Special Meeting 12 December 2024 (resumed from 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: 03:41:15
Synopsis: Noosa Plan amendment advanced for State review/adoption, Housing density upheld with affordable bonuses, Hospitality clarified removing amplified-music limit, Albert St rezoned, carpark noted, Short-term accommodation tightened.
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)
AI-Generated Meeting Insight
Key Decisions & Discussions Council endorsed the Noosa Plan 2020 Amendment No. 2 for second State interest review, adoption request to Minister, and publication of a Consultation Report (Item 4.1; minutes 12 Dec final resolution; 00:12, 12:04). Correction adopted: affordable rental bonus height text to read “optional … additional storey (2m) … if providing 20% of total GFA as affordable rental premises” (Item C; minutes 12 Dec; 02:24:02). Hofmann Drive: proposed 7m landscape buffer (Attachment 2, item 2.5) removed from the amendment (unanimous) (5 Dec Amendment No. 2; carried into final motion; 00:12, 12:04). Environmental zone interface: remove 100m and 20m rural setbacks adjoining proposed Environment Management & Conservation zoned private land; normal rural side/rear setbacks apply (Attachment 2, cl 9.1) (unanimous) (5 Dec Amendment No. 7; 12 Dec final motion; 00:12, 12:04). Hospitality precinct (Noosa Junction): deleted proposed change 1.2 about limiting amplified music beyond 9pm unless acoustically treated; existing scheme provisions and new definition approach remain (Amendment No. 12 unanimous) (12 Dec; 02:03:03–02:23:38; Item C3). 4 Albert St, Noosaville (Council carpark): proceed with proposed High Density Residential zoning while noting its current public car parking role (Amendment No. 16 unanimous; included in final motion Item C4) (12 Dec; 02:59:41–03:01:55). Multiple attempts to retain dwelling houses and dual occupancies as consistent/accepted in Medium/High Density zones were lost (Amendments 3, 8, 9; Chair casting vote) (5 Dec; 12 Dec 01:38:56). Effort to remove 247–257 Gympie Tce and other Gympie/Thomas St lots from rezoning failed (Amendments 5, 6 lost) (5 Dec). Effort to defer rezoning of tourist accommodation properties pending economic impact assessment lost unanimously (Amendment 4) (5 Dec). Affordable rental bonus framework: proposals to broaden/retain bonuses across MDR/HDR or remove “mandatory” elements were lost (Amendments 13, 14), leaving the officer recommendation focusing incentives to key/centre sites (12 Dec 02:24:02–02:46:21). Meeting adjourned 5 Dec and resumed 12 Dec; short procedural adjournments on 12 Dec (minutes; 00:12, 11:13, 12:39). Contentious / Transparency Matters Amelia Lorentson sought to re-argue previously decided amendments; the Chair ruled out of order and a dissent motion failed on the Chair’s casting vote (12 Dec 41:35–49:57). Amelia Lorentson challenged adequacy of notification to owners of affected MDR lots; staff confirmed owners of rezoned sites were notified but not all MDR lot owners by size cohort (33:00–35:04; 36:11–36:57). Jessica Phillips pressed for clarity on OLGR/EPA noise versus Council remit; Council removed the contested 1.2 clause to avoid duplication/ambiguity (01:39:17–02:23:38; Amendment No. 12). Public petitions and submissions referenced by councillors opposing MDR/HDR house restrictions, citing property rights and neighbourhood character (01:54:01–01:38:56). Chair used casting vote multiple times on close amendments (e.g., MDR/HDR dwelling house consistency) (12 Dec 01:38:56; 49:57). Carpark zoning at 4 Albert St raised public concern; Council added a noting clause on retaining current parking role to address perception risk (02:56:01–03:01:55). Legal / Risk Planning Act superseded scheme: 12‑month request window post-adoption; Council fee ~A$1,500; Council has 30 days to decide request; if agreed, 6 months to lodge DA; existing lawful uses protected in perpetuity (27:11–31:14; 29:21–30:06). Adverse planning change compensation risk acknowledged; property must evidence value impact; Council can refuse superseded requests, triggering Division 2 pathways (24:55–26:26). SEQ Regional Plan compliance and dwelling targets are drivers; State intervention (e.g., duplexes/height in LDR or SFD-style override) flagged if targets not demonstrably met (04:39–12:04; 01:20:54–01:31:57; 03:05:02–03:12:49). Hospitality precinct noise: maintaining clear division between planning hours/physical attenuation and State OLGR/EPA compliance reduces enforcement ambiguity (01:46:56–02:11:16; Amendment No. 12). Feasibility testing updated in late 2024 reflected construction/lending cost escalation; informed shift from mandatory small-dwelling/affordable mandates to opt-in on smaller lots (20:47–23:04; 02:31:12–02:38:29). Zoning, Density & Housing Yield MDR lot cohorts: 147 lots >1,000sqm (all but ~13 with existing houses); 606 lots between 500–1,000sqm; proposals to keep houses/duplexes consistent broadly failed (33:00–34:52; 12 Dec lost amendments). Brian Stockwell argued that allowing single detached dwellings on MDR 500–1,000sqm would significantly reduce potential yield, undermining SEQ targets (57:00–58:34; 01:15:07–01:20:00). Frank Wilkie highlighted 20,000+ lots in LDR/RR/Rural still permit single houses/expansions; MDR/HDR must function as intended for multi-dwellings (41:03–41:31; 01:20:54–01:31:57). Staff affirmed infill/underutilised land approach aligns with the 2020 Strategic Framework; bonus height only in centres with safeguards (01:28:08–01:31:57). Noosa Junction Hospitality Precinct (Hours/Noise) Intent is level playing field: new venues may operate to midnight like established peers; Council to rely on planning controls for hours/attenuation, with OLGR/EPA managing noise compliance (01:40:06–01:42:12). Amendment passed to delete proposed 1.2 “no amplified music beyond 9pm Sun–Thu unless acoustically treated,” avoiding duplication/conflict and retaining clarity via definitions and existing code controls (02:03:03–02:23:38; Item C3). Existing businesses retain approved hours; changes apply prospectively to new applications (02:16:02–02:17:34). Association/traders were notified during public advertising, but not of post-submission refinements before meeting (02:13:59–02:14:52). Affordable Rental Bonuses & Feasibility Officer rationale: 2024 feasibility indicates affordable mandates on small MDR/HDR sites are unviable absent recurrent subsidies; incentives concentrated on larger/key centre sites where scale/funding more plausible (02:31:12–02:38:29). Opt-in small dwelling bonuses (now up to 100sqm) shown to be working post-2020; mandating 75% small dwellings was withdrawn in response to submissions and updated costs (02:34:16–02:38:29). Amendments attempting to keep broad affordable bonuses or “remove mandatory” elements were lost, leaving the officer framing intact (Amendments 13–14 lost; 12 Dec). Short‑term Accommodation (STA) Amendment package (endorsed) further tightens STA across residential zones consistent with Housing Strategy and Short Stay Monitoring Report; final adoption to proceed post Ministerial process (04:39–15:41; 03:32:36). Superseded scheme rush for STA not expected now as many STA proposals are already assessable/refused under current settings (03:03:42–03:04:31). Environmental Interface & Rural Setbacks Clarity amendment adopted: delete proposed 100m/20m setbacks where Rural lots adjoin proposed Environment Management & Conservation zoned private land; revert to normal rural side/rear setbacks (5 Dec Amendment No. 7; final Item C2). Staff cited character-retention guidance for heritage/character dwellings in towns (Pomona/Cooroy/Tewantin) via relocation/secondary small dwellings (39:22–40:13). Site‑Specific: 4 Albert St, Noosaville (Carpark) Council confirmed rezoning to HDR does not itself remove public car parking; any future development would be a separate Council decision, with on‑site parking then required for any residential yield (02:56:01–02:59:18). Final motion includes a note acknowledging the carpark’s current important public role to temper community concern (Amendment No. 16; 03:00:42–03:01:55; Item C4).
Official Meeting Minutes
MINUTES Special Meeting Thursday, 5 December 2024 8:30am (adjourned) Thursday , 12 December 2024 9am (resumed) Council Chambers, 9 Pelican Street, Tewantin Crs Frank Wilkie (Chair), Karen Finzel, Amelia Lorentson, Jessica Phillips, Brian Stockwell, Tom Wegener, Nicola Wilson “Noosa Shire – different by nature” SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES 5 DECEMBER 2024 1. DECLARATION OF OPENING The meeting was declared open at 8.30am. 2. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY Noosa Council respectfully acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of the lands and waters of the Noosa area, the Kabi Kabi people, and pays respect to their Elders, past, present and emerging. 3. ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES COUNCILLORS Cr Frank Wilkie (Chair) Cr Karen Finzel Cr Amelia Lorentson Cr Jessica Phillips Cr Brian Stockwell Cr Tom Wegener Cr Nicola Wilson EXECUTIVE Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Community Services Kerri Contini Director Strategy and Environment Kim Rawlings Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray APOLOGIES Nil. 4. SPECIAL MEETING REPORTS 4.1. NOOSA PLAN 2020 PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO. 2 - POST PUBLIC NOTIFICATION FOR FINAL STATE GOVERNMENT MINISTERIAL APPROVAL Motion Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That Council note the report by the Strategy and Sustainability Manager to the Special Meeting dated 5 December 2024 regarding Proposed Amendment No. 2 to Noosa Plan 2020 and: A. Note the Submissions Table contained in Attachment 1 including the summary of submissions, responses to submissions and recommended changes to proposed Amendment No. 2 to Noosa Plan 2020; B. Under section 18.4 of the Minister's Guidelines and Rules prepare a Consultation Report and notify submitters of how their submission has been dealt with and upload the Consultation Report to Council's website; 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 in Attachment 2 and Attachment 3 and authorise SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES 5 DECEMBER 2024 the CEO to make the changes and any other consequential changes as required prior to submitting to the State Government with the correction of an error in Attachment 2, Page 3, Item 7, second dot point, that should read: "optional development bonuses including an additional storey (2m) in height on key sites if providing 10 20% of the total GFA as affordable rental premises"; and D. Under section 21.1 of the Minister's Guidelines and Rules give notice of a request to adopt the proposed amendments to the Minister. Procedural Motion Moved: Cr Nicola Wilson Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That Council note the report by the Strategy and Sustainability Manager to the Special Meeting dated 5 December 2024 regarding Proposed Amendment No. 2 to Noosa Plan 2020 and request the CEO call a Special Meeting on the 12 December and defer the matter to that Special Meeting to allow Councillors further opportunity to consider the details and implications of the Report. For: Cr Wilson Against: Crs Stockwell, Wilkie, Lorentson, Phillips, Finzel and Wegener Lost. Amendment No. 1 Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That Item 1, a, b and c be added to Item C as follows: 1. With proposed changes in response to public submissions identified as 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 in Attachment 2, to be replaced with the following: a. Retain the current hours of operation in the Hospitality precinct for food and drink outlets until investigations have been undertaken into suitable precinct management frameworks as per the Notice of Motion endorsed by Council in October 2024; b. No amplified music is to be located on site (indoor or outdoor) beyond 9pm Sunday to Thursday, unless treated acoustically to appropriate level, until investigations into precinct management framework are complete; and c. Once these investigations have been completed consider any recommendations 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. For: Crs Lorentson and Phillips Against: Crs Wilkie, Wegener, Finzel, Stockwell and Wilson Lost. Amendment No. 2 Moved: Cr Tom Wegener Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Item 1 be added under Item C: 1. With the exception of the proposed changes in response to public submissions identified as 2.5 in Attachment 2 and that this proposed change referring to a 7m landscape buffer along Hofmann Drive be removed from the amendments. Carried unanimously. SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES 5 DECEMBER 2024 Amendment No. 3 Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Nicola Wilson That Items 2, 3, and 4 be added to Item C: 2. The proposed changes in response to public submissions identified as 4.1 and 4.2 in Attachment 2 and be replaced with: "4.1 retain the current provisions of Noosa Plan 2020 that allows a dwelling house as accepted development subject to requirements in the Medium and High Density Residential zones regardless of lot size." 3. The proposed changes in response to public submissions identified as 6.2 and 6.3 in Attachment 2 be replaced with: "6.2 retain the current provisions of Noosa Plan 2020 that allows dual occupancy as code assessment in the Medium Density Residential zones, regardless of lot size." 4. Note the continued allowance of multiple dwellings in Medium and High Density Residential zones as allowed for under the current Noosa Plan 2020. For: Crs Lorentson, Wilson and Phillips Against: Crs Wilkie, Wegener, Finzel and Stockwell Lost. Amendment No. 4 Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Item 2 be added under Item C: 2. Defer consideration of rezoning properties from tourist accommodation to another zone until an assessment of the economic impacts is conducted. Lost unanimously. Amendment No. 5 Moved: Cr Jessica Phillips Seconded: Cr Brian Stockwell That Item 2, a and b, be added under Item C: 2. Include an additional proposed change in response to public submissions to Attachment 2 as follows: a. 3.12 remove 247-257 Gympie Terrace, Noosaville from the proposed High Density Residential zone and the site remain in its current Tourist Accommodation zone; and b. 3.13 all proposed amendments referencing the site be reverted back to existing wording. For: Cr Phillips Against: Crs Finzel, Stockwell, Wilson, Wegener, Wilkie and Lorentson Lost. SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES 5 DECEMBER 2024 Amendment No. 6 Moved: Cr Nicola Wilson Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That Item 2 be added under Item C: 2. Amend Item 3.9 in Attachment 2 to read: Lots 20-28 GTP2026 and lots 1-3 GTP 2743 fronting Gympie Terrace and Lots 1-5 GTP2026 fronting Thomas Street at 185 Gympie Terrace be removed from the proposed District Centre zone and Mainstreet Precinct and remain in the Tourist Accommodation zone. For: Cr Wilson Against: Crs Finzel, Phillips, Stockwell, Wegener, Wilkie, and Lorentson Lost. Amendment No. 7 Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson That Item 2 be added under Item C: 2. With the exception of clause 9.1 in Attachment 2 and reword this clause to provide further clarity as follows: Remove the 100m and 20m building setbacks for boundaries of lots that adjoin privately owned properties that are proposed for inclusion in the Environment Management and Conservation Zone as part of these amendments. The normal setbacks will continue to apply for side and rear boundaries for buildings and structures in the Rural Zone. Carried unanimously. Motion Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That Council note the report by the Strategy and Sustainability Manager to the Special Meeting dated 5 December 2024 regarding Proposed Amendment No. 2 to Noosa Plan 2020 and: A. Note the Submissions Table contained in Attachment 1 including the summary of submissions, responses to submissions and recommended changes to proposed Amendment No. 2 to Noosa Plan 2020; B. Under section 18.4 of the Minister's Guidelines and Rules prepare a Consultation Report and notify submitters of how their submission has been dealt with and upload the Consultation Report to Council's website; 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 in Attachment 2 and Attachment 3 and authorise the CEO to make the changes and any other consequential changes as required prior to submitting to the State Government with the correction of an error in Attachment 2, Page 3, Item 7, second dot point, that should read: "optional development bonuses including an additional storey (2m) in height on key sites if providing 10 20% of the total GFA as affordable rental premises"; and SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES 5 DECEMBER 2024 1. With the exception of the proposed changes in response to public submissions identified as 2.5 in Attachment 2 and that this proposed change referring to a 7m landscape buffer along Hofmann Drive be removed from the amendments; and 2. With the exception of clause 9.1 in Attachment 2 and reword this clause to provide further clarity as follows: Remove the 100m and 20m building setbacks for boundaries of lots that adjoin privately owned properties that are proposed for inclusion in the Environment Management and Conservation Zone as part of these amendments. The normal setbacks will continue to apply for side and rear boundaries for buildings and structures in the Rural Zone. D. Under section 21.1 of the Minister's Guidelines and Rules give notice of a request to adopt the proposed amendments to the Minister. Procedural Motion Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That Council note the report by the Strategy and Sustainability Manager to the Special Meeting dated 5 December 2024 regarding Proposed Amendment No. 2 to Noosa Plan 2020 and adjourn the meeting to a later time to be determined by the Chief Executive Officer to allow Councillors further opportunity to consider the details and implications of the Report. For: Crs Lorentson, Phillips, Finzel, Wilson, Stockwell and Wilkie Against: Cr Wegener Carried. The meeting adjourned at 11.45am on Thursday 5 December 2024. Resumption date is to be advised. SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES 12 DECEMBER 2024 1. DECLARATION OF OPENING The Special Meeting dated Thursday 5 December 2024 resumed at 9am on Thursday 12 December 2024. 2. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY Noosa Council respectfully acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of the lands and waters of the Noosa area, the Kabi Kabi people, and pays respect to their Elders, past, present and emerging. 3. ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES COUNCILLORS Cr Frank Wilkie (Chair) Cr Amelia Lorentson Cr Jessica Phillips Cr Brian Stockwell Cr Tom Wegener Cr Nicola Wilson EXECUTIVE Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Strategy and Environment Kim Rawlings Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Director Community Services Kerri Contini Acting Director Infrastructure, Shaun Walsh APOLOGIES Cr Karen Finzel 4. SPECIAL MEETING REPORTS Cr Lorentson left the meeting. Council Resolution Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That the meeting be adjourned for 15 minutes. For: Crs Phillips, Wegener, Wilson and Wilkie Against : Crs Stockwell Carried. Council Resolution Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Brian Stockwell That the meeting be resumed. For: Crs Wegener, Phillips, Stockwell and Wilkie Against: Cr Wilson Carried. SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES 12 DECEMBER 2024 4.1. NOOSA PLAN 2020 PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO. 2 - POST PUBLIC NOTIFICATION FOR FINAL STATE GOVERNMENT MINISTERIAL APPROVAL Motion Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That Council note the report by the Strategy and Sustainability Manager to the Special Meeting dated 5 December 2024 regarding Proposed Amendment No. 2 to Noosa Plan 2020 and: A. Note the Submissions Table contained in Attachment 1 including the summary of submissions, responses to submissions and recommended changes to proposed Amendment No. 2 to Noosa Plan 2020; B. Under section 18.4 of the Minister's Guidelines and Rules prepare a Consultation Report and notify submitters of how their submission has been dealt with and upload the Consultation Report to Council's website; 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 in Attachment 2 and Attachment 3 and authorise the CEO to make the changes and any other consequential changes as required prior to submitting to the State Government with the correction of an error in Attachment 2, Page 3, Item 7, second dot point, that should read: " optional development bonuses including an additional storey (2m) in height on key sites if providing 20% of the total GFA as affordable rental premises"; and 1. With the exception of the proposed changes in response to public submissions identified as 2.5 in Attachment 2 and that this proposed change referring to a 7m landscape buffer along Hofmann Drive be removed from the amendments; and 2. With the exception of clause 9.1 in Attachment 2 and reword this clause to provide further clarity as follows: "Remove the 100m and 20m building setbacks for boundaries of lots that adjoin privately owned properties that are proposed for inclusion in the Environment Management and Conservation Zone as part of these amendments. The normal setbacks will continue to apply for side and rear boundaries for buildings and structures in the Rural Zone." D. Under section 21.1 of the Minister's Guidelines and Rules give notice of a request to adopt the proposed amendments to the Minister. Cr Lorentson returned to the meeting. SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES 12 DECEMBER 2024 Amendment No. 8 Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Nil That Items 3 and 4 be added under Item C: 3. Replace the proposed changes in response to public submissions identified as 4.1 and 4.2 in Attachment 2 with: 4.1 retain the current provisions of Noosa Plan 2020 that allows a dwelling house as accepted development subject to requirements in the Medium and High Density Residential zones. 4. Replace the proposed changes in response to public submissions identified as 6.2 and 6.3 in Attachment 2 with: 6.2 retain the current provisions of Noosa Plan 2020 that allows dual occupancy as code assessment in the Medium Density Residential zones, regardless of lot size. The Chair ruled Amendment No. 8 as out of order. Procedural Motion Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That the Chairperson's ruling be dissented from. For: Crs Lorenston, Wilson and Phillips Against: Crs Wegener, Stockwell and Wilkie The Chair exercised his casting vote against the Amendment. Lost. Amendment No. 9 Moved: Cr Nicola Wilson Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That items 3 and 4 be added to Item C: 3. That Section 4. Dwelling Houses becoming inconsistent in Medium and High Density Residential Zones, be amended to read: make the use of a dwelling house consistent and accepted development subject to requirements if located on a lot less than 1,000sqm, in the Medium Density Residential zones; and make the use of a dwellings house inconsistent on a lot 1,000sqm or greater in the Medium and High Density Residential zones; encourage greater yield on lots over 600sqm where appropriate to the site. 4. That Section 6. Mandatory Small dwellings requirement in the Medium and High Density Residential Zones and dual occupancy as inconsistent in Medium Density Residential zone on lots 600sqm or greater, be amended to read: retain the current Noosa Plan 2020 small dwelling bonus provisions as optin rather than mandatory in the Medium and High Density Residential zones; make dual occupancies consistent in the Medium Density Residential zone; and encourage greater yield on lots over 1,000sqm where appropriate to the site. For: Crs Wilson, Phillips and Lorentson Against: Crs Wegener, Stockwell and Wilkie The Chair exercised his casting vote against the Amendment. Lost. SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES 12 DECEMBER 2024 Amendment No. 10 Moved: Cr Jessica Phillips Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson That Items 3 and 4 be added to Item C: 3. That 1.1 in Attachment 2 be replaced with the following: "proceed with the proposed extended hours of operation for food and drink outlets to 12 midnight seven days per week, including new applications and where amplified music is proposed, to be acoustically treated". 