be zoned district centre because that is the desired intent for that street. These particular blocks remaining, it was recognised in response to the submission hippie that the lots fronting terrorists Terrace were probably outside the main idea of the main street, it was kind of a little bit further on. They really are more integrated with the resort. The lots fronting Thomas Street are fairly standalone and somewhat removed from the resort. They are ageing. It's not unusual for particular lots in a body corporate arrangement to be redeveloped and there's plenty of examples in Noosa of where that's occurred. So it was about if they were redeveloped that the outcome was achieving those main street outcomes we want to see and the district centre outcomes and that the residential component be for permanent dwellings in the future as part of that desired outcome for the district centre as being one of the key suppliers of our small dwelling supplies. Frank Wilkie 02:49:44.027
Would it be possible to get this side up on the. Anita Lakeland 02:49:51.426
I might mention that this site was previously split zone like this under the previous plan. Under Noosa Plan 2006 it had a split zoning as well and under Noosa Plan 2020 it all came together under one, the Tourism Accommodation Zone. So it's not unprecedented. Yeah those five are proposed to be retained and it is yeah. So they're the shops? They're the commercial mix, yeah the shops. So as you can see the recognisers. Recommendation is that in response to the commission that yes we do remove these and they can remain in the Tourism Accommodation Zone because the main focus is this is the main street centre here. And we've also responded to. Taking off the active budget requirement for that development in response to the submission as well so it's really just the edges of PP Terrace where that would be required. These are quite isolated from the balance of the. Resort the of the and they do fund that mainstream environment so the intent, or should they redevelop, the intent would be that we. Our desired outcome would be that it be for a district centre and the residential component be for turn left dwellings. Brian Stockwell 02:51:22.083
Just a question, more so than the last example, a district centre zone would provide the owners with a great flexibility in terms of the tenancy of those commercial premises, is that correct? That's correct. Frank Wilkie 02:51:37.265
So it would be to end the advantage of the owners? Anita Lakeland 02:51:41.297
There would be a great range of commercial uses, yes, but the short-term accommodation use would be inconsistent. And obviously there is an ability to apply for existing rights or whatever it may be, but our intent is that the district centres deliver permanent dwellings for residents and care workers. Brian Stockwell 02:52:03.620
Just a clarification on that. The permanent residence would be triggered by redevelopment, however, the zone would allow some flexibility without redevelopment in the ground floor, while retaining the existing use rights in the top floor, is that correct? That is correct. Anita Lakeland 02:52:24.295
They would be committed to continue their current use of short-term accommodation, if that is what they're using it for. Amelia Lorentson 02:52:33.436
Just a quick question. You say that one of the key outcomes is to deliver housing for our key workers. Is that likely? Is, you know, units along Gympie Terrace. Actually going to be affordable? Anita Lakeland 02:52:49.053
So, key workers are us. Key workers are our Noosa's, emergency supply people, teachers, not just hospitality workers. So, yes, I do believe it's feasible. What this delivers is a range in dwelling sizes, so anything from a studio up to a small three-bedroom dwelling, in a range of affordability price points that we're lacking at the moment. So, we're not saying they have to be affordable under our affordable rental premises, Stephanie. Definition, but certainly provides housing diversity in a range of affordability. So, yes, I agree. Frank Wilkie 02:53:26.822
Anybody wish to speak at the moment before Councillor Wilson closes? Councillor Wilson? Nicola Wilson 02:53:33.260
Yep, I will oppose. Guys. Just coming back to the fact that the submission said that the lots can't be redeveloped without all owners fighting at an AGM. So, at this point, I'm not clear of how this would actually impact owners and the body of the program. So, I'll stand by. Frank Wilkie 02:53:49.869
You. I'll put the amendment to those in favour. Councillor Wilson, those against. Councillor Finzel, Stockwell, Lorentson, Wegener, Phillips and Wilkie. Amendments lost. Do we have any more amendments? Thank you. Oh, yes. I'm sorry, I can't Councillor just talk Stockwell, with you today. Too. You if you please. Brian Stockwell 02:54:15.844
Yes I a do have an amendment. It's a further amendment to item C and it's to add whatever the next number is, please Cathy. N. And I'll read it out and it's to read, with the exception that the proposed changes in response to public submissions identified as 2.5, wrong one, I've got it this time, with the exception clause 9.1 and attachment 2, and reword this clause to provide further clarity as follows. Removes 100 metre and 20 metre building setbacks for boundaries of lots that properties are joined that are proposed for inclusion in the environment management and conservation zone as part of these amendments. The normal 10 metre setback will continue to apply for side and rear boundaries for buildings and structures in the rural zone. Frank Wilkie 02:55:09.642
