Special Meeting 12 December 2024 (resumed from 5 December 2024), 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)
Meeting Transcript
Amelia Lorentson 00:05.941
It's on, we're going to have this, I've already put it on, it's on, okay, alright. Frank Wilkie 00:13.464
All right, 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, respecting and caring for each other. I note that all Councillors are in attendance. Lorentson has gone to her car. Councillor Finzel is an 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 will 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. Council-imposed dwelling targets which we need to meet. Amelia Lorentson 01:49.779
So. Excuse me, through the Chair, can I allow a deferment of 15 minutes while I go to my car and come back? Frank Wilkie 01:57.790
How far away is your car? It's parked across the road. Is the meeting consent to deferring the meeting? We. We adjourn the meeting because we've come for a break, so we'll adjourn the meeting before I go out and press on. Question. Thank I thought you very much. It, that's all. Brian Stockwell 02:27.142
I don't think it was, I think it's appropriate for me to hold up the whole meeting. Frank Wilkie 02:32.621
I'll put the motion that the meeting be adjourned to allow Councillor Lorentson to this will be a proclamation adjourn the meeting to allow Councillor Lorentson to get some materials from her card for 15 minutes. Have a seconder for that please. I'll second. Councillor Phillips, I will come. This is a courtesy, that's all it is. Councillor Lorentson said her card was 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 the to speak motion? I'll put the motion as in favour. Councillor Wegener, Phillips, Wilson, Wilkie, and note that Councillor Lorentson have already left the room. So we'll just adjourn for 15 minutes. Okay, welcome back everyone. It turns out that Councillor Lorentson 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 meeting be resumed. Can I have a seconder for the motion for the meeting to be resumed? There's Councillor Stockwell. 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 some people about the reasons why we're doing these Planning Scheme amendments. Could you just give 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 led? Kim Rawlings 04:49.500
So local planning schemes. So the Noosa Plan is a local government Planning Scheme. How you make and amend planning schemes is guided by the State government. So all of Queensland has the same framework in how in local governments make and amend planning schemes. 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. Every local government does. We also amend our planning schemes based on the State government guidance. There is a very specific process that the State government legislate that you have to go through specific steps to amend a Planning Scheme. Process. State government guided but local government driven because it's our Planning Scheme. These amendments specifically came about, so with any Planning Scheme, planning schemes tend to have about a 10 year lifespan where you a total review, which ends up taking a couple of years. Our last Planning Scheme was 2006 and then the new one was 2020. So will start a review in a 10 year period. But in between that full review, we undertake amendments to the Planning Scheme, one to keep it contemporary. The irony in that is that these processes can take years. But that's the intent, to keep it contemporary, to keep, you know, to respond to changing needs and changing drivers in the community, to respond to changing Council policy or positions, or to respond to state government changing policy or positions. And this, round of amendments is a result of a couple of things. One is that Council endorsed, a number of years ago, Council endorsed a Housing Strategy, a comprehensive housing needs analysis and Housing Strategy. And also did a 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. And 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. Strategies. The Housing Strategy and the short-stayed monitoring report, you know, made recommendations that the Planning Scheme should be strengthened in these areas or reviewed in these areas. 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 also have to ensure that our Planning Scheme and amendments comply with the SEQ Regional Plan. That's legislative. The SEQ Regional Plan has, amongst other things, the raft of things in it, but one of the things in it is some changes in the last year or two around dwelling targets. So that comes from the SEQ Regional Plan. Anything we do to our Planning Scheme to amend it needs to comply with state policy, also needs to comply with 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, responding to the Short Stay Monitoring Report, Council's endorsed Short Stay Monitoring Report, and ensuring it complies with state policy and SEQ Regional Plan. Frank Wilkie 09:00.157
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 09:08.406
Yeah, yes, sure. So so former um, the. So the former Mayor moved a notice of 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, lot of work on understanding 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. Council were very involved in. There was lots of workshops. We formed a housing Stakeholder Reference Group which helped guide the development of the Housing Strategy. The housing Stakeholder Reference Group had representatives from the community housing industry, state, government. I'll, our member, our local member, not-for-profits, absolutely, people with lived experience around homelessness, the development industry and property industry, planning consultants. Am I missing anyone, Rowena? No, so there's probably about 20 people on that house. Aged care, yes, yeah, so very representative. Of the house the housing 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 1,000 maybe, around 800 or 900 submissions. Nine hundred submissions. Don't quote me on that, I'll have to check that. And lots of engagement. We had industry forums, had lots of people talking to us. We held the Stakeholder 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 how we address this issue. So there was a raft of recommendations that came out of the Housing Strategy. Frank Wilkie 11:44.607