4. Delete proposed changes at 1.2 and remove the definition of amplified music. The meeting adjourned at 11.13am for 15 mins. The meeting resumed at 11.32am. Lost unanimously. Amendment No. 11 Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Nil That Item 3 be added to Item C: 3. Delete Section 1.1 – 1.4, and replace with "1.1 Not proceed with proposed amendments as advertised and retain the current provisions of the Noosa Plan." and "1.2 As part of the next round of amendments anticipated to be initiated in 2025 further investigations occur considering aligning noise related provisions to State requirements such as those set by Office of Liquor and Gaming and the Environmental Protection Act and that these investigations inform any future amendments if appropriate." The Amendment lapsed for want of a seconder. Amendment No. 12 Moved: Cr Jessica Phillips Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That Item 3 be added to item C: 3. That In Section 2. in Attachment 2, proposed changes in Section 1.2. be deleted. Carried unanimously. SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES 12 DECEMBER 2024 Amendment No 13. Moved: Cr Nicola Wilson Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That Item 4 be added to item C: 4. Amend the affordable rental premises definition to reduce the long term affordable rental time to 20 years and remove Items 7.2, 7.3 and 7.4. 7.2 remove the affordable rental bonus provisions from the Medium and High Density Residential zones except on the key sites being the former Noosa Bowls Club site and Noosa Business Centre; 7.3 retain the affordable rental bonus provisions over the Major Centre zone at Noosa Junction and Village Mixed Use Precinct at Noosa Business Centre and District Centre zone at Doonella Street, Tewantin; and 7.4 amend the PSP11 Provision of Affordable Rental Premises to reflect the changes that the affordable rental premises are applicable in some centre zones and selected High Density Residential Zones sites." Lost unanimously. Amendment No. 14 Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson That Item 4 be added to item C: 4. That Item 7.2 be amended to remove the mandatory elements of affordable rental bonus provisions from the Medium and High Density Residential zones except on the key sites being the former Noosa Bowls Club site and Noosa Business Centre. Lost unanimously. Amendment No. 15 The following material was presented to the meeting in relation to this item: Cr Jessica Phillips – refer toAttachment 1 to the Special Meeting Minutes photo - 4 Albert St Noosaville Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That Item 4 be added under Item C: 4. Remove 4 Albert Street, Noosaville (Council carpark) from the High Density Residential zone and the site remain in the Tourist Accommodation zone. Lost unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 12.39pm for 10 minutes. The meeting resumed at 12.49pm. Amendment No. 16 Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Frank Wilkie That Item 4 be added under Item C: 4. Include in item 3 additional Item 3.12: 3.12 proceed with the proposed high density residential zone over 4 Albert St, Noosaville (Council owned carpark), while noting its current important role in the provision of public car parking. Carried unanimously. SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES 12 DECEMBER 2024 Council Resolution Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That Council note the report by the Strategy and Sustainability Manager to the Special Meeting dated 5 December 2024 regarding Proposed Amendment No. 2 to Noosa Plan 2020 and: A. Note the Submissions Table contained in Attachment 1 including the summary of submissions, responses to submissions and recommended changes to proposed Amendment No. 2 to Noosa Plan 2020; B. Under section 18.4 of the Minister's Guidelines and Rules prepare a Consultation Report and notify submitters of how their submission has been dealt with and upload the Consultation Report to Council's website; 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 in Attachment 2 and Attachment 3 and authorise the CEO to make the changes and any other consequential changes as required prior to submitting to the State Government with the correction of an error in Attachment 2, Page 3, Item 7, second dot point, that should read: "optional development bonuses including an additional storey (2m) in height on key sites if providing 20% of the total GFA as affordable rental premises"; and 1. With the exception of the proposed changes in response to public submissions identified as 2.5 in Attachment 2 and that this proposed change referring to a 7m landscape buffer along Hofmann Drive be removed from the amendments; 2. With the exception of clause 9.1 in Attachment 2 and reword this clause to provide further clarity as follows: "Remove the 100m and 20m building setbacks for boundaries of lots that adjoin privately owned properties that are proposed for inclusion in the Environment Management and Conservation Zone as part of these amendments. The normal setbacks will continue to apply for side and rear boundaries for buildings and structures in the Rural Zone." 3. That In Section 2. in Attachment 2, proposed changes in Section 1.2. be deleted. 4. Include in item 3 additional Item 3.12: "3.12 proceed with the proposed high density residential zone over 4 Albert St, Noosaville (Council owned carpark), while noting its current important role in the provision of public car parking." D. Under section 21.1 of the Minister's Guidelines and Rules give notice of a request to adopt the proposed amendments to the Minister. For: Crs Wilkie, Wegener, Stockwell and Wilson Against: Crs Lorentson and Phillips Carried. SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES 12 DECEMBER 2024 5. CONFIDENTIAL SESSION Nil. 6. MEETING CLOSURE The meeting closed at 1.30pm.
Meeting Transcript
Frank Wilkie 00:05.660
It's on, we're going to have this, I've already put it on, it's on, okay, alright. All we declare the meeting open. This is the resumption of an adjourned Special Meeting from the 5th of December 2024, open at 9am. It's not a new meeting, it's a resumption of the same meeting. I'd like to acknowledge that we're meeting on the traditional lands of the Kabi Kabi People. I pay my respects to their elders past, present and emerging and acknowledge their continual invitation for us to join them as joint custodians respecting and caring for this beautiful place that we all love, each other. I note that all councils are in attendance. Lorentson has gone to her car. Councillor Finzel is apology. Is an this Special Meeting is to consider the Noosa Plan 2020 proposed Amendment No. 2, post public notification for final state government ministerial approval. The meeting was adjourned on Thursday 5th December so that Councillors could have more time to consider the report. We'll begin the meeting where we left off last Thursday with a motion which is shown on the screen. By the time we close that meeting there have already been seven amended motions tested, five of which were lost and two were passed by the meeting. Just to frame this, the amendment process is run under state legislation, it's Council led and it's also driven by. Amelia Lorentson 01:49.915
Imposed drawing targets which we need to meet so. Excuse me, Through the Chair, can I allow a deferment of 15 minutes while I go to my car and come back? How far away is your car? It's parked across the road. Frank Wilkie 02:03.550
Is the meeting consent to deferring the meeting? Adjourned. I have to be a couple of minutes. Brian Stockwell 02:14.112
It has to be a motion. Frank Wilkie 02:17.392
Adjourn we the meeting because we've come for a break, so we'll adjourn the meeting before I go out and press on. I thought you ended it, that's all. Brian Stockwell 02:26.720
I don't think it was, I think it's appropriate for me to hold up the whole meeting. Frank Wilkie 02:32.420
I'll put the motion that the meeting be adjourned to allow Councillor Lorentson will be a proper motion to adjourn the meeting to get some materials from her car for 15 minutes. I'll have a seconder for that please. Seconded Councillor Phillips will come. This is a courtesy. That's all it is. Councillor Lorentson said her car is just across the road. It won't be long and I'm hoping Councillors can support that it may be far less than 15 minutes. Any other Councillors wish to speak to the motion? I'll put the motion those in favour. Councillor Wegener, Phillips, Wilson, Wilkie, gerritsen, Councillor Stockwell, another Councillor Lorentson have already left the room. So we'll just adjourn for 15 minutes. Okay, back everyone. Welcome it turns out that Councillor Lorentson Lorentson and has not left her materials in her car. They're at her home. She's going home. It's going to take a bit longer than expected. But in the meantime I propose we proceed with the meeting and when Councillor Lorentson comes back then if there are any amendments she'd like to move we'll give her the courtesy of waiting for her to do that but in the meantime, that the meetings be resumed. Can I have a seconder for the motion for the meeting to be resumed as Councillor Stockwell or anyone else wish to speak to the motion? All in favour? That's Councillor Wegener, Phillips, Stockwell, Wilkie. Against? Councillor Wilson. So we'll agree to resume the meeting. So welcome staff. There seems to be some confusion in the community and lack of clarity among people reasons why we're doing these planning scheme amendments. Could you just give us a brief overview of why we're doing it? Sure, Through the Chair. And which elements of the process are state led and which are council yep. Kim Rawlings 04:47.740
Um so local planning scheme so the Noosa Plan is a local government planning scheme the how you make and amend planning schemes is guided by the State government so all of Queensland has the same framework in how local governments and it's guided through a legislative process and a document that's called the Minister's Guidelines and Rules for making and amending planning schemes so we develop our planning schemes using the State government guidance. Local government does. We also amend our planning schemes based on There is a very specific process that the State government legislate that you have to go through specific steps to amend a your planning scheme so that's the process government guided but local government driven because it's our planning scheme these amendments specifically came about so with any planning scheme tend to have about a 10 year lifespan where you total review which ends up taking a couple of years our last planning scheme was 2006 and then the new one was 2020 so we will start a review you know 10 year period but in between that full review we undertake amendments to the planning scheme one to keep it contemporary the irony is in that is that these processes can take years but that's the intent keep, you know, to respond to changing needs and changing drivers in the community Council policy or positions or to respond to state government changing and this round of amendments is result of a couple of things one is that Council endorsed a number of years ago Housing Strategy and comprehensive housing needs analysis and also did significant investigation into the impact of short stay accommodation on our community around a range of issues but one of those was related to the impact on housing and there were a couple of really significant reports strategies that the Council of the day then endorsed. Those strategies and reports led to or had recommendations in them for changes to the planning scheme to enable outcomes from those the Housing Strategy and the Short Stay Monitoring Model. Report, you know, made recommendations that the planning scheme should be strengthened in these areas or reviewed So this amendment process followed that. And when you start an amendment process, you also have to ensure that your amendments comply with state policy. That's one of the key steps in the legislative process. We our planning scheme and amendments comply with the South East Queensland Regional Plan. That's legislative. The regional plan has, other things, the raft of things in it, but one of the is some changes in the last year or two around dwelling targets. So that comes from the South East Queensland Regional Plan. Anything we do to our planning scheme to amend it needs to comply with state policy, also the regional plan and therefore, you know, help work towards meeting dwelling targets. So there are a couple of drivers around this: responding to the Housing Strategy, council's endorsed Housing Strategy, Short Stay Monitoring Report, council's endorsed and ensuring it complies with state policy and SEQ Regional Plan. Frank Wilkie 08:59.351
And Kim, could you tell us the process that we went through to get the Housing Strategy endorsed, including consultation and the round table that was involved? Kim Rawlings 09:09.911
So the former moved a motion a number of years ago, declaring that, you know, we are in a housing crisis, we need to urgently do something about it. The staff had done a lot of work on understanding, we knew there was a housing issue, what the housing needs were of our community and, you know, Rowena led that process. It's a very comprehensive couple of hundred page analysis report. That formed the basis of then developing a strategy, a Housing Strategy, which the Council were very involved in. There was lots of workshops. We formed a housing Stakeholder Housing Reference Group which helped guide the development of the Housing Strategy. The had representatives from the community housing industry, state, government. Our I'll. Member, our local member, not-for-profits, absolutely, people with lived experience around homelessness, the development industry and property industry, planning consultants. Am Rowena? No, so there was probably, there's about 20 people on that house. Oh, aged care, yes, um, yeah, um, so very representative. Of the challenge, you know, anyone who's involved in the housing challenge was around the table. That was a fabulous group who provided incredible insight into helping develop the Housing Strategy. Once we had a draft formed it was there was community consultation on that and we had I can't remember the numbers Rowena might but it was just under a thousand maybe around eight or nine hundred submissions. Don't quote me on that I'll have to check that and lots of engagement we had industry forums people talking to us we held the Stakeholder Housing Reference Group to input into that process and we had quite a lot of support through that process in terms of the submissions around Council taking a role in address how we address this issue so there's a raft of recommendations that came out of the Housing Strategy. Thank you. Nicola? Next one yes. Council could you please give us a recap of where we are in that process and what we're voting on today? So in terms of where we are in the amendment process the amendments were drafted and submitted to the State government for first interest checks so there's two state government interest checks required when you drafted a package of amendments which was in response to Housing Strategy short stay and state policy they were and they drafted up in consultation. We went very closely actually with the State government on that to try and shorten the process of state interest review submitted them to state government in about February 2023 they will were with state government for nearly 12 months doing their state interest review and a bit of toing and froing with us about issues but far longer than they should have been with the State government and then in March 2024 state government gave us sign off in 2024. We got state government sign off, there were some changes that we needed to make to the amendments before they then went out for public to consultation during July, June and July for a period of eight weeks, six initially then an additional two and we received around 450 submissions and the report outlines all the consultation that happened. The pop ups, the talk to a planner, the phone calls, all of those things. Since the end of July the team have through analysing all the submissions and running a series of workshops with Councillors around each of the issues that have risen through the submissions to form up a response. Where we're at now is these amendments are in response to submissions and some have changed since advertising as result of the issues raised in submissions and workshops with Councillors. So the point for Council to consider a revised package of amendments in response to consultation and public submissions for consideration and if endorsed to send back to the State government for that second state interest review. During check that it still aligns with state interest and state policy and they either approve it for Council then to adopt it and it becomes the new Noosa Plan framework or they approve it with ministerial conditions, things but if there are any changes, that we need to change for adopt it. Jessica Phillips 15:05.805
This might be a two-phase question for you Kim. Just in relation to we've heard the amendments relate to SEQ, regional plan and state policy. Can you explain to me how the amendments correlate back to the Noosa Plan 2020 strategic framework? And then my second part to the question is around removing some assumption in community about messaging maybe. So could I just have a real clarity about that the driver behind this is very clear for the community understanding maybe some language that you know the everyday person could understand please um Kim Rawlings 15:49.920
So the current Noosa plan has a number of sections to it one of the front sections strategic framework the strategic framework is really the overarching vision for Noosa in terms of land use development and to guide you know the aspirations and where we want Noosa to be. The planning scheme provisions that sit under that align to achieving those outcomes. These amendments very much align with the strategic framework so for instance will talk about housing, communities, liveability, access, diversity, affordability, all of those things to achieve those outcomes for our community. These amendments seek to strengthen those outcomes. The same thing, you know, that our residential areas should be primarily for permanent residents, not for short stay or with tourists. We've got tourist zones for that. You know, so these amendments again seek to strengthen those outcomes in the strategic framework. So very aligned with what our strategic framework says in the Noosa new plan. Did anyone want to add anything to that? In terms of the second question Jess, the assumptions about why we're doing this, I guess what I talked about when Frank answered the question is really role the of staff. Our role is to, I guess two-fold, is to deliver the outcomes that Council decide they want to achieve. This Council, previous for this Council, but still Council, Noosa endorsed a Housing Strategy that had a raft of recommendations to amend the planning scheme. Our role is to make that happen. This Council endorsed a Short Stay Monitoring Report which said they want to strengthen their approach to monitoring short-stay in our community and had a raft of recommendations to plan a scheme strength in it so that's the what we then do to implement the decision those of Council. We also have responsibility as Noosa Council to ensure things comply with state legislation policy and the South East Queensland Regional Plan. So they're the things that we balance in putting a package of amendments together to achieve those outcomes that Council and the State government are looking for. Yes, thank you Rowena. The other thing you know there's a raft of things that we have that we try and achieve for our community and one of the things that the Council have also endorsed is a social charter and our social charter talks about you know the fundamental needs those is a safe place to live. A roof over their head, you know things like that. So these amendments are really about trying to those outcomes, trying to achieve those outcomes for our community. It's a complex issue. We're not going to be able to do that on our own. We completely understand that. Is all levels of government. This is industry. This is community. But, you know, this is about us playing our part and delivering on the role that we're actually both legislated and that we have endorsed policy positions on seeking to achieve. So then, Jessica Phillips 20:03.619
Thank you, Kim. Thanks for that. I just want to circle back to economic modelling that's been discussed in a few workshops and in the previous meeting last week. Could you please tell me when that modelling was conducted? I feel that I have information that it says 2022, but I just want to maybe confirm that, because my follow-up question to that is, the economic modelling still relevant to the amendments that we see today, or has it been updated to reflect the building costs, the labour costs, and all the things that we've seen in our economic community? Kim Rawlings 20:46.567
Sure. So, the economic model that we talk about is feasibility yes, testing and feasibility analysis that we've talked about that's been done. So, yes, feasibility testing was done when the amendments were first drafted in 2022 as part of, you that those. Provisions are feasible. We have then since, with the changes in response to submissions, we've redone the feasibility testing, so just in the last few months, to make sure that what's being proposed is feasible. And like outlined in the Council report, that considered, and you can see the shift, you know, and the change in the approach, given the time that's gone by in the last three years since we originally drafted these two now, we've seen a significant increase in construction costs. You know, the challenges around getting trades and things like that, all created quite a significant cost increase in construction. You know, we see it in Council works and capital works that, you know, the rising majority of the works we're tendering is a 20-30% increase. That's the same for the private sector, so our revised feasibility testing obviously showed that, which is why we've also has been another input into the suggested changes going forward. So we've balanced the community needs to know about what the community raised, you know, feasibility testing, the policy outcomes, and the real outcomes we're trying to achieve on the ground, the State government requirements, all of those things need to be balanced, which is why it's taken a raft of people months and with external assistance, where needed, around, you know, feasibility testing or external advice, things like that, and then working that systematically with all of you, with you through workshops, to come up with a revised package. Jessica Phillips 23:02.703
Do you have another question or lesson? You. Thanks, Kim. And again, in previous meetings, lots of talk about right the property owner and the ease, I guess, of using the superseded planning scheme for 12 months under the Planning Act 2016. Can I confirm, is it at the discretion Council whether to refuse or accept an application? Kim Rawlings 23:33.657
Yes, Through the Chair. So the legislation in enshrines existing use rights. So are enshrined. If someone wants to do something different under a new regime that's changing, for instance, but they prefer what the current regime allows, there's window of opportunity of 12 months to be able to seek consideration under the superseded scheme. So when a scheme changes, the old scheme becomes and the amendments become new scheme. It's a 12-month window of opportunity where they can go, "Well, that works better for me for after reasons. I want to apply under the previous scheme." Yes, it is at council's discretion whether or not Council can agree to that proposal being considered under the old scheme. And my last question, please. Is Council confident that these amendments aren't adverse planning changes that could then be subject to compensation under division 2 of the act? Well, I can't speak for Council because you're Council. What I can say is that there are provisions in legislation that allow that process to happen. Sometimes changes to planning schemes can result in adverse planning if we are responding to, for instance, to changes in natural hazard information, new flood information, new landslip information, you know, it's contingent on us, prudent for us to respond to those. And sometimes planning changes can result in adverse absolutely. That's why the legislation provides that 12-month process. If we do an adverse planning change and if someone wants to be considered under the superseded planning scheme, if Council refuse to accept that, because you've weighed up all the issues, then there's a pathway for that landowner, if they believe it's an adverse planning change, to potentially seek compensation. Now you need to be able to demonstrate that the change has actually had an impact on value, things like that, but you know, yeah, so there's those things in place. Frank Wilkie 26:26.111
Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 26:28.311
Apologies if this question's already been asked, but I'm sort of listening that we're talking about the superseded planning scheme and how to enshrine or protect existing use rights. So my question is, what the are costs associated with submitting a superseded planning scheme application, what's the actual process, criteria, and timeframe for submission, and including in that cost for MCU applications? Kim Rawlings 27:01.478
Thanks, Councillors larson. Director Richard MacGillivray is online. Richard, are you happy to answer that one? Yes. Richard MacGillivray 27:11.938
Can you hear me okay, fellas? Yes, Richard. Through those questions. Step by if that's okay. So in terms of the superseded planning request, so I'm just pulling up some notes on this. So superseded planning requests can be lodged once the. Yes, planning scheme amendments have been endorsed. As Director Rawlings mentioned, there is a 12-month window for an applicant to apply to Council for assessment under the previous scheme. There is a fee attached for superseded. Requests. Previously that's been around $1,380. It's likely to be, the new fee will be scheduled around $1,500 for a request to be assessed under the superseded funding scheme, so that's yet to be finalised. So the person has basically the ability within 12 months and we've got 30 days to assist that superseded planning request from LodgeNet. If we agree to the superseded request, then they have up to six months to actually lodge and develop an application. Frank Wilkie 28:34.267
So that is where it's accessible. Assessable development. Richard MacGillivray 28:37.180
They've got six months to lodge that application from Council and must assess that under the previous planning. Statement. Does that give you a good summary or is there any further elements of that? Have I covered the key elements there, Councillor Lorentson? Amelia Lorentson 28:51.490
So to clarify, any residents that want to enshrine existing use rights need to firstly make a request for an application. So, no. They. So it's $1,380 for a superseded planning scheme request. That's what I've understood. Richard, is that correct? Richard MacGillivray 29:21.832
Yes, that's correct. And just on your earlier point there, so any existing homes established, lawfully under the current scheme, are not required to lodge an application for superseded. So those use rights are enshrined as they are at the moment. So they're lawfully established and they're protected under the Planning Act 2016 in perpetuity. So as long as the house stays there is, it's protected. Only where new development is proposed where the applicant has the requirement to lodge a superseded request if they want to do something else from what they currently have that requires material the change. Transduced, then they're required to launch an application. For us to consider that as a previous scheme. Amelia Lorentson 30:06.767
So can I ask the question Richard? I own a small I house live in a small in a medium density zoned area. Until these changes have come around I think maybe I want to build a bigger home down the track. The opportunity for me to make that application. Is during that 12 month period under the superseded planning scheme I make a request then within six months I've got to lodge a development application which will involve a Material Change of Use and that incurs costs because I'm building a house at the moment and I know that there's huge costs drafting architects certifiers engineering all sorts of things so I've got to know right now the house that I want to build submit the application so that I don't lose that right within 12 months and then I've got six years to build and I may not even have the money is that correct Richard MacGillivray 31:11.738
Yes so in terms of the if you have an existing home let's use the example as mentioned existing home you want to knock that down build a significantly larger dwelling if that dwelling constitutes what we call a Material Change of Use they would be required to lodge that superseded essentially there's a 12 month period of use it or lose it will so if they lost their application then there will be a currency period attached. Generally that's six years for a dwelling house assist as Material Change of Use. So that will require detailed plans to be provided as part of that as we normally do with all development applications. Amelia Lorentson 32:07.017
May place sort of onerous obligations property owners in medium density, you know, to have that money right now. Of data, can you provide data on the number of properties that are potentially going to be affected in the medium density areas? Expected yield and the projected time frame, and I'm happy even over the term or the course of this term of Council over the next four years, how many medium density properties are potentially going to be impacted by the amendments? In front of us. Frank Wilkie 32:52.054
Just to clarify, do you mean the ones with houses on it currently, Councillor? Richard MacGillivray 32:57.274
Yes, it kind of depends on the question. If, for instance, the number of medium density residential lots over a thousand square metres is 147, some of those are. State-owned land, vacant I think all but 13 of those already contain house that would have existing use rights as a house, and some of those 13 are the State-owned land. The lots that are between 500 square metres and 1,000 square metres, there's 606 of those lots. So the recommendation is that over 500, you wouldn't do a house. They're the ones that would not have the ability to do a house if they were currently vacant, and then over 1,000 are the ones that wouldn't chill occupancy. Amelia Lorentson 34:27.090
My question, the 147 that are over 1,000 square metres, were they notified and consulted in terms of these proposed changes and of these property lots, owners that have property lots in the range of 500 to the 606 lots, were they also all notified of the proposed changes? They were not specifically I didn't hear that. Notified. Thank you. Jessica Phillips 35:04.376
I just have one more question that was prompted, please, around the DA. Can I get some clarity around, so the superseded planning scheme, they've put that application in, they've got their DA, do they have a limit? Frame? Time that they then have to build? Can I know a little bit more about that, please? Kim Rawlings 35:22.695
Yeah, as Director MacGillivray said, it's six years, currency period. Amelia Lorentson 35:31.225
In terms of the notification, and I'm referencing the ministerial guidelines and rules of the State Queensland department of housing, local government, planning and public works, the document says that in addition to the public notice requirements prescribed in the notice about the process given by the chief executive under section 18A or B of the act, or in part 4 of chapter 2, local government must give notice to every property owner. Affected by the proposed planning change. Is that mandatory? Kim Rawlings 36:10.766
So, as outlined in the report, we did a very comprehensive engagement process. Anyone who got a zone change was written to in the. Through the process. And there was, you know, significant media arrangements. Range of engagement opportunities. We also are required to develop a community engagement and consultation plan before we launch into the amendment process, Council is on, which you did, and the State government are required to sign off on, which they did. Amelia Lorentson 36:57.565
In terms of infrastructure, do we have an understanding of how many. Car parts will be yielded or lost as a result of the proposed amendments in medium or in high density areas? Kim Rawlings 37:18.942
Yes, just seeking a bit of clarity, Councillor Lorentson, when you say car parks, these proposals relate to on-site requirements, not. Public car parks. So there'll be no impact on All car parking requirements are required to be delivered on-site. Amelia Lorentson 37:44.405
I'll rephrase the question. The proposed amendments are proposed to densify urban areas. Has consideration been given to infrastructure and services such as off-street car parking? Kim Rawlings 38:04.150
So, as I just said to be able to deliver these changes to medium and high density which is a small proportion of our Shire large majority more than 90 is low density so you need meet the requirements to deliver these things on site so parking car needs to be delivered on site not off site so that's part of the consideration in terms of other infrastructure servicing like water and sewerage and capacity that's all being modelled and is within what we currently plan for Amelia Lorentson 38:44.584
Sort of adding on to that so in terms of the unintended consequences of urban densification and I'll reference areas like Pomona and I believe there's about 35 medium density residential homes in that zoning impacts to character we've just in the process question my is does do the amendments align with the intent and the detailed work that has already been undertaken in the Pomona Placemaking Program Richard MacGillivray 39:22.512
We have provisions within the amendments that would support in places like Pomona particularly or Cooroy or Tewantin for that matter where there are some existing buildings, character houses that are locally valued that there is, it's quite possible for those houses to be retained, in some instances they might be forward on the block or moved sideways and for a couple of small dwellings to be built to the reorder side. We are working with our heritage architect consultant in preparing guidelines and material that would support and encourage very outcome. Amelia Lorentson 40:13.343
My last question is do the proposed changes confer additional rights or are they diminishing existing ones? Kim Rawlings 40:33.200
Is this your answer? Frank Wilkie 40:37.020
Just to give some clarity about the availability of detached housing, the single dwelling house in the Shire. Could you tell us the number of lots, approximate in the low density residential area, the rural area, and where people have access to low density housing, as in the single house. Council, would you like Kim Rawlings 41:01.114
To add anything to that? Look, Councillor Wilkie, I don't have those figures offhand, but it's in the between 15 and 20,000. Yeah, probably exactly. And a high proportion, it's somewhere between 80 and 90% of our dwellings are single dwellings. Frank Wilkie 41:29.489
Thank you. Does anyone care to move any amendments? Amelia Lorentson 41:35.309
I'd like to move an amendment you to Council put your Council a vote whether we can afford some flexibility in the Standing Orders to allow Councillors the opportunity to re-argue previous amendments. Frank Wilkie 41:54.851
The idea to re-argue previous amendments is contrary to media protocol and procedure. If we did that, the minute could go twice as long as it already has gone. The democratic process is that the meeting decides on an amended motion, it votes on it and then the meeting respects that. If we were to open the door to all Councillors re-prosecuting it, would be a backward step and contrary to democratic processes, so I wouldn't rule out it. Amelia Lorentson 42:27.671
Can I exercise my right to move a motion that reflects or gives all the Councillors the opportunity to vote on whether or not we can afford some flexibility in the Standing Orders. And I say so Through the Chair respectfully, a lot of the Councillors were led believe that discussion only was to partake at the last General Committee. Councillors were led to believe. Councillor, I'm not debating you, I've made an order. So my motion to allow flexibility in the allow Standing Orders to Councillors to reprogram previous amendments, and there are only two or three, by the way, there weren't four, five, six, seven, there were two or three that will be redebated. Are you refusing me that right to put that to Council for a decision? Frank Wilkie 43:19.534
Councillor, you need to move a motion to dissent from the challenge ruling. Amelia Lorentson 43:22.770
So after you've move your motion and then he'll he will tell what to do. Okay, move, which motion would you like to move? I would like to revisit the motion to retain the status quo, medium density and high density zoning, and I would also like to re-argue the one at a time. And high density residential zoning. Frank Wilkie 43:50.253
Alright, so Councillor, my ruling on this amendment is that it's already been prosecuted. The democratic process is that the meeting's decision is respected in order to retain the integrity of the democratic process, allowing all councils to re-prosecute amendments have already that been lost or even won, is a backward step and contrary to democratic meeting processes. So I'm ruling that the amendment is out of the order. Through the Chair, have I got a right of reply? What you have, Chair, from the Chair is that you have a right to dissent. The chairman's will. There's motions on the screen. Yeah. So ask the meeting that the chairman's ruling be dissented from? And then allow, to the amendment to be discussed? Amelia Lorentson 44:41.752
I'll move leave to you. Allow that the chairperson's ruling be dissented. Great. Frank Wilkie 44:47.312
Could we have a seconder for that motion, please? I'll second. Okay. Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. Lawrence, would you like to speak? Amelia Lorentson 44:57.592
Respectfully. I'll we entered the last Special Meeting under that it was to be discussion only. I had circulated a motion to defer the Special Meeting and I was, and then we had a discussion afterwards what was the better course of action. It was discussed amongst all the Councillors that a deferment would occur but we would allow discussion out of the people that were a coming to the meeting and b anyone listening online. That did not happen, we went straight into amendments and lot of our Councillors were caught unprepared and quite surprised and community hadn't been given the opportunity to go through the many documents as Councillors. We read through the documents so I want that on record that we were prepared. The issue was that we needed to understand the implications and the impact and the significance of the decision that we were making and for that reason we requested to you and to all the other Councillors that a discussion take place to allow more information and that today we would be arguing and debating amendments. That did not happen so I personally believe that my democratic right to of speak on behalf the people that elected me has been breached so I'm requesting through this dissension motion that the councils are given their democratic right to speak and also we talk about integrity trust and integrity of Council I'm asking trust in the integrity of myself me and other Councillors we were led to believe there were no amendments that were going to be prosecuted at the last meeting that did not happen and I just think it's only fair to the community that we represent that they their issues are debated thoroughly Frank Wilkie 47:13.734
Councillor Lorentson you have a wildly diversion understanding of what took place in that informal Council discussion among Councillors about the way a Special Meeting is to be conducted was certainly a discussion about when deferral motion might be exercised either at the start of the meeting or at the end I recall saying special meetings are there to allow Councillors the opportunity to ask as many questions as they want to test amendments as they come up and then at end of the meeting there is still unsatisfied uncertainty. About wanting more time then they can move another procedural motion to defer the meeting which actually did occur. I would say it's highly irregular and will be inappropriate for Councillors to go into special a meeting and have an agreement, reach decision, that no amendments will be moved during a Special Meeting to discuss planning scheme amendments. It will be highly irregular. Again said, as I said previously, the democratic process is that amendments, amended motions in meeting a are discussed decided. And openly and fairly, wherever the Councillor has a say in the meeting, they're either lost or they're won. Whole integrity of the democratic process is that whichever way they fall, the meeting mating respects. Decision the of decision the Council as a whole. Not seek other avenues to re-prosecute. To go back and re-prosecute everything. Amendments that have already been decided by this meeting would be a backward looking step anti democratic and undermine the integrity of local government decision making processes. I ask councils not to support this dissension motion. Put it to the vote. Those who, no, only the mover of the motion and the Chair speak to this. So those who disagree with the count and the chair's ruling on this, raise your hand. Councillor Wilson, Lorentson and. Phillips, those who agree with the chair's ruling, raise your hand. Wegener, Stockwell and Wilkie is carried on the chairman's vote. The procedural motion is lost. The re-hearing amendments cannot be heard. Go on to, I understand Councillors, some have done some very good work in preparing other amendments, which are variations of the amendments which we heard last week, and they can be heard. We'll keep this meeting moving forward. Nicola Wilson 49:57.098
Okay. I'd like to move an amendment please relating to recommendation five in the report on dwelling houses becoming inconsistent in medium and high density zones and recommendation seven relating to dual occupancy in medium density zones. We'll just get that on the screen. I'm noting that. Oh, all right. We'll get you to read that out if you could, please, Councillors. Um, what are we going to do? Yes, please. Sorry. In item C in the report, we have the recommendations. Um, I'm making some amendments to those recommendations, so not seeking to change high-density homes. But section five, 5, dwelling houses become inconsistent and medium in high-density residential zones be amended to read, make the use of a dwelling house consistent and accept developments. Subject to requirements if located on a lot less than a thousand square metres in that medium-density residential zones. That next one should have been SPEAKER_05 51:22.512
Deleted, make the use inconsistent, yeah. No, sorry. Yeah, if it's a thousand square metres. Encourage greater yield on lots over 600 square metres where appropriate to the site. Section 7, mandatory small dwellings requirement in the medium and high density residential zones and dual occupancy as inconsistent in the medium density residential zone on lots 600 square metres or greater to be amended to read. Retain the current Noosa Plan and 2020 small dwelling bonus provisions as opt-in rather than mandatory in the medium and high density residential zones. So don't change that. Make dual occupancies consistent in the medium density residential zone and delete the next line. Encourage greater good on lots over 1,000 square metres that are appropriate to the site. Kim Rawlings 52:20.804
Sorry to interrupt Councillor Wilson. I wanted to point out that the first one is section 4 and the second is section 6. In the attached table, in the report, Nicola Wilson 52:31.664
The numbers are different to what's in the table. You need to refer to the attachment. Previously in the meeting, when we had amendment 3 put forward, that amendment was lost. That was to make houses and real occupancies consistent regardless of the lot. So in this amendment, I'm trying to find a compromise so that more homeowners can retain their right to build a house, but we do still continue to look at the larger sites where development is more financially viable. We can encourage our landowners learners to consider using. Sites up to 1,000 square metres for more homes, but not mandate it, as some sites may not even be suitable for multiple grounds. There, as we heard, there's approximately 133 lots in the medium density zone of 1000 square metres that currently have one house on the lot. And there's about 34 lots that are over 1500 square metres. Jessica Phillips 53:41.091
These may be more likely to yield multiple dwellings depending on their location. And I'm really just asking that we focus on those first. Nicola Wilson 53:48.389
The amended plan seeks to find a balance between homeowners who would put a few units behind their existing house, especially where there's a character house, but also blocks that it would maximise the yield on sites the with just units. As the current recommendation stands for any future development, residents can only build a single house bigger than their existing single house if their block is 500 square metres or less. They can have a dual occupancy land up to 1,000 square metres and beyond that must have three or more dwellings. This was not the case when residents bought their properties a single house for their consistent use. So my intention here is to shift the goalposts to retain more single houses. A on blocks up to 1 and dual occupancy on any size block while still encouraging a greater yield where suitable. We had many submissions from residents living in medium density zones who will be affected by the change in the development category. That is a single growing house in a longer accepted development. There were also 966. Signatures to a petition and I believe we need to let those orders be heard. Many people affected have said they don't want this change, many may be unaware it's even happening. While residents will be able to replace like-for due to existing use rights, they will only be able to build a bigger house if they apply under the superseded planning scheme and as we heard that means having the funds within the next 12 months to get plans drawn up and make an application. I'm going to read a few extracts from the submissions. I'm paraphrasing them to make it quicker. Noting that these related to the proposed published amendments not the latest recommendation. This amendment is restricting current owners of dwelling houses from selling to prospective buyers who want to increase the size and scale of the existing home, yet allow build multiple dwellings on the same block. This seems unfair. Making a dwelling house inconsistent in median density is contrary to the objectives of a major amendment that seeks to support housing supply, choice, housing diversity, and housing affordability. We need we to safeguard the heritage and character of the houses in our area. Development applications should be decided case by with proper consultation and feedback. Developers and builders will have an unfair advantage in purchasing medium identity lots. Our house is old and needs to be replaced. New A family home with enough space that for our adults plus school-age children we should not have to move to a new home elsewhere when we purchase our property and lose the heads for our family to grow the living. Pay the extra cost to build duplexes instead a family home. We chose our and street character independent of its zoning. It's unacceptable for Council to deny owners the right to rebuild or extend an old house and finally larger single detached dwellings can often accommodate high density living and allow cost sharing amongst occupants that cannot be achieved in. Tolerant multi-dwelling development. So there are many reasons that residents have offered in wanting to retain the right to use a house as consistent use as was their right when they purchased. If we are going to make such a change can we do it gradually starting with the bigger lots? Brian Stockwell 56:57.059
Yes, question staff. I think I heard there's 606 lots between 500 and 1,000 square metres. A multiple dwelling, as we said, an average of three units on lots, that size of two each, we're looking at 1,200 people being able to be housed if it is a single dwelling and an extra 3,600 average if it's not would that be considered a significant change to your recommendation? Thank it's yes. Smudging. Richard MacGillivray 57:41.932