Can we have a seconder for that please? Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. Brian Stockwell 02:55:15.136
So this doesn't propose a change to what's recommended, it's proposing, it's just. Clarifying exactly what was intended, the wording that I read in the report was, I came with a different interpretation, so we'd be in conversation with staff to agree that it'd be better to really explicitly state what is proposed, as I said, it is exactly in line with staff recommendation, just say it's more, it's not too significant at or all, really. Frank Wilkie 02:55:44.240
Can we just get the staff perspective on that please? Kim Rawlings 02:55:48.426
Yeah, that's exactly right. There was potential room for interpretation in how it was currently written so this just clarifies exactly what the intent of the change is. Just for context, you will recall that we have had a number of properties that have Voluntary Conservation Agreements over them opt-in to seek to want to provide further environmental protection to their properties so this has been an opt-in by a number of landowners. So we are applying the environmental management conservation zone to those properties with VCAs. With the environmental management conservation zone there are buffers that come with those as required to adjoining properties so inadvertently by applying the zone to these properties it has the potential to impact their adjacent properties which was never intended not was raised through submissions to us and we were like yeah absolutely that was not in the intent this is an opt-in for that landowner to have environmental protection on their property there is not intended to be off site so this is just clarifying that. Thank you. Any further questions? Frank Wilkie 02:57:03.018
From starting? Any more questions from staff? Unidentified Speaker 02:57:19.108
I'd probably like to be a bit more comfortable but that last sentence the normal ten minute setback will continue to apply. Within the rural and the rural residential zone there are so many different setbacks which are relevant to specific the setting. Thing you're setting back whether it's a building or an animal use or whatever so that could be changed. I would feel a bit more comfortable if you just said the normal setback rather than nominate ten minutes. Brian Stockwell 02:57:49.198
I'd be happy with that if the rest of the Council is just taking out the word ten minutes or the number. Unidentified Speaker 02:57:55.664
There is a lot of variance in those zones. Brian Stockwell 02:58:00.997
Would then make setbacks. Are the councils happy with it? Frank Wilkie 02:58:06.021
All councils happy with that change to this technical amendment? Any further comments? We wish to close Council Stockwell. I'll put the amendment to the vote. All those in favour? That is unanimous. Any more amendments? Question? Jessica Phillips 02:58:24.477
Yes. Do you mind just with point seven, the mandatory small dwellings requirement in the medium and high density residential zones and dual occupancy as inconsistent in medium density residential zones on lots 600 per metre or greater. I went over and this just really reading it and can I just get some clarity because it could be my interpretation but it feels like we're saying it could be interpreted that the 75 percent% needs to be in the small dwelling not the main dwelling and again it could be my entire tired. Anita Lakeland 02:59:06.047
I just it's not clear enough okay okay yeah sure so the mandatory 75 percent of all residential works for areas of small dwellings was the proposal that was advertised so the right hand columns 6.1 6.2 6.3 is what we're proposing the change to be so we're no longer requiring mandatory small dwellings in the high medium and high density residential zone we're going back to the current arrangement which is an opt-in to small dwelling provisions and opt-in for the bonus provision so nothing is mandatory as so we're removing the mandatory provision that we advertised the left-hand column was what was advertised yeah the right-hand column is the proposed change. Kim Rawlings 03:00:02.104
We've got a number of submissions around that issue so we're reverting back to the current provisions. Amelia Lorentson 03:00:10.402
Okay just a question that's come from residents and myself wise low-cost accommodation including short-term accommodation being included as the rezoning package will this re or new definition to include short-term accommodation will that have the effect of increasing supply of STAs and I'll quote the definition to now include additional consistent uses of low-cost accommodation short-term accommodation where backpackers or motels subject to impact assessment over a maximum 40% of the site area and subject to a master plan so. Anita Lakeland 03:00:57.470
So the Planning Scheme of or the definitions under the Planning Scheme which are regulated by the State of short-term accommodation includes self-contained dwellings as well as backpackers and motels under that definition so what we're proposing is that we limit the range accommodation on that particular site to what we've termed low-cost accommodation backpackers and motels so not self-contained short-term accommodation dwellings it's just the way that the definition groups a range of visitor types of accommodation under the term short-term accommodation yeah yeah and it's specific to that site so so the only increase in visitor accommodation types on that we're suggesting is the backpackers and motel. Brian Stockwell 03:01:46.152