Thank you. Other questions for staff? Nicola? Nicola Wilson 11:51.538
Next one. Frank Wilkie 11:52.216
Yes. Could you please. Nicola Wilson 11:54.478
Give us a recap of where we are in that process, and what we're voting on today? Kim Rawlings 12:05.290
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 drafted up. 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 the State government in about February 2023. They were with the State government doing for nearly 12 months their state interest review and a bit of to-ing and fro-ing 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. Sorry. Frank Wilkie 13:09.969
May. 2024. Thanks, Anita. Kim Rawlings 13:14.902
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 consultation. They then went out to public 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. These, where we're at now is they these amendments are in response to submissions and some have changed since advertising as a result of the issues raised in submissions and as a result of the workshops with Councillors. So the point we're at now is for Council to consider a revised package of amendments in to consultation and public submissions for consideration and if endorsed to send back to the State government for that second state interest review. During the second state interest review state government 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 that we need to change for then Council to adopt it. Jessica Phillips 15:04.005
Thank you. That's been interesting. 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 the everyday person could understand, please? Kim Rawlings 15:50.503
So the current Noosa Plan has a number of sections to it. One of the front sections strategic framework. The strategic framework over is really the arching 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 all along align to achieving those outcomes. These amendments very much align with the strategic framework. So for instance the strategic framework 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, the strategic framework will talk about that our residential areas should be primarily for permanent residents, not for stay tourists. 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. Very aligned with what our strategic framework says in the Noosa Plan. Did anyone want to add anything to that? So very aligned with what our strategic framework says in the role of staff our role is to is I guess twofold is to deliver the outcomes that Council decide they want to achieve. This Council, previous Council but still this Council, Noosa Council, 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 to amend that to strengthen it. So that's what the we're that's what we then do to implement those decisions of Council. We also have a responsibility as Noosa Council to ensure things comply with state legislation and state policy and the SEQ 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 for our community and one of 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 advance 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. Jessica Phillips 20:02.924
So then, 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 20:47.069
Sure. So the economic modelling we talk about is a feasibility testing. And 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 know, testing. 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, you can see the shift and the change in the approach given the time that's gone 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 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. Obviously, 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 know, 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, why which 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 23:03.653
Do you have another question or lesson? Thank you. Thanks, Kim. And again, in previous meetings, lots of talk statutory right of the property owner and the ease, I guess, of using the superseded Planning Scheme for 12 months under the Planning Act. Can I confirm, under the Planning Act, is it at the discretion Council whether to refuse or accept an application? Kim Rawlings 23:34.500
Yes, through the Chair. So the legislation in enshrines existing use rights. So existing use rights 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 a 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 the superseded scheme and the amendments become-- and the new-- become a 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. Jessica Phillips 24:38.129
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. Kim Rawlings 24:55.693
Well I can't speak for Council because you're Council. What I can say is that there are provisions in the legislation. That allow that process to happen. Sometimes changes to planning schemes can result in adverse planning changes. You know 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 planning changes. 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 26:26.892
Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 26:28.694
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 are the 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 26:59.617
Thank you. Thanks, Councillor Lorentson. Director Richard MacGillivray is online. Richard, are you happy to answer that one? Richard MacGillivray 27:10.780