Yeah. Rowena 57:46.598
It's a variation of what we proposed in that it's moved the goalposts as to the lot size where a dual occupancy would be allowed as well as a house. So it. Is um is it significant? Brian Stockwell 58:03.764
Think it is no just say that if my question really relates to an act requirement and the act requirement is if we're bearing a staff recommendation we must put the reasons we're doing so. In my mind this is a very significant variation and therefore and there's no, while the reasons were outlined in the discussion there's nothing in the motion that outlines the reason why you do it. So it's probably a matter for you to rule on Mr Chair. Frank Wilkie 58:34.837
I think the amendment, the amendment motion can stand as it is without including the reasons for the variation but we haven't done it for any of the other amendments that have been addressed including variations from staff recommendations. Brian Stockwell 58:52.722
Pretty happy haven't I just in reviewing the in between the meetings I did up the act in terms of whether there was whether it had to be anything that is very clear if you're varying a staff recommendation you need to put reasons in I think it's something we have to you know we normally do it if we're refusing a staff recommendation for approval to reverse but I think as a standard practice we need to actually the Frank Wilkie 59:14.742
I'll respond. If this amendment is passed we could include it the reasons in the final motion. Would that be acceptable? I just think it's something we need to be aware of. Thank you. Any other Councillors wish to speak? Against the motion or for the motion? Jessica Phillips 59:34.927
I'll speak. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, I first of all want to explain where I sit with coming into these amendments. And I'll actually refer to it as coming into season four of yellowstone. Okay, that's where I'm at with it, but I'm getting there. Firstly, I want to acknowledge the immense work that's gone into this process from the Council staff to the community members, stakeholders and this has been a collective effort spanning across years of consultation and work chops and advice prior to Councillor Wilson and I being elected. But the outcomes we see through these amendments are critical because they're addressing housing affordability. And creating a more diverse housing mix. Well that's what we hope to achieve. These are not just technical goals, they're actually deeply human ones and they're about providing shelter, security and opportunities for families, workers and future generations who want to call news at but as I was sitting here this morning, I was wondering. And the conversations we've had along the way. These discussions have been challenging, emotional, and at times polarising. That's because we're grappling with questions that strike at the heart of what Noosa means to each of us. For me, the profound part of this process has actually been listening. To the residents, to my colleagues, to experts, and to my own heart. And I've spent countless hours reflecting on the questions posed to me by the community and wrestling. With these answers. Are not easy decisions, but they probably shouldn't be. They require us to weigh competing priorities, navigate uncertainty, and make choices that will shape the future of our Shire. Through this process, one thing has become very clear to me: Noosa identity is precious. It's worth protecting. I've heard from residents who are deeply concerned about the potential impacts of these amendments on their property rights, their neighbourhoods, and their way of life. I've heard from others who are passionate about the need for more housing and the opportunities that they could bring. Both perspectives are valid. Both deserve empathy and understanding. The process has also reminded me of the importance of integrity in decision-making. I'm going to explain how I address myself. I'm Jess in every room. No matter where I enter, a workshop room, community forum, here in this chamber, I think you can probably all agree I'm the same gist Jess that you see. And that means that with authenticity, empathy, and my moral compass, it guides every aspect of my life. I've reflected on this amendment and what it represents, and it's not just in terms of planning, but what kind of community we want to be. Does this change align with our values? Do they truly address the challenges we're facing? And most importantly, will they achieve the outcomes we hope for? Me, the answer is this recommendation and amendment is closer and energy. It's not in the technical details in of the amendment event but in it's the process itself because still want to ask, know have we asked the right questions? Have we listened to the right people? Who will be most affected? Effective? Have we balanced the need for progress? And need to protect what makes Noosa's special? I also want to talk about the middle guy because every now and then when consideration to things like this I feel like there's one group, two of representation the housing need crisis and then potentially developers and people that haven't quite considered what it's like to just be in the middle. Is society which thankfully I can speak very much on. I'm the essential worker. I'm the new Councillor that has more than two kids. And I want to tell you if a little while ago my husband and I bought a house in a low density, sorry, in a medium density zone, because that's all we could afford at the time. I would also have dream that I would build my own home for my family. I would dream, but then we went through a financial hiccup in our nation. And that means that the cost of living bears a burden on the middle man, the person that is really grappling with but is often over missed and in these discussions because I'm not on the street but I'm also an essential worker. And I want to dream be able to achieve my dream home like many of these residents have asked and that could potentially be taken away from me and is where my moral compass steps in and says it's not right. Because I might not be able to develop my property right now, I definitely probably won't in ten years given the age of my kids. But under these circumstances, under these changes, if this is lost, I'm going to lose that opportunity. This isn't just my story. It's the story of countless families and other stuff. Must account for the realities that residents face. Not the ones on Facebook, the ones getting up today, they're already at work, they're not watching the meeting, and we can't place undue burden on those who simply to invest in their future. Is this the legacy we want to leave for Noosa? Because it's not the Australian way. Our planning decisions should respect property rights and community aspirations. And let me be clear, it's not about meeting quotas, it's about ensuring that we're protecting our environment and the lifestyle, but it's also about people. Amelia Lorentson 01:05:54.076
Thank you, Councillor Phillips. Through the Chair, I have a few questions. Is there any specific timeframe you have a time frame or deadline with these ministerial conditions? I'm not sure what ministerial conditions you're talking about. Do you mean is there a time frame for these amendments? So, yes, yeah, so my question is do amendments relate to the South East Queensland Regional Plan? Does it ministerial conditions? Why are we in a rush to endorse this today, is my question. Kim Rawlings 01:06:29.954
So as discussed when the Mayor asked the opening question, there are range a of reasons we're doing these amendments, one of which is to ensure that our amendments comply with state planning policy and any changes to a planning scheme has to comply with the regional South East Queensland Regional Plan. Is there a time frame to have to do this? No. No, this is, there's no set time frame we need to do this by. There's a process we to follow and there are time frames within each step of the process but we're not on any deadline to have this done. And to say that this is being rushed, I guess what I would say is this has been three years in the making. Amelia Lorentson 01:07:29.431
Sorry, I withdraw the word 'rushed'. Probably what I wanted to say is whether the economic, social, cultural implications, have they been thoroughly understood by Councillors? Kim Rawlings 01:07:46.557
What I would say is that, as we talked about in the last meeting, those issues are all considered in the process. They have to be in compliance with state planning policy. State interest check has been achieved. The minister has signed off on them. Our state strategic framework seeks to balance all of those things. We've got a raft of strategies and technical background information, feasibility analysis, have gone into a very considered and package of information. I can't comment on whether Council has understood those. Frank Wilkie 01:08:31.620
The council's wish to speak for-- a for against the amendment. Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 01:08:35.878
A I'm little a bit, I am supporting the amendment in front of us because I think it presents a better option than what has been proposed in the report. I do want to sort of note a couple of things that are really concerning to me. I asked before whether the residents that are impacted, have they been notified and the answer was no. So the issue that have is the word compromise. Can only be achieved when all the parties have been engaged and agree on course of action. That hasn't happened had Councillors and that's where I'm sitting really uncomfortable with any of these on run type on top of the amendments. Problem we've got here today is that those impacted as Councillor Phillips said the ones who actually don't even know this is happening and I'm going to reference what happened in 2020. Five Councillors by majority approved the Noosa Plan in 2020. Changes in those plans resulted in medium density zonings, areas that were traditionally affordable housing for our central workers, places in Noosaville, places in Sunshine Beach, were made into exclusive hotel zones. Council, through the Noosa Plan 2020, amended the plan to make short-term accommodation a consistent use in medium density zoning. These are dangers. We've got an application at the moment in planning an environment where, again, in 2020, the unintended implications of decisions, significant that we're making around the table, we see surface in our planning environment. Residents who purchased 20 years ago, 15 years ago, residents who left kin-kin to seek a quiet rural lifestyle have just been informed that Noosa Council in 2020 changed I will so so my question is that actually I came speaking to the motion and I will support this because it's better than what proposed and I have some fundamental issues with what's being presented in front of us I will speak to property rights and medium and high density residential zones because again this is really important to our community changes even this is still presenting changes in zones challenge our core responsibilities as Councillors to protect community interest uphold democratic integrity and make decisions based on evidence and transparency changes have ignited widespread concern as Councillor Nicola alluded to we've had a lot of opposition and that's been reflected in a petition that was presented to Council signed by over 1,000 residents we've had extensive feedback from in Pomona from residents in Noosaville we've had deputations we've had coffee meetings there's been business chamber forums there's been community meetings out in Pomona and the message from our community is unambiguous ambiguous they do not support these amendments residents again they're not rejecting the need for housing solutions they're rejecting an approach that unfairly places the burden of resolving the housing crisis on them while threatening their rights character of their neighborhoods in my opinion there's been no evaluation of the economic impact on property values or evidence that these changes will in fact increase housing supply furthermore the social consequences such as the erosion of neighbourhood character and community values have not been adequate assessed I can't understand how Council can proceed with such significant amendments without this essential information acting the absence of thorough understanding of consequences in my opinion undermines trust and creates undue anxiety and stress within our community proposed post amendments even the one in front of us still will diminish our property owners some of future rights to build single dwellings or duplexes in medium and high density zones this impacts not only the current owners but also future generations their kids this issue transcends housing policy it represents a broader erosion of property rights and democratic processes the community has clearly stated their desire to preserve the unique character and identity of their neighborhoods values that are our risk of being permanently altered without sufficient justification or more importantly without community endorsement Council must take into serious consideration the lessons of past decisions in the 2020 Noosa Plan that I've just referred to there is no state and required post urgency requiring immediate action hasty decisions to me are irresponsible as Councillors our role is to protect and preserve our residents rights not diminish them it's our obligation to listen to our community and ensure that voices guide our decisions the debate here is not about just housing it's about maintaining trust and respecting the democratic rights of our residents to shape the decisions that directly affect their lives again I'm going to support Councillor Nicola and I thank you and I understand the intent and it's better than what's being put forward yes Brian Stockwell 01:15:07.860
And Councillor Phillips did a really good job of identifying the two competing objectives, there is a perception that change to land use rights land use provisions in a planning scheme changes property rights are actually based on planning schemes there's been a perception that the current homeowners rights are diminished and the pervert that the opposite view is that the current settings of planning schemes have diminished the ability to find housing for far more than many normal people in our Shire. So since we deferred this meeting the 2024 homeless monitoring report came out. I think one of the reasons why we're debating this, it probably wouldn't have been two years ago when the housing process really was front of mind, is people think it might have got better. It hasn't. So in fact, homelessness in Australia, people registering for support has grown 10,000 people per month. 15 but also so we're not it's about talking the housing, digital view of the homeless person. It's we're talking the about society social having impact. This fundamental crisis in its social provision of housing. Also its flow onto the economics. I'm not rushing any decision. I have a full understanding of the social and economic impacts of the proposed way ahead. And our job is to balance the public interest. And yes, there is argument so beautifully captured in the movie the castle. No doubt, but everyone lying into a medium-density residential zone should be aware that those zones' primary purpose is for multi-unit dwellings. It's always been the case. So why do we have to change the settings if Well, the reason is, historically what happened is you were happy the old town was it's always gets ready to be redeveloped, goes into units. And then gradually as the redevelopment occurs, the intent of the zone is achieved. That's changed. With the shortage of housing. Value of land in our coastal area such that now instead of going to multi-unit developments, there is a greater drive to change from the old house to a very large house and in this case what this amendment would mean is a total potential yield from the medium density and high density residential zone diminishing the potential. Houses for 2,400 people. I'll repeat that. Diminishing the housing yield by They're what this scheme's about. Now, we won't ever get to 100% that figure. But this is why I think it's such a significant change, is we have fundamental social and economic instability in Noosa that is driven by the current housing crisis. Have to consider how best to achieve regulated targets within the scheme amendment. The also doesn't think about the perverse implications of doing this. Amendments are set up to achieve those dwelling targets SEC. Set in the South East Queensland Regional Plan. If we don't achieve them or can't demonstrate we can achieve them in medium density and high density residential zone, where will we have to achieve them? Will state come back and say that's fine but you have to have duplexes in all your low density residential zones up to three storeys? How many of our existing residents and character? Are going to be challenged? Are they going to say that's fine but it can be greenfield development, we're going into all that constrained land whether it be environment, flooding, bushfire hazard. There are implications for changing the settings as recommended by staff, that will lead to potential perverse incomes, to outcomes. So I understand that for those residents who are in a single dwelling home who may have views that they want to go to a much larger home that they might find this a confronting proposal. We do have to make hard decisions but sometimes the right decisions are hard and to me the right decision is increasing housing choice and ensuring the purpose of the medium density, high residential zone considering the current trends and trajectories can be met. Amelia Lorentson 01:20:02.676
Could I ask a question Through the Chair? So just follow Councillors on with what Councillor Stockwell said, do we still have opportunity to explore other housing solutions other than what's been presented to us today? I reading the hundred and thirty seven pages and the submissions there was some very good reading I thank you. Kim Rawlings 01:20:25.457
Yeah, we've always got opportunity to explore other housing solutions and like I said previously, there's not one solution to this. It requires multiple solutions and multiple stakeholders to address the issues that we are facing. This is just but one of those. Frank Wilkie 01:20:54.840
Not everyone would be aware of the external pressures being put on Noosa Shire to provide the greatest supply of available housing and affordable housing. I accept Councillor Phillips' argument on that. A lot of people are unaware. Sphere and charged with protecting the values of Noosa Shire, the liveability we all love, our right to good, sound living, I'm painfully aware that during the recent SEQ review, we were looking at possibly four or stories. Eight possibly, in the medium to high density residential zones, the threat of duplexes up to three stories on low density residential lots if we don't meet our growing targets. To achieve that, making sure our medium and work as intended under the planning scheme are absolutely key to that. In terms of having right to live in a house and expand that house, there are up to 20,000 lots in the low density residential zone, the rural residential zone and the rural zone where you can have it to whatever size you want. The arguments we've heard do not take into account the response made in the planning scheme amendments that are currently in force to the community feedback. We have heard that requiring anything but small room, a house, or lots up to 500 square metres are likely to be unfeasible. So that's being reflected in the media messaging zone. That's being accepted and reflected. The request to be able to have a duplex on a lot up to 1,000 square metres has been reflected and respected. But the majority of lots remaining in the medium and high-density residential zones have to deliver multiple drawings order for us to meet our drawing targets so that the State, to lessen the likelihood of the State intervening, not having confidence in this Council to make the decisions it needs to make its housing that works as and we'll impose something that will disadvantage more people. It is a hard decision. We've already seen the State come in through the State facilitated development process legislation that gives them the right to totally bypass the Council planning scheme to deliver affordable housing. Fortunately, we've had a reprieve. But the SEQ planning process, regional planning process, still looms. And the Noosa Council, we've been told by staff, has been put on notice that if it does not meet its growing targets, then there is a far more, less palatable outcome that could become a reality. The is that we need to understand that local government is subject to the strictures and imperatives of state government. I would much rather take proactive steps now that than have our planning rights taken away from the State because we cannot make our planning scheme, zonings or work as intended. We've also heard that property rights are protected. There are existing new surrogates. A house can built. Be replaced like for on the lot. You can renovate it. If you wish to expand or build a bigger house in a medium density or high density residential zone, you can make an application through superseded planning scheme in 12 months and then you have get you've got six years to do it. Councillors, every view I've heard around the table is totally valid. But please. Think of the long-term future of Noosa Shire. The threats that we do face, the realities, the determination of Federal and state governments to make sure that all levels of government play their part. In addressing the housing affordability and availability crisis. None of this is saying that allowing units on medium density lots is going to be necessarily affordable housing in the strict technical of sense the word. But it will be able to provide a dry supply that doesn't exist if only a house exists on that property for a wide variety of essential workers. I'm talking people in the middle, as Councillor Phillips refers to, teachers, police, paramedics, hospitality workers. Councillors, it is a hard decision, but please think of the long-term future of the Noosa Shire. I still recall the furor when the planning scheme, Noosa planning scheme, faced heightenings. Instead of a property owner being able to build to six storeys, they were limited to two or three. That was the loss of property rights. But it's made this what it is today we're talking about the long-term future of the Shire. Let's make a decision today that makes the planning scheme work as intended. That endorses amendments that take on board feedback and has that reflected in it but it also helps us meet our drawing targets so the State doesn't take our right to self-determination away, thank you. Jessica Phillips 01:27:11.044
Please ask a question Mr Mayor, just in relation to dwelling supply that you just mentioned, is that a weird question to start in that I just need to circle and use some context because supply in high density, I don't believe will achieve essential worker affordable housing. Is that a question or an opinion? As of the previous placeholder, place, I'm sorry, I still won't be able to afford a unit in a you may be honest, Councillor, please. My question is, when I refer to Noosa planning strategic framework regarding infill and underutilised land, my question how we looked at, in these amendments, utilising that strategic framework that was mentioned in the 2020 plan about please? Kim Rawlings 01:28:08.001
So what these amendments do to utilise the zones in the way they're intended is infill, that's what infill is, so yes. Using zones as intended is considered infill development. Terms of looking at underutilised land, absolutely. So since we've had a Housing Strategy we've looked at lots of different parcels of land and what might be considered underutilised land. And when you underutilise a zone, a piece of land, it could actually achieve greater outcomes. That is looking at underutilised land. So these absolutely align with those two objectives. These amendments are both about infill and about underutilised land. Jessica Phillips 01:29:09.034
Underutilised land. When was the last time we tested community's appetite around height changes given the comments from the Mayor around state imposed and. Have we gone out and really tested where our current community sits with areas that might be appropriate to create some higher housing? Is there. Uptight? Do we know that I don't think there is. Kim Rawlings 01:29:37.939