Yeah just to clarify I think the same or similar wordings used by whole slide so another side where traditionally backpackers have been the main use. Frank Wilkie 03:01:57.096
Right. Yeah. All right, we'll go back to the original motion unless there are any more amendments to which only I have spoken. Does anyone wish to speak to the original motion? Do you have it? Amelia Lorentson 03:02:18.475
I would like to move a procedural motion that we defer the decision-making to next Thursday. Okay. Uh-huh. Frank Wilkie 03:02:38.812
The journal? Um-huh. So you've got the patrol. That the meeting will be adjourned until next. Amelia Lorentson 03:02:52.305
I'm happy that it achieves the same outcome. So that Council note the report by strategy and sustainability manager to the Special Meeting dated 5th December 2024 regarding proposed amendments no. 2 to Noosa Plan 2020 and adjourn the meeting to a later time should be determined by the Chief Executive Officer to allow Councillors further opportunity to consider the details and implications of the report I think I don't think I need to really go on about it I think we are all exhausted and sleep deprived and I think again considering the significance Noosa and the impact of the decisions that we're going to be making today I think it's in the our community's best interest that we're alert and fully informed and so I think this is just common sense thank you. Frank Wilkie 03:03:50.536
Any other Councillors wish to speak to the motion to adjourn? Councillor Wegener? Tom Wegener 03:03:59.587
I feel as though the questions were answered we're here we've really gone through what needed be done and we are Councillors we need to make decisions this is what we are here to do and I think we have a very we should make the decision right here and now and not put off not it just it opens up a can of worms but more importantly we have gone through the process and I think we've come to a place it's where time to make decisions we all have their questions answered we've been here at the morning and if we have more questions we have more time. Frank Wilkie 03:04:34.499
I'll speak on it, I have to write it down because. Jessica Phillips 03:04:37.956
I am tired. So um as someone who's dedicated my career to evidence-based decision-making during my time in the police service I firmly believe taking necessary time to fully understand all the facts before I can act. I've never just arrested someone without solid evidence and I cannot in good conscious vote today which is why I want to support just a few days to digest the amount of report and submissions that I would like to go through more. I did a bit of reflecting on the 2020 plan when I was thinking about this and I had a toddler and well I had two kids under four. And I had no idea the 2020 plan came out and I've lived here my whole life and I think I want to speak on behalf of just so many busy people and I'm one of them. I'm juggling the job making really good decisions hopefully for community's best interest and I'm asking personally. For just some time, I'm exhausted. As a Councillor, I'm not just a Councillor, I'm a mother of two. My phone doesn't stop. It hasn't stopped in the last week around Kin Kin, Corrie last week, around so many foreshore plan which is out of consultation. My phone and emails haven't stopped. Our residents are balancing the same demands and probably more leading into Christmas. I just need more time. I can make decisions. I've made life-threatening decisions on the spot, so I can make a decision and it's not about that. It's that I want to, with this, make a really informed, not tired decision on. What we are potentially changing the future of what Noosa looks like. Frank Wilkie 03:06:37.790
I'm going to cancel first. Cancel things out? Karen Finzel 03:06:43.968
Yeah, look, I thank you for bringing this forward, Councillor you Lorentson. Given what's been spoken around the table, I think it is just a pause button. I think that just shows respect back to the Councillors that have, especially the new Councillors that have, you know, want to do their job with excellence. We support that. I'll support the motion. I think it's important. And I think also given the amount of emails and uncertainty that community has not fully understand the process. We have the, you know, the benefit of being in here. We fully understand that. I think also it gives them time to go back today and look at this fill and then hopefully some of their concerns have been eliminated when they've heard the answers to the questions. I'm happy to support it. Noting also that we do want to get this move forward because it is very imperative. That we don't miss this opportunity to get this back to state in a timely manner given the years and the amount of time and work. It is critical that hopefully the CEO gives the opportunity but comes back within a reasonable timeframe to make sure that this decision doesn't impact those critical timelines. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 03:08:03.476
I need to get castlefield's phone. Nicola Wilson 03:08:05.856
I'll speak to the motion as well. We've talked a lot about staff wellbeing lately and looking at the faces of these very tired people around the room you can see that this team has been through a lot in this process. And now also acknowledging that wellbeing of Councillors is also important, making sure we make the right decisions. I don't think this gave us the best opportunity to make good decisions today and so I would also like a little bit more time. Frank Wilkie 03:08:35.997