So the-- and anyone else can come in. Issue of height is always an issue in our community. It's always been an issue that's held very firmly. In terms of achieving the Noosa lifestyle and character and how very dear to anyone who's lived here and has been, you know, an important part of the day and night of who we are and why this is the place it is. So it's always part of the discussion. The, as you would know, in these amendments we are proposing some bonus height provisions in areas that we think will I think it will have the least impact. So in our major centres, so in the Noosa Junction and in the Noosa Business Centre, there are bonus provisions that allow an extra two metres of height to achieve more housing, affordable outcomes. Would know that through the submissions, we've got a lot of feedback on that around people's concern. You know, height is sacrosanct in Noosa, why is this being looked at? So again, you know, it's a weighing up, of what we need to achieve, how to incentivise getting these outcomes and providing some development bonuses to try and get affordable housing outcomes, otherwise we're not going to get them. The Noosa Plan process definitely had the issue of height as a key issue that was discussed and debated in the development of the new plan, and there's, you know, there's, I mean, this is a massive generalisation, but, statement, but generally people are not keen on increasing violence Noosa, generally, like I said, that's a massive generalisation, so we need to put a whole lot of context around that. Yeah, so, you know, it's always an issue whenever we seek to change the planning scheme. Frank Wilkie 01:31:57.853
Can I ask a follow-up question? Give a sense of the feeling, community during SEQ planning, the recent SEQ planning process when GPS is up to three levels zone and apartments four and eight stories were proposed in other zones. Kim Rawlings 01:32:15.410
What's the community feeling about that sort of height increase? Thanks for that prompt, Councillor Wilkie. Amelia Lorentson 01:32:24.607
Answer, Is that relevant to Frank Wilkie 01:32:27.227
Motion-- a follow-up question to Councillor Phillips' question about the community's feeling about height. Is that something you can talk to? Kim Rawlings 01:32:36.208
Yes, so there was a lot of community angst about the South East Queensland Regional Plan process around. Across not just in Noosa, but very much in Noosa. We had lots of community feedback submissions. I'm sure there was petitions, there was a notice of motion by Council, and staff were very much given the direction to. Our involvement in that process reflected those concerns very much. A lot of concern about potential increases in height. When the drive South East Queensland Regional Plan came out, it came out with some wording and images that did stories, and yeah, there was great concern from the community around that. And we also saw just recently around the SFG development processes in the absence of information provided to Council on, you know, on those developments by the State government through that process. You know, there was a lot of speculation, I guess, about the heights of those developments that again caused whole lot of concern in the community. Amelia Lorentson 01:33:59.790
A follow-up question given that little bit off track. I'll be quite specific. Has the question been asked in terms of Noosa Civic? Is their appetite in the community to densify, provide more than what we already are offering? In terms of height bonus provisions to that precinct? Kim Rawlings 01:34:24.041
This is a good question. There's probably two responses to that. We significantly increased the housing at Noosa Civic during the housing allow, the densification of Noosa Civic through the Noosa Plan process and then we've done that again through these amendments. So these amendments do allow increases in height, bonus provisions and density allowing more housing. In the housing residential zone. Zoning and also in the village mixed use zone above the commercial and retail. So we are already using our major centres and same with Noosa Junction to carry forward more the most significant amount of growth. Have we specifically asked the community that question? Not specifically asked that question but we are already doing, providing for a lot more housing that can happen out at the shop as soon as possible. Amelia Lorentson 01:35:24.594
Of another specific site TAFE is there opportunity to explore bonus provisions there? I think that's why we're out of SCOBA Council licence. I accept that. Councillor Wilson, do you wish to close? Tom Wegener 01:35:47.587
Councillor Wilson, I really appreciate your motion. Councillor Lorentson, I appreciate your. You're steadfast articulation. Jess, and I feel the pain. I get it. But this is nothing new to us. We knew for two and a half years that we were going to face this. Isn't a new issue. Been talking about this. In my mind, I've been wrestling with this for years. So we have to make hard decisions. And this is a hard decision And when you're going forward to make Noosa more perfect, you're always going to take rights away from people. You're going to injure people. Come out a little bit less than what they wanted. But we have to do it for the greater good. We must. Actually think about for Noosa in the long term. And that's what our planners here have done. We have been talking about for years. There's nothing new here. So I won't support the amendment. That's the rules, Mr. President. Nicola Wilson 01:36:52.624
Residential amenity, safety, sense of community and belonging are maintained. That's a new strategic outcome in the community well-being section of the plan. That's been added in specific set of amendments. Residential amenity, that's what our residents in the medium density zone want to maintain. Yes, I agree as Councillor Stockwell said, is intended for greater densification but a house has always been. Consistent use till now who's moved into that zone had no expectation that would ever be any consistent use. Whoever saw a housing shortage coming did not expect that they would have less rights on their own. He's the one to build a bigger house. As I said in the earlier version of this meeting last week, my concern is that we're putting the burden of the housing shortage onto existing homeowners. I don't believe that's where the burden should lie. Talking about different ways that we can increase the housing supply. I do want to address the homelessness and provide affordable housing for everybody in the Shire, but I don't believe this is the way that we'll really be able to achieve that. Individual homeowners. Probably not going to afford to put two extra units on their block on the order they want to. So what's going to happen? They're probably either not going to do anything, they might renovate their but they're probably be able to extend it. Their home would give a greater yield on the site. It could house more people and extended families. But probably what's going to happen is nothing. No development, no new houses. The other option? They sell to developers. So that residential amenity community sense of belonging disappears. This doesn't help housing choice. Most likely there will be no development. Those smaller sites of between 500 and 1,000 square metres, hence my amendment. I'll close there. Extending Frank Wilkie 01:38:57.241
If you'll put your name with us in favour. That's Councillor Phillips, Lorentson and Wilson. Those against? Councillor Wegener, Stockwell and Wilkie. The amendment's lost on the Council vote of the Chair. Does anyone have other amendments they'd like to test? Councillor Phillips? Jessica Phillips 01:39:17.810
Mine is in relation to this junction, but before I go on to my amendment, can I ask a couple of questions? Yes, of course. Okay. Start, then we'll rolling for this since we're going from one topic to the next. Can you explain more to people watching around the level playing field that the amendment is trying to achieve specifically in relation to and I'll be very transparent that you and I have had this conversation so you could clear it up for me so the people watching understand that. What I'd like to it was a new occupation coming in and existing businesses, please. Through the Chair, Kim Rawlings 01:40:07.610
Thanks, Councillor Phillips. So the proposed changes to the Noosa Junction area relate both to hours of operation and amplified music. It's important to note that these changes aren't retrospective so that they don't relate to businesses that have already approved and have hours of operation established. They already have liquor license levy. Office of Liquor and Gaming Regulation, but that's there established. These are going forward. So if there are new businesses established, so if there's a new Food & Drink Outlet to open up, the changes, current in situation the current are able to operate until midnight. We had requests for a level planning field because existing businesses both in the junction and Hastings Street can operate truly not. The at moment our planning scheme says until 10pm. So if there was a new business, if these amendments get in, wants to start and if your drink outlet they open up, they will open up. The businesses next door can operate until 12pm. Under the current 10pm. Under arrangements they can only operate 10pm. Under these amendments that they would be able to then operate to 12, level plan good. So when we talk that's the outcome we're trying to achieve. In terms of amplified music, if they wanted to do amplified music, they could, but only if that new business treated their facility acoustically in way that met the requirements around amplified music. So it is about the new businesses coming in, it's not about what's there existing. Jessica Phillips 01:42:11.980
Is yeah absolutely thank you so my uh no they're beautiful but my name is um and this is why I did say at the point I might have to add something on the floor so bear with me everyone, because the additional part about having new application and having to acoustically treat will need to be included in my proposed amendment. But starts proceed with the proposed extended hours of operation for food and drink midnight seven days a week. Cathy. Thank you. Cathy, include new applications needing to acoustically treat. So, that's everything we need to talk about music, definitely. I'm not going to get in the car. Requiring acoustic treatment. Treated to the appropriate level. No, that's why. I'll keep the, thanks. Yeah. Anybody want to continue? Yeah, here. To be specific, treated. And then delete proposed changes in. That was you then. You don't know. Yeah, I do. Delete proposed changes at 1.2 or 1.3 and remove the definition of the end of my music. And I'll tell you why. Rowena 01:44:31.020
I'm going to step into the car speaker. Frank Wilkie 01:44:33.141
We'll wording right. So proceed with the proposed extended hours of operation to seven days per week including new applications where amplified music is proposed. Jessica Phillips 01:44:51.164
And including new applications? It's only possible. It only applies to the new applications? Yeah. Michelle 01:45:03.628
And it should be at the very end where. The music supposed to be acoustically treated? Frank Wilkie 01:45:09.148
Including new applications and where. Thank you, Michelle. Thank you. That helps. SPEAKER_08 01:45:15.628
I'm so afraid of that because she's therapy. I'm sick and I can still move in and a react minute because it's a minute. Frank Wilkie 01:45:27.034
I'm happy to sit and take it. We'll just get the wording on. Are you happy with part four? Jessica Phillips 01:45:35.134
Yes, because we're taking out the restrictions around. Although I won't say restrictions. Apologies, I don't have a book point to all of it. I just make the point now that put before you delete the definition of amplified music we don't have a I yeah, because, yes, we're going to need to keep the and just sort of 1.2 then that's 1.3 is the definition. Kabi just include the did say this would have to roll and I'll tell you all delete proposed Frank Wilkie 01:46:18.322
Changes at 1.2 which is include the provision that no amplified music is located on site, indoor or outdoor beyond 9pm from Sunday through Thursday and the rest of the has been acoustically treated to the appropriate levels if Jessica Phillips 01:46:35.756
I may be able to play with the wording can I give you why what are you trying to achieve? Brian Stockwell 01:46:41.916
We do that? I think it will be very clear. We've had a seconder. I've got a range of concerns about the construction of this. We have to play it out. It's in a General Committee we can't. Frank Wilkie 01:46:55.409
Okay. Councillor Stockwell is quite right. We can test this and question it and if it's lost we can redraft achieve. Jessica Phillips 01:47:04.924
There is a reason why we had to do it on the floor and that was because there were still questions around what I want to do is keep it simple. It's a KISS approach. Okay. I think what has happened with this particular amendment in our what been proposed is actually complicating what is currently there. I really agree with equity. I want to see new businesses and have a level playing field. Make that really clear. What I don't want step Council into a lane where we don't belong. Because I see huge issues with starting to look at legislation that fits with OLGR. We are not compliance in music. Police. I am worried that we putting a false expectation on staff, on community. I feel there will be a false sense of hope that potentially Council, someone can call up customer service and get someone to go and a team of local laws enforce something to do with music down the junction, which is absolutely outside our remit. I think once we start putting levels of government in a local Council that is already being done by state, we are not keeping it simple. So my intention specifically around this amendment is for clarity for anybody that owns a business down in the junction to know that they've got a level of planning field, but also that somebody member of the public understands what is in our remit and what is not. I don't know if I can make it any clearer. I don't want false expectations from our residents about what is in council's remit and what it isn't. I don't want to complicate things. Really want to see that this amendment can start looking at keeping it simple and understandable. Last week was a perfect example when I watched back the meeting that there is confusion around music, trading hours, what's OMGR, OLGR, what's council's remit and I want that really clear in the amendment. Brian Stockwell 01:49:25.635
Questions? I suppose it's a question to the mover. Were you intending that all new applications had to be acoustically treated because it's not limited to any particular timeframe and when that music's played? Frank Wilkie 01:49:43.980
It does say we're amplified going to amplify music as proposed. We go. Brian Stockwell 01:49:47.159
Yes, Sir. But you could have amplified music at the moment up to 9pm and not require acoustic treatment. It's only outside certain areas. My understanding of this amendment actually takes away that, the hours in which you don't require acoustic treatment Jessica Phillips 01:50:03.380
So my question to clay, is that, are we getting on a level playing field or will this mean that someone that already has those operating hours is allowed? It? Can you see what I'm trying to achieve? I want to make sure that everyone has a level playing field. New applications have to be acoustically treated because that's a condition that we as Council can set on an application. We're allowed to do that, not stepping outside our remit. What I don't want to see is a confusion for community where we are imposing compliancing. Kim Rawlings 01:50:46.440
What I understand you're seeking to achieve is to revert to the current provisions of the Noosa Plan regarding operating hours. Sorry. To create a level playing field. So to revert to the provisions that were advertised in these amendments. It's not the current provisions, the advertised it's provisions. Which sought to extend the operating hours of food and drink outlets from 10pm Sunday to Thursday and midnight Friday to Saturday to midnight seven days a week. So that was as advertised. And then what, to remove any specific requirement for amplified music that relates to hours, that blends those two issues, to remove anything that's proposed in it's proposing the changes relating that, but to still include the definition of amplified music. Is that correct? Jessica Phillips 01:52:07.150
Yeah, because we need the definition to give Council clarification when there's a new application around acoustic treatment when they're putting in air. That's right. So Kim Rawlings 01:52:24.377
So the first part of that amendment what you intended to do. The second part of the amendment? Frank Wilkie 01:52:38.420
Can I propose that we have a, we've been going for two and a half hours. I can get this right. We adjourn for comfort break and give Councillor Phillips an opportunity. To talk to staff about his wording and also refresh our brains. Jessica Phillips 01:52:56.537
It's fine as long as I'm on the record that I haven't been working, I haven't just tried to do this on the floor. We have been working on it. It's just because it's not clear. Is why we're here and I want clarity after it. Frank Wilkie 01:53:10.374
So by consent of the meeting it can be adjourned for 15 minutes. I've been working on it and I'm just here. We're back. In the middle of an amendment. I don't know if you have that on the screen, but it's got to be. Councillor Phillips, is there something you wish to. Jessica Phillips 01:53:39.940
I'm going to let this motion fall so we can have a go now we've got some wording clarity. Thank you. So I'll put it to the vote. Those in favour? Frank Wilkie 01:53:51.269
Those against? Motion to be defeated. Councillor Phillips. Oh no, Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 01:53:59.088
I have an amendment that I'd like to move. And the amendment is. Of that three item 3 be added to item C. 3 delete section 1. To 1.4 and replace with 1. Not proceed with proposed amendments as advertised and retain the current provision Noosa Plan and 1.2 as part of the next round of amendments anticipated to be initiated in 2025 further investigations occur considering aligning noise related provisions to state requirements such as those by the Office of Liquor and Gaming Regulation and the Environmental Protection Act and that these investigations inform any future amendments if appropriate. Frank Wilkie 01:54:56.136
Is anyone wanting to second that? That we not proceed with the amendment package? Tom Wegener 01:55:05.550
Is did she talk about the junction amendment at all? Thing? Frank Wilkie 01:55:10.476
The whole planning scheme amendment. Tom Wegener 01:55:12.836
No no, no. Just section 1. Rowena 01:55:14.936
Yeah, 1. Frank Wilkie 01:55:17.356
Well, the way I read it, obviously, proceed with the proposed, I agree with that. Of 1. Not amendments advertised. Oh, this term is just a misnomer. Sorry, I've misread it. No, excuse me. Willing to second anyone that? Brian Stockwell 01:55:41.900
So just a clarification, how it's referred to, it does just refer to the noise and operating hours. SPEAKER_05_b 01:55:50.700
Mr Mayor, can I second if I have another amendment? Frank Wilkie 01:55:59.571
You can't. I'm just checking to see that it's not what the outcome that this amendment is seeking is not the same as what was discussed last week. Amelia Lorentson 01:56:16.645
For clarity purposes, last week I moved an amendment to defer consideration of the amendments and to allow these discussions to take part of our precinct management. Plan. Was endorsed by Council in October 2024, and that was not supported. It went down 5-2. The amendment that I've put in place here is to seek clarity in fact whether there are any conflicts. I've been notified that there are potential conflicts with what we advertised and with what is in fact state noise parameters and regulations that are contained within state legislations. Of liberal and gaining regulations and the Environmental Protection Act. So what I'm asking is just if we can have just some time to ensure that what we're proposing is in alignment with state Frank Wilkie 01:57:23.436
Okay, I've got the amendment that was moved which was to retain the current hours of operation in the hospitality precinct for food and drink, which is the current provisions. The planning scheme until investing investigations have been undertaken into suitable precinct management frameworks. Which is part two of that amendment. Then. And once these investigations have been completed, consider any recommendations including changing operating hours for food and drink outlets in the Noosa Junction Hospitality Precinct as part of the future planning scheme amendment to the Noosa Plan. So that seems largely the same as the amendment that we discussed last time. I cannot see any difference. Amelia Lorentson 01:58:18.024
I think there's chalk and cheese there and I'm happy to explain this amendment seeks assurance that we are actually aligned with state. I think you said the same last time. No, I made no reference to alignment. I've just had some new information that's come to me over the last three days. That information was not available to me. So what I asked last time was we make can this possible. Part of the amendments, if we could include that as precinct management framework investigations. Frank Wilkie 01:58:59.458
Yeah, so perceived with the proposed amendments as advertised, which means no changes to the hours of operation or the music, or the definitions of amplified music. And conduct further investigations about noise related provisions. Look, okay, we'll allow it and let it either fall or stay. I'm sorry. Do we have a seconder for this? No, just a question to staff, if we're allowed discussion of this to pass, would it preclude any further changes to the hours of operation, it would operation to amplify music in the junction? Terms of any amendments, it would stop any other amendments to amplify music or hours of operation being discussed as needed. Kim Rawlings 02:00:03.510
What this seeks to do is delete any of the proposed changes and just maintain steady status quo in the music plan. So that relates to hours of operation, amplified music and acoustic treatment. So if there was to be any further amendments, if this amendment is passed, it will delete those and we'll go operating what we've got now. If councils want anything different. Would then have to move an amendment to bring portions of that back in. Tom Wegener 02:00:36.044
Just for clarity, so what Jess was proposing, if this got up, that wouldn't, we be debating that on, it would be known, moved, because this would supersede that. Kim Rawlings 02:00:49.674
This would delay what's been proposed, any changes? Brian Stockwell 02:00:55.194
Yeah, so, just to clarify, even if this did get up, there'd be no see to the I'm you another know amendment remember to that brought put things back in. That's but it wouldn't be Frank Wilkie 02:01:06.784
A direct negation of what's. Brian Stockwell 02:01:09.124
No, not a direct negation of the original motion. So, you can change an amendment. Are you still only amending the overall motion? Yeah. Frank Wilkie 02:01:18.944
We'll allow it. Have a seconder, please. Okay. Looks like it's lapsed for one of the seconder. The amendment is lost. Councillor Phillips, would you like to move an amendment? Jessica Phillips 02:01:48.320
So, reverting back to just before the break around why my amendment is there is to seek clarification. We know that there is work to be done and coming from notified motion from Councillor Lorentson Lawrence in October about the future of the junction, but what I seek to achieve today is clarity today. Is give us really clear understanding between now and when that investigation, the findings of that outcome come to Council or we can make another decision, but for my amendment now is that the item 3 be added to item C. In section 2 in the attachment 2 that the proposed changes in 1.2 to be deleted so all I'm asking for is in the proposed changes that we remove the bit that seems to be complicating the music verse operating hours. This is what this amendment seeks to achieve. Frank Wilkie 02:03:03.740