Mr. Stockwell? Brian Stockwell 03:08:37.098
Yeah, when I came to the meeting I was with Councillor Wegener. Certainly for myself, I haven't had that lot of long nights, but as I said, I'll probably deal with these sort of matters in a different way to other Councillors who might like to get a very, very detailed appreciation. It wasn't said in the debate that I ever heard this statement is, you know, if we want Council role to be available to a diversity of people, we have to take account to their lifestyle like our mums. And I think that's probably what is that we don't want to be saying just because it's okay for me that I own it so I don't have to get my head around it. Does that make a difference? So I will support the amendment. Oh, he's a german. Sorry about that. In full recognition that there's going to be lobbying happening and if they're lobbying they try and influence certain Council designs. I think all the decisions are resolved. I think the key issues for this amendment have been resolved. There may be one or two areas of lots that some Councillors may want to just get their mind around, but substantive decisions are being made. And I want to make it really clear that adjourning it isn't for the purposes of community consultation. We were elected to make this decision. It's one of the most important decisions you make in a term of Council. And to be fair and unbiased in our approach to community engagement, having certain more connected individuals or groups influence our decision post receiving advice on the sum of all submissions does threaten the process. So be aware, we're always up to being lobbied, but be aware it's the process of community consultation. Happened months ago. Frank Wilkie 03:10:53.083
The tribe has spoken. I do really appreciate hearing from the Councillors about the way this process has impacted them. I think anyone watching today will get an appreciation that it may look easy, but it's not an easy job. And this is the job. I would also like to compliment staff appreciate hearing because if you think we're under pressure here today, or have been during the workshops to digest and absorb all this information, I know you do have regard for the staff who've lived and read this for three years now. So I just want to acknowledge that. Councillor Stockwell makes a good point. The consultation process was extensive. The submissions have been addressed and reflected in the proposed amendments. We've tested amendments to those amendments today that reflected some individuals concerns and they've been tested and we've dealt with them. So I will support them. My fellow Councillors in this procedural motion. But I just want to compliment you on the way you've worked through these issues today. This is the process. This is the work of the local government. It is difficult and it does have implications. I'd like to commend the Councillors for wanting to take the time they need to get it right. We also have regard to the advice, the professional advice written and spoken that we've received from the staff. It has been excellent from second to none. That's why I have no problems with ratifying the Planning Scheme amendments today. But I can see where this is heading. I'm going to support the Councillors for this adjournment. Thank you very much. Amelia Lorentson 03:12:55.097
I will close. I want to recognise the complexity and the importance of the matter before us. Decisions we make today, like I said, is going to have a profound impact on Noosa, its character, what it looks like, its liveability, what are these costs to our lifestyles. It's also going to have an impact on the trust the community places in us as they're elected. Frank Wilkie 03:13:25.195
We're just talking about whether we adjourn the meeting or not. Amelia Lorentson 03:13:27.912
I am. I'm talking about why we should be adjourning. I need the time to ask these sorts of questions between now and when the adjournment happens. I want to ask have we truly listened to the community, have we really understood the impacts of these decisions in front of us? Are we getting ourselves, are we truly going to ever achieve what we're seeking to achieve which is affordable housing? To do. Are we just chasing an ideal? Today and why the adjournment's in front of us is we're discussing process. We've had three days to read and analyse and digest the information, the submissions for the first time, 136 pages of it. And as Councillor Jess mentioned, whilst balancing other responsibilities. Monday I think I had a 10 hour day. We need to make fully informed and thoughtful decisions and we need to have sleep. This is not about avoiding difficult decisions. We understand our role as Councillors. This is about respect. Community to ensure that they know that we have had time and we have the clarity to make the right choices for them. Stakes are high and our community needs or deserves nothing but the best of us and that means we need to be alert. Frank Wilkie 03:15:06.007
The procedural motioners in favour. That's Councillor Finzel, Stockwell, Wilson, Lorentson, Phillips and Wilkie. Those against? Councillor Wegener. The procedural motion is carried. The meeting is adjourned. 11:45. Thank you everyone today. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