So just for clarity the provision that's going to be deleted from proposed changes to the Noosa Junction hospitality precinct is that the action would have been include a provision that no amplified music is located on site indoor or outdoor beyond 9pm from Sunday through Thursday unless the site has been acoustically treated. To the appropriate levels. Jessica Phillips 02:03:33.511
Yes, because that's the provision that I believe keeps getting us caught up in a debate about where music and operating hours is linked when they're not. Okay. So I'm seeking to clarify these amendments by removing that. Frank Wilkie 02:03:53.166
Okay. We have a seconder for this one. Councillor Wegener, phelps. Jessica Phillips 02:04:03.691
I'm going to probably repeat myself significantly because of the situation just earlier. What I aim to achieve is keeping it simple at the moment knowing that there's work to be done in July and I believe that will give us some clarity around responsibility and who, whether state or OLGR is in compliance and where Council sits in. Its remit. My purpose directly relates to not complicating things that Council. Is it in our lane? Is it not I just believe that this gives. Some clarity for everybody around the table and the community business owners that we're seeking a little playing field for operating hours and we're going to have new applications that we can put provisions around acoustic treatment which makes sense. The 1.4 that includes treatment for new dwellings in the high density residential zones where immediately adjoining the major sand zone. Absolutely makes sense that new dwellings that provision can apply. I'm just seeking to take out any confusion for everybody, for sake. Frank Wilkie 02:05:43.997
Questions, Councillors? I'm trying to find it. Yes, stop it. Brian Stockwell 02:05:52.797
Is there any current provisions in the existing news plan 2020 in relation to hours and relevant noise limits. Or amplified music? Is there anything that says currently it's 10pm or 9pm or 12pm? Michelle 02:06:11.650
Through the Chair, there are provisions within the Business Activities Code and the entertainment activities code that relate to music and hours of operation of music, not a venue, they're separate. Amelia Lorentson 02:06:32.260
Thanks so much. Environmental Protection Act allows noise levels more than five decibels above background level until 10:00pm. And no more than three decibels background level from 10:00pm. To midnight. So I'm confused if that was the intent of my previous amendment to seek clarity. Does our cause conflict? The. With the Environmental Protection Act? Michelle 02:07:04.358
Through the Chair, those provisions are different state legislation, which we have no control over. As stated, we can only really look at operation hours and how buildings are treated. So a lot of this is gaming liquor and those acts are supersede, super like they're not mandated, they're not related to the planning scheme, they're outside So obviously if someone's playing music, they're under a liquor licence. Or selling alcohol, Therefore OLGR would be examining noise issues. Council would not be. So we don't look at noise, we don't monitor or comply any noise issues. Frank Wilkie 02:07:40.554
So I'll ask a question. How would this amendment if passed impact on 1.3 which is: amend amplified music provisions to apply to inside and outside venues unless acoustically treated to the appropriate levels. Is the lead. That's still in. It doesn't change it. If was still in, I think if I recall correctly, about hours of amplified music stopped me at 9pm Sunday through to Thursday unless the site's been acoustically treated, is that consistent with what the office of the living and game the dying regulation want? Currently apply to the deduction? How does it sit with that? And is it complete with conditions that OLGR imposes? Michelle 02:08:50.960
Do you look to we the scheme for guidance around operation hours. So they would use the planning scheme as a guide. Generally, they would have the music to align with the provisions in the planning scheme. So separate to operation hours. That's separate to how they do live music. So there's no conflict. Frank Wilkie 02:09:17.776
If this amendment was passed, what would the hours of operation, what hours were in live music could be played, what would they be? And how determined? Michelle 02:09:33.255
Through the Chair, I would revert back to the planning scheme where we have already had hours of operation for amplified and acoustic music. Is, it's a double up I guess. So it's not going to make any, much difference to how it would operate currently. Frank Wilkie 02:09:51.243
So we currently can't do stipulate, Council still currently does stipulate through the planning scheme, hours of amplified music. So this wouldn't stop that. But this was to fall, there would be a more consistent standard applied the venues in the junction. Is that what the outcome was seeking to achieve. Michelle 02:10:21.011
It was in attempt to provide clarity but understanding that it hasn't. Obviously from the discussions we've had. So yeah, it's still covered. It's just removing that double up and that confusion around operation hours of a venue. Music. Kim Rawlings 02:10:37.611
I can add to that, the essence of this change in 1.2 was really about being clear about indoor and outdoor. That was the essence of the change. So the current scheme about amplified music and specifies times and hours and all that so that covered. It was really to provide a bit more clarity about both what amplified music means and wear. Where. So it was the indoor /outdoor piece that was it trying to seek clarity. But if this amendment gets through, there are still provisions in the scheme that will guide this issue. That's Brian Stockwell 02:11:15.707
I'm going to talk to her because I don't think the amendment achieves what's intended to achieve. The current business activity code in section 13 talks about noise, visual and other impacts. They don't. It doesn't have any time limitations there. It just says, you know, POs, undesirable noise, visual or other impacts on public spaces and residential uses are avoided, etc. And it talks about where business. Requires the use of acoustic attenuation measures to mitigate adverse impacts on nearby sensitive land use. Such measures are designed and constructed to be compatible with local streetscape. Then it goes on to live music. And the 9pm limit is in the scheme. It's not a change. The scheme says, and it relates to acoustic live music, and it says not reliant on electric or electronic equipment ceases to operate in outdoor spaces by 9pm Sunday to Thursday and 10pm Friday and so they accept if located in Hastings Street mixed use precinct or Noosa Junction hospitality it can operate till 10pm by 12 midnight Friday to Saturday. So it is a bit of a wind back of one hour. The amplified live music ceases to operate in outdoor spaces by 7pm. Oh, I'm not going to into it. There's another one there in 14.3. Spaces by 7pm seven days a week. If it's the Noosa Junction, we where work can it operate until 9pm 9:00pm. Sunday to Thursday, 10pm Friday and Saturday. So, amplified. One was acoustic, and one was amplified. Acoustic got to go an extra hour. That's the current scheme. Okay what the amendments do is keep those settings, but realising that noise emanates from any machine that makes music, not necessarily a player. That's the key difference in terms of what the change is. It's about saying whether it's live or whether it's recorded, we want that nine pm limit. It's not increasing any further restrictions other than to say you can't have a disc jockey there producing more noise than a live musician. It's fairly simple, and yes, nine pm is different to the ten pm that's in EVP noise, but it's in the scheme currently. Frank Wilkie 02:13:57.410
Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Lawrence. Amelia Lorentson 02:13:59.570
Can I ask, have any business owners, landowners, and the Noosa Junction Association, have they been consulted with these changes? After the Chair, no. So no, because I received phone calls from business owners totally oblivious these proposed changes. Can I ask why they weren't consulted? Michelle 02:14:28.461
Through the Chair, it was, yeah, the changes as a result of the submissions, no, they haven't been notified, but the changes that were previously were advertised and notified to the Noosa Junction Association and traders, so these changes that we've made consequential to submissions, no, they have not been notified of. Amelia Lorentson 02:14:56.145
October 2023 we endorsed a notified motion that allowed these sorts of discussions to be considered as part of a precinct management framework investigations. We've also been in, yes there's the question coming, consultation with the Noosa Junction Association. We've met with a lecturer in tourism events. We've already started process investigating. My question is, the amendments in front of us, do contradict the notified motion and are they also a breach of good faith, given that we've already begun conversations with the Noosa Junction Association? I'm not going to allow the question about whether it's That's a comment. Frank Wilkie 02:15:53.961
The question will be, does it in any way contradict the notified motion? Kim Rawlings 02:16:02.021
No, I don't think it contradicts the notified motion. The issue of music and operating hours and when that can happen is already dealt with in the planning scheme. You know, this is not a new issue. What these amendments seek to do is refine, that and provide some level planning based on feedback from the industry. No, don't think it contradicts that motion. I think, you know, Councillors can amend the planning scheme at any time they there's further work done that makes changes to what's considered appropriate, balancing industry, business, the association and residents' needs, then changes, further be made to the amendment. Can and what I will say again is that these changes are for new businesses. They do not impact existing businesses. They're not retrospective. So, you know, in terms of the question has the current business has been notified, they already have approvals. Liquor license. Operating hours. You know, these are not retrospective provisions. They are going forward. Frank Wilkie 02:17:23.124
So it doesn't change the operating hours for existing businesses. Kim Rawlings 02:17:27.888
No. No. If they were lawfully established and have approved operating hours. You very much. Frank Wilkie 02:17:33.568
OK. Thank you for the clarity. Right. Any other Councillors wish to speak to the amendment? Tom Wegener 02:17:45.020
Yes, the question. So does that really make a change? Does this amendment actually change what's being proposed in the planning scheme amendments? Does it matter? Frank Wilkie 02:18:02.320
Or who would it apply to? What would be the impact? Kim Rawlings 02:18:07.080
So that's two things. Different questions. It would apply to new businesses going what it seeks to do is to provide a little bit more clarity that amplified music relates to indoor and outdoor. So there's a locational aspect to it. And if it is either indoor and outdoor, the place is acoustically treated. It seeks to provide that. There are still provisions in an existing scheme around SPEAKER_03_b 02:18:52.219
Acoustic and amplified music. There's a little bit of nuance. It's not that significant if it doesn't proceed. Kim Rawlings 02:19:08.015
This trading is hours house still exists. Yeah. Increase. That is dice. That's not subject to this amendment. So the trading hours are They stay. This is only relating to 1.2, which is around amplified music. It's located on site. Is indoor or outdoor, beyond 9pm from Sunday to Thursday. So that doesn't happen unless the site has been acoustically treated to appropriate levels. That's the provision, the only provision that's coming out. That comes out, then the existing provision of Noosa Plan states, which says amplified music ceases to operate in outdoor spaces by 7pm, seven days a week. Except if located in Hastings Street or in the Noosa Junction precinct, where it can operate until 9pm, Sunday to Thursday and 10pm, Friday to Saturday. So that's what would guide the issue of amplified busy. There's not a major gap, nothing's majorly lost. I don't think it's hugely significant if this doesn't. Nicola Wilson 02:20:32.156
Think what you just read out was only about outside, so that loses our ability to. If current provisions in the current plan were only about outside music then by deleting this 1.2 do we lose the ability to. No, we don't. Kim Rawlings 02:20:51.059
We don't because 1.3 introduces a definition which doesn't exist in the current scheme that amplified music. Includes. In music that is played inside or outside so that would be part of the definition so the current provisions that when it says amplified music you would look at what amplified music means in the definition that would say inside and outside. Brian Stockwell 02:21:17.706
I actually look at 14.3 again because I don't think it does because it says that it only 14.3. Relates to admiral space okay at one point three one four oh sorry 14.3 in the Noosa Plan it talks about amplified music but it ceases to operate in outdoor space so it wouldn't control indoor spaces under that provision Frank Wilkie 02:21:42.122
So you're right Michelle 02:21:44.582
So 1.3 talks to amending those provisions in the plan to apply to both inside and outside the venue. Kim Rawlings 02:21:57.258
So it would pick it up. It would amend the definition and 14.3 in the scheme Tom Wegener 02:22:03.339
Can you speak to that? Yes, Tom. It actually appears that what you want is to make things clearer but this doesn't seem to be doing it because we maybe perhaps didn't realise that it reverts back to the planning scheme that's there right now. And so that this. Am I getting this right? The new one is a pretty clear. This actually does. The amendment, the way it's written, does level the playing field but if you take that out, it doesn't revert to the State for. Subtitles governance. It actually falls back on the already existing planning scheme. So it's actually a step backwards. Because I know that we want to say, okay, sound belongs to the State. That's the remit. We don't need to get it there. But I don't think getting rid of one point is going to do think that what that means is that the old planning scheme kicks back in again. It doesn't actually achieve the goal. I think that's right. Is that right? Well, anyway, that's my interpretation of what's happening right now. Frank Wilkie 02:23:05.427
Okay. Any other Councillors? Yes, At the risk of influencing the debate, I would be comfortable if this amendment proceeded. Preceded. Brian Stockwell 02:23:24.054
It doesn't do what you're talking about. Tom Wegener 02:23:26.234
It doesn't? Okay, sorry. Did I get it wrong? I'm glad I got it right. Frank Wilkie 02:23:34.722
Phillips, Phillips, do you wish to close? I will. Put the financial report in front of me. Jessica Phillips 02:23:41.063
This is not so clear. Some of my wheelhouse stuff. I'm clear on this. I'm asking for clarity for the community and for everyone around the table, which is what this achieves. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 02:23:54.990
I'll put the amendment that's unanimous. The amendment's carried. Do we have any other amendments? Thank you. Nicola Wilson 02:24:03.933
Thank you. Yes, Councillor Wilson. I'd like to bring up that an amendment relating to the bonus provisions. So coming back to how do we get more houses? What was put forward in the advertiser amendments optional as development bonuses in the. I think you need to move and have a seat. Oh sorry, I didn't mean to talk you through it, sorry. It was so relevant. Yeah. Item 4 was to. I'm removing some of the recommendations in the report. So, amend the affordable rental premises definition to reduce the long-term affordable rental time to 20 years and remove bullets 2 to 4. So only the top bullet point that was in the bonus provisions as advertised remain and the rest would be deleted. Frank Wilkie 02:25:08.189
So you're not saying remove the affordable rental bonus provisions? Nicola Wilson 02:25:13.029
The recommendation at the moment says to remove them. I'm asking for them to stay. Richard MacGillivray 02:25:17.729
Such a beautiful, wall. Seven. Frank Wilkie 02:25:30.589
Seven. Confused. Nicola Wilson 02:25:38.500
Yeah, sorry. That's not wording quite right. So there were four bullet points. I was keeping the top one and then deleting other three. So the recommendation at the moment says it's recommended that a change be made to the proposed amendments in response to submissions two and then that's four bullet points. SPEAKER_05_b 02:26:00.034
So I wanted in to amend the affordable rental premises Frank Wilkie 02:26:06.351
And take up all the rest. And remove the bullet points. That's what it's saying? Yeah. Brian Stockwell 02:26:13.551
For clarity, are the bullet points are actually 7.2, 7.3 and 7.4. Frank Wilkie 02:26:19.796
Yes. This is about removing the incentives for private landowners to provide affordable housing. Is anyone willing to second that? Nicola Wilson 02:27:00.260
Years. We're now proposing to change that to 20 years. In the medium and high density residential zone, if providing 10 of the total GFA as affordable multiple premises. These recommendations now say take those away, so remove the rental affordable bonus provisions, except on key sites being the former Noosa bowls club and Noosa Business Centre. We then also had optional development bonuses including an additional story. Storey in height on key sites of providing 20 of the total GFA's affordable rental premises, and now they have only been limited to the major centres they to be removed or only retained at specific sites, and then there's a follow-on amendment from that consequential that the PSP-11 would be amended to reflect those changes, so that was just the consequential. For me, the boldest move in the amendments that actually went out to the public was some of these provisions. We were mandating multiple dwellings, sorry, where there were multiple dwellings in the medium and high density zone, we were mandating at least 75 to be small dwellings. The bonus provisions to apply for at least 10 of those were affordable rental premises. So for me, that was potential for a clear increase in housing supply. But we've now dropped those mandated small dwelling provisions, even though we've changed the small dwelling definition from 75 square metres to 100 square metres. We now don't have those mandated anymore and that would have actually increased. But one of the reasons that got dropped was because they wouldn't be feasible on lots as small as 600 square metres and so we needed bigger lots to be able to make that work also if you're a moderator this is all well small dwellings and you've got a house and two units on a block then 75 of the dwellings would have been small dwellings because you've house. Got a so the combination of some of the amendments have sort of meant that we lose really good provisions that were in there to try and encourage small dwellings and more units. I know that we also looked at the impact of NRAS on the ability for some of those developments to be affordable rental premises because they wouldn't be subsidised by the government. That doesn't mean that the current government or future governments, won't come up with alternate schemes that may make that actually achievable. So, since they were only opting provisions, I don't really understand why we would put those away because we may get a developer in sites other than those ones that have been specified. Can make it work. Financially, so why would we not give them that option? Frank Wilkie 02:30:26.857
Councillor Lorentson. Questions to Amelia Lorentson 02:30:33.997
Why have the affordable rental bonus provisions been areas like the major signs at Noosa Junction and Doonella Street? They haven't. Oh, they haven't? Brian Stockwell 02:30:50.548
Substitute excuse me. Can you more? Explain fully. The rationale behind the recommended changes? One was alluded to in terms of feasibility, but there is a broader rationale. Could you explain that so we understand? Glenn 02:31:13.015
Through the Chair. The rationale behind having the VAR incentivised, so with the current scheme provisions incentivise small dwellings and they were very successfully integrated through Noosa Plan 2020. But they weren't necessarily affordable. So then we took the bonus and put them for affordable rental premises as an incentive. And that was to and went through a whole process to find that there was funding that was needed for that to be feasible and a whole other range of provisions as well to make those provisions work. When we get to feasibility, which was the Director Rawlings mentioned previously, that we did just a recent feasibility, it came back because of changes since 2020 with construction etc. and there was no funding available, then they became unviable for adults to go forward. Motion here is saying to retain those provisions, there will needing some sort of incentive because just generally most developers wouldn't come just on the back and then lose money over time because of that development. SPEAKER_02_b 02:33:03.737
The other part to that is that the there's no funding available currently just for recurrent funding so over a period of time the developer would need to have a return and they couldn't get that return unless they were working on far less margin and that's what feasibility came and discussed. With the. One before yes, motion before us. Yes, this amendment. Nicola's sorry. The consequence of that is it's probably unlikely to be taken up by developers. On one hand it's not feasible and on the second hand they're that it would be sitting in as a not as a waste but as a superfluous type of provision to be most unlikely to be taken up. Because of feasibility. Rowena 02:34:15.618
I might just add on to that so the current provisions which are as Glenn said opt-in provisions for small dwellings which give a small gross floor area bonus on site cover since the amendments were first drafted we didn't have the benefit of seeing a lot of the developments coming through and picking up those provisions so over the last two to three years they've been very successful. We've got quite a few developments on Eenie Creek Road that have taken up those provisions and we've seen sorry, what was we've seen small dwellings being developed. Not necessarily affordable but providing a range of dwelling sizes. You know, anything from 70 odd square metres up to 120 metres. The proposed amendment sought to take those bonus provisions and require that you could only get if you delivered 10 affordable housing. And 75% of the total gross for area was small dwellings. So that was a mandate. The provisions also mandated small dwellings for gross for area regardless of getting any bonus provisions. So we got feedback through the submissions that questioned the feasibility of that. We took that and tested that further and got some specialist advice on that. And I guess since they were originally drawn up three years ago, a lot of things have changed. We talked about construction costs, holding lending costs, market had changed. And they weren't identified as being necessarily feasible anymore. But what we had seen was that the opt-in, and there were questions around mandating the small dwellings and whether that would be feasible, as in requiring developers to deliver no more than 75 square metre dwellings across 75 of the gross floor area. So we further tested that. It came back and said well look, particularly on the smaller lots, that probably isn't going to work under the current market conditions. Better off looking at an opt-in provision, which is currently working right now. And that's why we've recommended go back there. We're not going to mandate it. And we've also looked at the small dwelling size increasing back to 100 square metres as well. That provides a greater diversity of smaller dwelling sizes. It goes from anything studio but also a small three-bedroom dwelling. So it and range in housing types. And it's considered that the current incentives are working and we should maintain them. Housing affordability in terms of where under the definition of affordable rental premises, where that is viable, it's on the larger scale sites and that's why we kind of focus those into town centres where you can amalgamate sites and the bigger sites such as the former Noosa bolts club and the Noosa Business Centre where the scale makes it more likely to be a feasible outcome for a developer to get a return on the 20% requirement.% affordable housing. Rental premises there. They're more likely to access funding, so infrastructure funding, as well as other schemes in the future. So we didn't say they've been particularly feasible on the smaller sites and the medium and high density zones, which are largely smaller sites. Kim Rawlings 02:37:59.145
The only thing I would add to that is there's no reason that anyone who may want to deliver affordable housing on the medium density or high density can opt in and use the opt-in provisions. If there's new funding regimes that come through with the government, new funding programs could happen in the next couple of years that subsidise, I mean the current government are talking about a subsidy for infrastructure, you know, that may subsidise a portion of development, that may make these incentives feasible. There's no reason why we still couldn't get affordable housing outcomes under the bonus provisions in the meeting density and by density. Nicola Wilson 02:38:38.440
Yeah, just with that, I apologise. Actually, I misread that. One of the bullets is being removed on a separate team. But I'm still. Would like a bit more clarity on the one that says remove the affordable rental bonus provisions from the medium and high density residential zones, except on the key sites being the former Noosa bowls club site and Noosa so, if, I'm kind of confused because we don't generally consider whether a development application is actually viable or not for the developer, so it seems like we're pre-empting that. And he's saying, well, it would never be affordable, therefore we should take away the option. So is that what this is doing, or could, if someone did own land in the median density residential zone and they believed they could fund a project for affordable rental properties. Does this remove those bonus provisions for them? Kim Rawlings 02:39:40.729
I'll leave it of things there. When we say remove those provisions, what we're saying is remove the provisions that were advertised which were mandating, the requirement for a proportion of dwellings in medium density and high density to achieve, if you want to get the bonuses, you have to deliver available housing. Affordable that statement removes, it the mandating. We're not going to mandate anymore, but what we are going to do is provide incentives. If you provide small dwellings, you can get potentially, GFI. Results in more. We've got numbers of incentives and more. Nothing in it stops that being affordable and accessing future funding from government. It just doesn't. Mandate it. And you're absolutely right about feasibility and economic assessment, but we had lots of submissions questioning feasibility, and we've had numbers of councils questioning feasibility. So that's why we into that space to answer those questions and respond to them. But you're right, from a planning perspective, it is not something that is considered when you're assessing a planning application. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 02:41:06.680
Yes, wouldn't be supporting the amendment, but it may be that we do a future amendment to actually play with the words of 7.2 to make it clear to us all. I think I just spoke twice to the motion. Amelia Lorentson 02:41:19.720
I'll speak. To the motion. I won't support it. It's probably one of the many amendments that I really support when we talk about appropriate development in appropriate location and incentivising developers to provide and actually be part of the housing solution. This is it. This is where we're actually going to see some yield and, again, in appropriate locations. So, I won't be supporting this. Frank Wilkie 02:41:57.960
Any to speak to the amendment before. Jessica Phillips 02:42:02.720
I was just going to say. Just thanking Councillor Wilson for actually bringing the effort into. Really what I'm trying to highlight is obviously the new Councillors that people like to refer to us have just gone along with the writing. We've put in a lot of effort and time into this, so that is probably what I'm going to acknowledge right now, more than anything. And the ones that came through in season four. Richard MacGillivray 02:42:37.429
I don't get to think of who I am, do I will Nicola Wilson 02:42:39.469
Close because I'm acknowledging that I actually made an error in the motion in the first place, so therefore I can't support it myself. Because I want to retain, I never want a moment to where it's proven. I'm just to clarify as well, I am seeking to maximise yield and I was concerned about bonus provisions being taken away from me, so I'm just going to make sure they're retained, so I apologise for the bad reading last night that I failed to retain this room, so I was considered out. Options being removed, that may help actually being able to generate affordable housing, but because it's partly worded and I'm glad that my questions answered very well, thank you, that I further understand this myself, then I will sort it against it. Frank Wilkie 02:43:24.290
Thank you, Councillor Wilson. Those in favour of the amendment? Those against? Brian Stockwell 02:43:31.681
Just for clarity, I suggest an amendment that makes a minor change to item 7.2 in the table to remove the with the mandatory elements of affordable rental premise bonus provisions from the mayhew and high density residential zones and business centre. I'm happy to second that. I need to remove the mandatory SPEAKER_06 02:44:20.200
Is that what you're saying? Yeah. Or just mandatory elements. Remove the mandatory elements of the affordable. So that retains the opt-in. The way it's working could be in all of them. Frank Wilkie 02:44:45.333
So does that mean that would be mandatory on key sites in the form of olds club and this business here? Brian Stockwell 02:44:55.833
Yeah, it doesn't affect 7 it's 7.3 which is the next one. That where you're at? I believe that's what it reflects the intent that just heard but I'm seeing my eyes questioning that. Kim Rawlings 02:45:12.300
Well, of course we're considering it. I'm not questioning it because, you know, when you throw words in and sorry, Councillor Stockwell, I didn't mention mean to my confuse food. When we introduce words, you know, there could be consequential considerations. So I'm just weighing up whether or not it's necessary when the intent of how it's is that we remove the provisions requiring the specific provisions. I'm not convinced it's needed. Know you're trying to just make it a bit clearer. Only because we just haven't had full time to consider if there are consequential, there could be other mandatory provisions relating to size of dwellings Brian Stockwell 02:46:03.254
And things like that. Oh okay, I see what you mean, yes. I'd better vote against it then, it's already been moved. Any Councillors wish to speak to the amendment? Councillor Stockwell just closed? No, just don't believe what I just said before. Frank Wilkie 02:46:22.703
Favour of the amendment, those against? Lost unanimously. Do we have any amendments that have been drafted prior to meeting? Considered amendments that we could test? Amelia Lorentson 02:46:35.043
I'd love to test this one please, to retain car parks in Albert Street. Thank you. Endorsed recommendation C with the exception of the proposed changes in response to public submissions identified as 3 in attachment 2 and include the following: remove fort Albert Street, Noosaville Council car park from the high density residential zone and the site remain in the Tourism Accommodation Zone. I'll accommodations. Speak to it. Car parks, something that we've been hearing probably for the whole term of this Council, the importance of the value that our residents place on car parks. Starting 2024, the Noosaville foreshore master plan. We proposed then removing 103 car spaces and what we saw as a result was a public outcry. There were protests, rallies, petitions, deputations, community meetings, emails and numerous, conversations in community about car spaces. At the moment we've got the draft plan which scales back and it's, the plan has been scaled back to remove the spaces but the community still is strongly opposing the removal of even a few car parks it's clear and that the community is sending us a really loud and urgent message that our community really values its car parks. I've gone to elkitt street and I've actually met the residents who live adjoining the car park and I'm unsure if anyone else around this table has. I've gone there at two o'clock in the afternoon midweek outside school period you can't find parking it's a nightmare and you've got trailers parking on the street and there's a monster overflow there's people parking on verges and footpaths so that particular car park also accommodates car parking trailers early this year I moved a notified motion which highlighted the critical shortage that we've got in boat trailer parking and the numbers are but just to we've remind everyone got 36 spaces for boat trailer parking available for over 4,900 registered boat trailers in Noosa so even if we just reduce the two that are available at the moment in Albert Street we're going to worsen that shortage and further clog our neighbourhoods with cars and trailers. I think what I'm asking is that before we consider removing any car parks let's make sure that we have sustainable alternatives in place first and that includes you know in terms of boat trailer parking, upgrading facilities like the Doonella Street boat ramp, improving public transport with more frequent buses. Brian Stockwell 02:50:11.117
We're dealing with a amendment that relates to changing the zone but we're having a discussion on car parking it's totally irrelevant. Frank Wilkie 02:50:23.931
The parking is pretty central to this discussion because that site is used as a car park and it's been raised as an issue in that location so any discussion regarding car parking and the capacity of this particular lot to contribute to that is central to this motion so I'm going to hand it over to Brian Stockwell 02:50:53.640
Bob further point out that the car parking implications of whether it's a high density residential zone or a Tourism Accommodation Zone no difference, so the is amendment makes no difference to the schedule in that case. Frank Wilkie 02:51:09.116
Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 02:51:11.436
I might start all over again because I find point of orders disrupts the flow of argument. So I would like to with the Chair. Frank Wilkie 02:51:21.682
Councillor Lorentson, could you please sit down? Excuse me. Points of order are part of Standing Orders and part of the natural flow of any debate and any debate or discussion. So we've heard you for what you said today, please continue to do that. Amelia Lorentson 02:51:40.648
Thank you, Chair. So removing car parks like Noosa for Albert Street is going to only exacerbate an already important issue, the shortage of parking in Noosa. Without these spaces, more cars and boat trailers are going to be pushed out onto already crowded streets, placing added strain on residential areas. Again, this is not sustainable. Residential streets can't absorb the overflow of parking in an unregulated way. Again, before considering removing car parks, let's make sure that we have sustainable alternatives in place. Upgrading facilities like the Doonella Street boat ramp, improving public transport with more frequent buses and express priority bus lanes. Activating waterway transport. The new jetty in Noosa Woods. We also need to prioritise providing car parking infrastructure in strategic locations. And it's also time that we maybe think beyond just building upwards and start considering the possibility of underground parking. Car parks before express solutions are implemented is only going to shift our parking problem onto our streets and making the situation worse for our residents and visitors. My other argument in terms of retaining car park at Albert Street is not only about respecting community wishes and the very many submissions on the value of car park, but it's also to allow our workers, essential our Noosa's that work night shifts, our hospitality workers who rely on their cars to because our public transport system don't meet their needs. This is a busy tourist area. This is where our restaurants are, our small businesses are. So again removing the car pipes is critical. Not only for our residents who value their car parks but also for our workers and boaties in this busy tourist area. And for our visitors who help our local families pay the bills. So I ask that we put this one maybe on hold and revisit it when we consider further amendments and maybe understand or maybe give some consideration into if we densify our urban areas let's start actively looking at alternate transport solutions first. Frank Wilkie 02:54:17.893
Councillor Lorentson, Phillips. Jessica Phillips 02:54:21.373
I'll speak to it, yes, in support of removing hawthorne street from high-density residential. And really clear about conversations we've all had around connectivity and cycleways. So in particular families that want to cycle into Hastings Street to avoid the traffic usually come out from townsville. Into land and they park where they can flat cycle into busy parks. Taking away car parking when we haven't even connected, we've already identified gaps in our cycleways, can't take away car parks we've got connected the town so that we can reduce traffic. I'm not saying this isn't something to revisit down the track. Right now we just don't have the cycle ways to support removing any car parks at the moment. I am down the river daily there's not enough car parks, there is. Encourage families that could only afford a house out into Tewantin and want to drive into Hastings Street so they don't drive, we want to encourage them to park closer and drive in and you could take away car parks. I would just sit in the car and create pray. All traffic conditions. It makes no sense to me. I hope the rest of the Councillors can see that it's not the right time to remove car parks. Frank Wilkie 02:55:54.541
Just a clarification, does the understanding talk about removing car parks from this site? Kim Rawlings 02:56:01.763
Thank you Councillor Wilkie. No, it does not. Nowhere does any planning scheme amendment talk about removing car parks. This is simply a change in zoning. As part of the strategic review of Tourism Accommodation Zone, this site currently is zoned for tourist accommodation. Looking at it, is that considered an appropriate zone for this site? No, we don't believe it is. It sits within a residential area. We believe it's better to more appropriately zoned as a residential zone. Nowhere, anywhere is it suggested that this car park will be removed. Nicola Wilson 02:56:40.630
Can I just ask a question, Kim? Jessica Phillips 02:56:42.810
4 Albert Street. Can we bring it up on the map, please? If it did go to higher residential on that lot there, which is four hours straight, does that include? Residential provisions for public car parking, or will that have a provision in high density for the residential car parking that is associated with what will go on that site? Kim Rawlings 02:57:08.422
Firstly, it's Council-owned property, so it's up to Council what the Council will do going forward. As you know, in the Housing Strategy, sorry, may not, but there was a recommendation to look at Council-owned properties for housing outcomes, which we have been progressively doing, including looking at Council-owned car parts, such as the Doonella Street car park. If, early investigations, we haven't done a lot to advance because those just yet. We will be saying that public car parts need to be retained, and if there was to be any development that occurs, residential above car parts, above public car parts, that public car parking will be retained. And will be required to service the residential. Amelia Lorentson 02:58:06.195
So to clarify, when we talk about volumetric leasing, I think is the term, so building above a car space, is that what you're referencing as a potential option with this amendment, with the proposed amendment? Kim Rawlings 02:58:26.218
No, what I'm saying is this proposed amendment, a piece of land picked up as part of the Tourism Accommodation Zone review, is that the most appropriate zone for it, given what's happening around it and the issues we're trying to Resolve? No, we don't think it is. It should be changed to high density residential zone. Okay, so. Separate issue. Then reference that. As part of the Housing Strategy. Has an action to look at Council-owned land and potentially look at car parks in the future for delivering housing outcomes. If we were to do that, what we would be saying is that the public car parks need to be retained and if there was development to happen above, that would then. The car parking requirements for the housing. There's no proposal to do that here at this stage. I don't know what future councils may do. Amelia Lorentson 02:59:18.176
So can I request help in the wording to give community assurance that. Car park will be retained even with the change in zoning. Can you help me with some wording that can assure retention of that car park? Happy that this one should fail and move another one. Frank Wilkie 02:59:41.331
I can propose another adjournment agenda. At some stage in the near future. Apologies, thank you. We can test other amendments in the meantime. If we have a break, perhaps that can. That's a great idea. Thank you very much. Shall we move this one back? Oh, well, just, Councillor Phillips. Has requested a comfort break now, so perhaps this one can fail. I'm happy for this one to fall and revisit different wording. Thank you. So we'll put the amendment, those in favour, against. It's lost unanimously. With the consent of the meeting, we'll adjourn for another 15 minutes. 10 Welcome back, everybody. We've just had an a amendment voted upon and it was lost. We have a new amendment. Amelia Lorentson 03:00:42.594
I'd like to move an amendment that item 4 be added under item C. 4 include an item 3 additional item 3.12 proceed with the proposed high density residential zone over for Albert Street Noosaville Council owned car park while noting its current important role in the provision of public car parking. I'll second that, just to prove I was here. So basically this just reflects the discussion we've just had in terms of car parking and also the intent of just provide some clarity around which is not to remove the car parking space and I think the wording acknowledges the discussion we've just had. Frank Wilkie 03:01:39.392
Other Councillors wish to speak to this amendment? Which to close Councillor no we'll put the amendment to vote, those in favour? That is unanimous. Are there any more amendments that people would like to test, Councillor Lorentson? Amelia Lorentson 03:01:55.006
No, just some questions if we can just continue a couple of questions. Yep. Thank you. Just in terms of short-term accommodation, superseded planning scheme applications, in 2020 when the amendments were endorsed, can I ask staff how many for short-term accommodations were we're lodged and endorsed? Kim Rawlings 03:02:31.680
Yes, you can, if you just bear with me a moment. Just to, that I can get those numbers up. From recollection, it's about 200, it was about 250 applications. Yes, so it's dwellings and I think that was single dwellings, is that correct? Single dwellings. Amelia Lorentson 03:03:07.473
And in terms of units, how many units were lodged after the 2020 amendments and endorsed for short-term accommodation existing use rights Rowena 03:03:26.364
Sorry, do you have the speaker? I'd have to have a look at the short-term accommodation sheet. I don't know if I have my speakers up, so if you bear with me, I can have a look and get back to you. Frank Wilkie 03:03:42.371
We would be fair to say the difference between the changes made for the MDR and HDR is opposed to the made for HTA STI and LDR. Was that it was, it would be, in the end, MDR and HDR, Council is already refusing applications for STA and There is likely to be far fewer, if any, applications. Rowena 03:04:10.918
I'd say that's correct and there is no advantage really because they would have to be assessed under the current provisions, which is in fact accessible anyway. So they if haven't come forward now, I can't see them suddenly making a rush in that 12 months because it's already in fact accessible. Frank Wilkie 03:04:30.775
That brings us back to the original motion, which has been amended several times, to which only myself has spoken to. Councillors wish to either move further amendments or speak to the original motion. Tom Wegener 03:04:57.653
I'll ask you to cancel the motion. The Director of Kim always spoke about the evolution the planning scheme through the eyes of the staff, and it just shows the enormous, ridiculously amount of work that staff went through to bring this to us, and we're just going to talk to everybody out there on TV land. To the new Councillors about the journey that we've gone on, from my perspective, of the history of Noosa evolution and these planning commitments. Four years ago, Claire Stewart, the previous Mayor, made a motion declaring a housing emergency in lucerne, Noosa, and she was supported unanimously. By the Councillors. Staff was asked to remedy, to find ways to remedy the situation of the housing crisis. Soon after, Council investigated whether AirBnB or STAs were displacing our long-term rental market. Council prepared two reports showing a link between the housing crisis and the rise of AirBnB, this back in 2021. Council began to kerb AirBnB approvals and began the process of creating local laws to regulate them. But back to the issue of the housing crisis mark on two huge pieces of work, the comprehensive housing needs analysis and the Noosa Housing Strategy 2022, which set the vision for the future housing in Noosa. And in the public consultation, there was overwhelming support for Noosa Council to take a role in creating affordable housing. Councillors were a part of this evolution and unanimously supported the strategy. And this is we all went through this line by And it says right up front at the front, Noosa Council is committed to planning scheme amendments and policy development that support real change and outcomes for a genuine, social, affordable, inclusive housing. So, for a long time, we've been this has on the radar. I found the key elements of the Housing Strategy to include stopping the spread of AirBnB in the hinterland and to keep short-term accommodation in the tourist zones, not in the residential zones. Mandate that new development in medium and high density densities zones of include units, not single homes. Review the tourist zones consider if some may be more appropriate as high density zones. This helps create more permanent adding some incentives to developers to include 20 or 20% social or affordable housing in large developments. The clear vision was more housing for residents and more housing in the best locations in Noosa, Noosa, like along olomouc. The foreshore. The best places in Noosa should not all be for tourists. That was the goal. These elements were then made into the planning scheme amendments, which would give the force or effect. Here's so that the staff, this is what Kim was talking about, the amount of effort that goes into the various planning scheme amendments that bring force to our strategy. The staff, Anita, Rowena, Glenn, Michelle, and Kim put an enormous effort into this planning scheme amendment and the Mayor and Councillors were again broad on the journey with plenty of opportunity for input. Finally, the amendments were endorsed by Council and sent to the State for sign-off in February 2023. And we waited, but in the meantime, we put it in the Corporate Plan. So again, it seems like the amount of time we were discussing social housing. And in the liveability section of our Corporate Plan, we say clearly, number one, the number one signature project, deliver a new Housing Strategy, and two 2 point.1, one, facilitate greater housing choice, which means the changing needs of the community, improves liveability and affordability, and includes partnering to increase provisions of social housing and affordable housing. In the Corporate Plan, we again went through all the amendments. We knew what we were doing. There were no surprises. And the Corporate Plan was finalised and unanimously accepted. Finally, year later, the State signed off on the planning scheme amendments, and they could finally go out to public consultation. News residents are very engaged with local issues, and there were many hundreds of submissions and feedback. Staff had enormous tasks sorting out and evolving the planning scheme amendments to respond to the needs in and the wants of community. And of course, we remember our green sheets like this. Again, lots of organisation. We know what's going on. We read the sheets, so on and so forth. And so we were all aware of that, and these were great. These were absolutely fantastic pieces to community understand what we were doing. In the meantime, the State also recognised the housing crisis and began investigating how we could remedy the situation. One thing the labour government could do is cut red tape that local councils used to stop development. Hence, the State-facilitated development, in it, or as SFD, came about and Noosa was soon facing the risk of high-rise development. Then we got an absolute reprieve when the labour government lost the election and the LNP said it would not impose the SFD upon Noosa and would only support development within the planning scheme. So we dodged a major bullet there. However, new government clearly supports population protection for growth and supports increased housing Noosa. So I'm not utterly believed that we're out of the Woods yet. So here we are today contemplating the vote on these planning scheme amendments. The way I see it, there's three possible outcomes in general. First and best, we pass these amendments and prove Noosa is doing its job in supporting our own housing objectives, and then the State will leave us alone. This is the path we're hoping for, because as we've known, the whole we were doing this, the State was looking at what and we were actually jumping, we were ahead of the State with our amendments, and so that was fantastic. The second option. We can do is not pass the amendments and hope the State does not impose FDS-like measures which override our planning scheme. And that could happen, you never know, but the third is the worst scenario, and the State comes in with new SD, FSD-type scenarios overriding we face very unusual development. So what is going to happen? I believe our strategy that we've held all along as Councillors, as staff, with our planning scheme amendments that are the strategy of passing these amendments, doing what we can, pulling our weight, knowing the whole time that the day would come when we were going to look at people and say, "You're going to perceive that lose some of your rights." We knew that was going to happen. We've known it for years. But it's the right thing to do. It's what we have to do. And it's the best way to maintain Noosa the way we all love it. So please support the 92 amendments. Frank Wilkie 03:12:32.203
Councillors wish to speak to the motion. Brian Stockwell 03:12:49.140
It is an amendment largely driven by the Housing Strategy and the conditions imposed on Council in the adoption of the plan. It was mentioned that the Housing Strategy emanated from a notice of motion, but my recollection was actually Karen, Councillor Finzel 2020 plan actually added clause to identify the housing. Crisis and it's important to understand that while affordable and social housing is part of the mix, these amendments go broadly across the spectrum of housing to create opportunities for increased supply And we've heard today how different Councillors represent different demographics and lived experiences and I flipped into that 2024 homelessness report and found a demographic that I'm part of and that is that there has been an increased spike of people over the age of 65 experiencing homelessness. Up to 30% in some regions and we know in our Shire that single women over 50 are one of the fastest growing demographics in need of housing. Brilliant. A significant growth. But that's really not what I'm voting for today. The demographic is people like me who've got kids who historically would have been first home buyers. When I moved here in '81 I saved for two or three years. I had enough to buy a seven acre block of land 15 minutes up the hill and for the cost of two to three median wages at the time I had seven acres plus solar power house. Yes, and you can pay that off. My son's that age now, it would cost him, if he could find a block of land, 20 to 30 times the median wage. The prospects for our young people entering the housing market in I did that they are the people who will historically have bought first homes, will be buying first units, and that's what a lot of these recommendations are about, that the pathway into the housing market is different from all of us when we enter the and a lot of the people submitting to planning schemes are people who are in the housing market, not those trying to get into it or those calling off it. And that's what I think about a lot, is how do we make this improve the lot of future homeowners and future renters for the life of this scheme. As I said, we're looking at things that will take five, ten years to make any change. It's also important to note that we have taken some hard decisions. We've talked about one, and we talked about the importance of height, and when we had that SEQ Regional Plan and the four to eight storey graphic going up there, it really generated some raw emotion. And what we did through this advertising period has shown how in a few locations, and it probably would be less than a handful of sites in the junction, that a sensitively designed four storey building could maintain the Noosa look and feel, could provide a type of housing that's in demand, and will not, I suppose, offend the principle that Noosa buildings don't go above tree height. And I suppose we've had a lot of talk about economic implications and have we done enough of that economic modelling. What I find a lot of people asking for really just want development economics or development finance. Is it feasible? The economics behind plans are far more complex. Big picture. It's about resource economics. And if we looked at the effect of the current housing crisis, we know, for example, that overall government expenditure on homelessness has increased 31 four years leading to 2023. We know that direct expenditure the homelessness is not the only cost. There's in housing, law enforcement, there's costs in the welfare organisations. So I mentioned last week again, one of the biggest employers saying housing for our staff is issues trying to retain them. I've talked to a couple of welfare organisations since the last meeting and housing is their number one issue in, that they deal with day out, trying to support people. If we don't focus our planning effort on a community in the future that is somewhere where people can live whether you're a hospitality worker having a part time job or executive who wants to live reasonably close to your place of employment then we're probably not doing our job properly and I acknowledge that we've had to make some hard decisions. The last one that hasn't had much airing is there has been some suggestion we're going against the principles of the population cap. Can I say is about a sustainable carrying capacity. When they first reviewed it, and it was probably Rowena who did it, when they first, I think, went from '59 to '63, there was a table produced about what the future populations of all the eastern beaches suburbs were. I looked at that data, and we're still, a few years ago, we're still nowhere near what was projected for the 2009, because our population growth rate has gone down, and the number of people per house So that gives us the ability to work within the envisaged sustainable caring capacity, but creating the houses where people don't necessarily have to have the two-car family, people who but want to save, you know, you can save $180,000 in 11 years off your mortgage if you want to buy a unit without a car park. So these are all the things that we have to think about. Retain the values of Noosa, at the same time adjust our planning settings reflect the real world as it is today. And I think where we've ended up is a good mix. Frank Wilkie 03:19:24.280
Professor Wilson. Nicola Wilson 03:19:26.700
During the election campaign I talked about the importance of housing and on day one when we were asked for our priorities I in our term about I talked about housing. So so I'm gonna not going to stand say in the way of anything any that will help to produce more housing. What we're facing here today is we're voting on a package and that has a number of recommendations. The short version of that is three pages of A3 with multiple recommendations. Do support most of those. I've made it clear that I don't support houses being in consistent use in a medium density zone and I will continue on that path but the journey that we've just gone through to be able to distill that down to just, you know, a few recommendations or will one go recommendation that I'm very much against is that we've had the existing planning scheme, the planning scheme amendments that were published, pages and of submissions and that's distilled down to a few pages recommendations so I do want to say thank you to the team for all of your work in going through all that journey and for all your patience this last week or so with all of our questions. The reason that I really wanted more time to go through all of this is because we do have an existing planning scheme, an amended planning draft and all of those submissions and all the recommendations and you can see today from the some of the motions we've put through is those recommendations form a set of instructions that will be flowed through various sections of the Noosa Plan. We didn't necessarily get section numbers of where they were so it's referencing back between all those documents has been quite challenging for me to then go how will that actually look once implemented so that's been some of the useful additional time to be able to do that but obviously still not completely successfully on that last motion but it is a package. And as I said I do agree with most of the recommendations and appreciate all of the work that everyone has done to try and achieve more housing outcomes we stated that part of the reason for these amendments is for the provision of long term housing supply for residents and that's ultimately what we need to aim for as well as that other strategic outcome that I mentioned earlier. Residential amenity and safety, sense of community and belonging must maintained so I just always want to be mindful of that sense of community in all of our decisions but this is a continuous process and I'm glad that we will continue to have more input into this the coming years. Frank Wilkie 03:21:57.818
Thank you Councillor Wilson. Phillips. Okay firstly I would like to Jessica Phillips 03:22:08.677
Thank Kim for the many hours and calls and emails over the last week especially, so I was able to meet with, you know, any even just sort of the question and hearing every single Councillor listening to the debate has been very informative so I'm really sitting comfortable. I want to talk about my Noosa. Is a Noosa that reflects the character and the lifestyle and the environment that we all love. A place where with helpful thoughtful planning preserves what makes Noosa you unique while ensuring our community continues to thrive. It didn't then, and nor no one does it still in my mind include high density living areas where it fundamentally changes what we love about this place. I'll say it again, but I'll stand here as whichever one around the room will now know is the same Jess that you're going to see every day here. The community meets for coffee, at the shops, maybe some of the parents when I'm in Noosa will drop off depending on how the kids got ready for school. But I'm unapologetically authentic and someone who leaves with my heart. Trust my very high moral compass and I believe in doing what's right even when it's hard. Really noted that as an ex-first responder for 15 years, I deeply understand the very housing need in our community. I was a police negotiator for a decade and I've seen faces of our community struggling. I've seen Noosa at 3am driving around or returning from a fatality back to the station the to start again. A coronial report. So I have seen the struggles of the families at first hand. And I carry that empathy into chamber and every day with me. So housing is not just a goal it's a necessity it's about providing stability and opportunity for the people who make Noosa the vibrant, diverse and beautiful place we all cherish. Over this past week, I've worked in close. More with Kim Rawlings, asked some pretty tough questions, reflected all the posted concerns by our community, or on Facebook, posed searching. For answers to the ones that have kept me up most nights. I've sought clarity, perspective and. Solutions because I take my responsibility to our residents seriously. But at the core of these amendments lies my fundamental issue that cannot in good faith support, and that's taking away property rights of owners. These are not just legal or financial, but they're deeply personal because they represent the dreams, the futures, and stability for families who, like me, call Noosa home. We need housing. Let me be unequivocal in goal. Support the incredible work that's going into these amendments. I support the intention that define every hour that workers, that the staff have worked on and their commitment behind it. And I support the acknowledgement of our community's needs. But what I can't support is achieving these goals by taking away fundamental rights. But reflected deeply this week about what I stand for. I'm just someone with a much higher EQ than an IQ, someone who knows my strengths and understands where I need to but one thing I do not need to work on is trusting my moral compass, and that compass tells me we cannot ask people to sacrifice their rights, dreams and their futures without exhausting every single Avenue. I just don't believe these I want to find another way. I support the work, the goal and the need. Today, as they stand, my integrity demands that I listen to my heart, my head and my community, and today I'm making a very informed decision to choose the principles that have guided me to this point. Empathy, fairness, and a trust in doing what's right. Thanks. Frank Wilkie 03:26:55.135
Thank you, Councillor Phillips. Larson. Amelia Lorentson 03:27:01.899
I so I want to begin by acknowledging and thanking the staff for the enormous amount of work and effort that's gone into the plan. The strategies proposed aim to address critical housing. Issues and there is clear intent to provide solutions to this growing crisis. These efforts are really appreciated and many of the elements of the package have my total support and have genuine merit. However, what we have been asked to prove today is not just a set of amendments, it's an entire package that will fundamentally shape Noosa future. It's a decision, in my opinion, with profound and far-reaching consequences that once made cannot easily be undone. So I can't support the package in its entirety. As Councillors, our responsibility is to ensure that every decision we make is based on a clear understanding of its implications. The do not have that clarity proposal here. The proposal extends beyond towson. It potentially threatens to compromise the very character and values that make Noosa special. The risks to me are too great and what we're gambling with dealing is our lifestyle and our economic foundation. What do these changes mean for our small businesses, the mums, dads and young entrepreneurs? When we move tourism zoning into medium and high density residential zoning, what safeguards are in place to protect the jobs and businesses that without answers to these fundamental questions, I believe we're moving forward blind. Community support is the cornerstone of any successful initiative. And I'm unsure if this plan has secured that. Residents have repeatedly asked tough, valid questions. And I'm taking this straight out of the submission. Why is the responsibility of fixing the housing crisis falling on them? Why should their property rights and democratic rights be sacrificed? And why aren't we focusing on areas like Noosa Civic or TAPE where infrastructure already exists and increased density could make sense. Done in the future. Despite extensive consultation, when I go out into community, the feedback from the community is constant. They say, "You asked for feedback. We gave it to you." " haven't listened." The amendments in this package have left the community divided. It's left them confused and distrustful. And without community support, my belief is this plan may not achieve what it's set out to achieve. I'm going to back to past experiences. In 2020, by a majority of five Councillors, affordable housing located in medium density zones, a critical historical resource for our essential workers was rezoned into exclusive hotel zones with the stroke of a pen. This decision made it impossible for many essential workers to afford or rent near their workplaces. Similarly, a rural zone, re again in 2020, is now allowing a 150 person wedding venue in a small quiet rural area. These decisions made without adequate foresight have had lasting consequences. So my question is what other unintended consequences are we overlooking now? There are alternatives worth exploring. This is not it. We still are moving amendments and we're still seeking other options for housing solutions. Decision that we're going to have in front of us today is something that we need to live with and sleep well at night. Again once the changes are made they can't easily be reversed. We need to be able to sleep at night knowing that we made the right decision for our community. Again there is no mandated time frame or specific time frame to complete these amendments and provide housing solutions. What we're asked today is not just about meeting housing targets. The decision we're asked to be made today is about making informed thoughtful decisions. That respect our community, protect their rights and preserve the lifestyle that makes Noosa such a special place. I stand here today with the people that oppose the amendments. Those who were not consulted. Decisions. Again, I support very many parts of these amendments, but again, the decision we've been asked today is support the package in its entirety. I cannot in good conscience support this so my vote is no. Frank Wilkie 03:32:35.970
Sometimes the role of the Councillor is to look beyond their own particular narrow focus. At the entirety of the package. I vote against this package is a vote against the restriction, further on short-term accommodation in the medium density, high rural residential and rural zones. We all know when we endorse the Housing Strategy. We knew this action was going to be part of the planning scheme amendments. We unanimously endorsed it. To suddenly vote against it at the final hour, that's the final test of whether Councillors mean what they say and what they mean. Cannot we at this eleventh hour, suddenly reverse our decision to support amendments that would further restrict short-term accommodation in all our remaining residential zones. There are other aspects of this amendment package. We listened very carefully to the feedback from very upset Tewantin residents who were seeing sheds the size of virtually a two-storey house appear at their site boundary. This planning scheme amendment which all Councillors would have seen if they read the clear material, presented which had been available for the best part of the year. We know that sheds will only be up a maximum of 3.6 metres now in those zones. You cannot vote against that and allow these two-storey sheds to continue to appear in backyards, blocking people's views and destroying amenity. We know very well that there's an amendment to rezone and as part of the Tewantin Noosa sporting complex to allow an integrated health hub. A narrow focus to vote against this package would be a significant advancement. To improve services that could be provided to every member who enjoyed the Tewantin Noosa sports complex and that's a lot of young people families in our heartland. A vote against these amendments at this moment would be providing greater range of housing choice in a half national housing crisis it the commitment we made when we endorsed the Housing Strategy this was one of the clear as actions which was to make sure that the medium density and high density residential zones function as they should to suddenly turn their back turn our backs on that at this eleventh hour I don't understand how anyone could have any confidence in what we say or do to have a narrow focus at this narrow point in time such a vast amendment package would be to ignore the very real threat that has been spelled out as part of this SEQ regional planning process that if we do not meet our dwelling targets then if you're worried that three-story duplexes could be a reality mandated on all low density residential lots then you can really validly talk about people's rights being taken away we'd have no say in it because this the real politic of this is that local government is at the mercy of state government that's a real that's the political reality we have to accept. I really am I'm pleased that we're going to see these amendments passed because finally after a three and a half year process which is I understand some the new Council is a part of it for the best part of the year we can give some a certainty to the community and industry and they're waiting on that lack of certainty is not something we want to give the community to go back to the Noosa Plan 2020 yes some Councillors vote against and voted against they're also voting against a hundred pieces of red tape reduction intended to help all the businesses that we always purport to help so to have a narrow focus when you are a duly elected local government Councillor I think is almost an abrogation of your responsibility we're not here just to be ourselves and see things through our own particular personal lens we're here to the lens of informed educated opinions and advice provided by professional staff we're only as good as the advice we get not what we might hear from a friend and yes we do have to make hard decisions think the there's always implications from planning scheme changes the Noosa Plan 2020 was the first step in reducing the spread of short-term accommodation in low density residential zones it was a good start we've learned a lot since then we know that if we bring in these changes about medium and high density there's a to be a flood of superseded applications that are going to be approved because we're already knocking them back in those locations already. Can talk about. Staff for their work I don't think we'll fully understand the impact of a decision not to support this package at this late stage will really have given the quality look that they've done. Housing, I have to say the Housing Strategy was also endorsed by the community. It went out to a community consultation. The public gave the feedback and they unequivocally said yes do the work. Today Councillors is the test about whether you mean what you say and what you mean when you say you endorse a strategy with the clearly articulated actions in there which are embodied in this climate scheme package but I guess that's the test and that's what we'll all be judged on so I recommend these this package of planning skill amendments to my colleagues here and the community and I'm sincerely hoping that everyone around when just seeing it through a particular narrow lens and getting and taking on board that it's not just about our particular focus it's about all the other benefits that will flow from this package the mums and dads and kids that will benefit from the changes at the tournament as a sporting complex and those who will no longer have their backyard views overshadowed by sheds the size of two-story homes on their boundary fences I'm not going to make a start because I don't know how I feel and anything we say today I think will be inadequate so I'm going to be voting loading for through this package and I encourage your Councillors please reconsider and consider the whole package. Thank you. I put the motion. Those in favour? Councillor Wegener, Stockwell, Wilson and Wilkie. Those against? Councillor Phillips and Councillor Lorentson. The motion is carried. There are no further items on the agenda. So I declare the meeting closed at 1:30. And thank you everybody for your patience. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