Yes, can you- Good one. Can you hear me okay, fellas? Yes, Richard. Yeah. So I'll go 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-- 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 request. Previously there's that's been around $1,380. It's likely to be, the new fee will be scheduled likely to be around $1,500 for a request to be assessed under the superseded funding scheme, so that's yet to be finalised and yeah. 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 for that request. So where it's assessable development. 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 28:52.091
So to clarify, any residents that want to enshrine existing use rights need to firstly make a request for an application. So, no, so. It's $1,380 for a superseded Planning Scheme request. That's what I've understood. Richard, is that correct? Richard MacGillivray 29:22.241
Yes, that's correct. And just on your earlier point there, so any existing homes established, lawfully established under the current scheme, are not required to lodge an application for a 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 in perpetuity. So as long as the house stays is, it's protected. It's 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 change. Of use, then that requires lodge an application, then that's considered out of the previous scheme. Amelia Lorentson 30:07.448
So can I ask the question, Richard? I own a small house 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. 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 31:13.917
Application so that I don't lose that right within 12 months and then I've got six years to build 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 if so they lodge that application then period. Unknown 31:46.162
Then there will be a currency period attached. Generally that's six years for a dwelling house assist as a Material Change of Use. Richard MacGillivray 31:56.601
So that will require detailed plans to be provided as part of that Material Change of Use as we normally do with all development applications. Great, so. Amelia Lorentson 32:05.684
So that potentially may place sort of onerous obligations on property owners in medium density, you know, to have that money right now. Point of order, yes. It's but no worries. Of data, can you provide data on the number of properties that are potentially going to be affected in the medium density areas? The expected yield and the projected time frame. And I'm happy even over the term or the course of the this term of Council over the next four years, how many medium density properties are potentially going to be impacted by the amendments front of us. Frank Wilkie 32:53.058
Just to clarify, you mean the ones with houses on it currently? Can I just hold on for a second? Yes. Unidentified Speaker 33:00.577
Councillor, Councillor, it kind of depends on the question. If. For instance, the number of medium density residential lots over 1,000 square metres is 147, some of those state are-owned land, vacant land. I think all but 13 of those already contain a house that would have existing use rights as a house, and some of those 13 are the State-owned land. Lands. 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 have the ability to do a dual occupancy. Amelia Lorentson 34:27.811
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 owners that have property lots in the range of 500 to 1,000 square metres, the 606 lots, were they also all notified of the proposed changes? Councillor, they were not specifically notified. Sorry. I didn't hear that. They were not specifically notified. Thank you. Jessica Phillips 35:04.903
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 timeframe do they have that they then have to build? Can I know a little bit more about that, please? Kim Rawlings 35:23.188
Yeah, as Director MacGillivray said, it's six years currency period. Amelia Lorentson 35:32.046
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 36:11.648
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, which Council is required to sign off on, which you did, and the State government are required to sign off on which they did. Amelia Lorentson 36:58.519
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 37:20.123
Yeah, I'm 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 public car parks. All car parking requirements are required to be delivered on site. Amelia Lorentson 37:45.020
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 38:01.108
So 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 of our Shire more than 90% is low density so a small proportion of our Shire you need to be able to meet the requirements to deliver these things on site so car parking 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 sort. Amelia Lorentson 38:45.424
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 question is does do the amendments align with the intent and the detailed work that has already been undertaken in the Pomona Placemaking Program. Unidentified Speaker 39:23.794
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 character houses that are locally valued that is, it's quite possible for those houses to be retained in some instances they might. Be forward on the block or moved sideways on the block 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 that very outcome. Amelia Lorentson 40:14.392
My last question is do the proposed changes confer additional rights or are they diminishing existing ones? Kim Rawlings 40:25.543
They do both. Is this your answer? Frank Wilkie 40:38.101
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 number of lots in the low density area, the rural residential area, and the rural area where people have access to low density housing, as in the single house? Kim Rawlings 41:03.546
Look, Councillor Wilkie, I don't have those figures offhand, but it's in the residential area, the rural between 15 and 20,000. Yeah, probably 20,000. Yeah, exactly. And a high proportion, it's somewhere between 80 and 90% of our dwellings are single dwellings. Frank Wilkie 41:30.312
Thank you. Does anyone care to move any amendments? Amelia Lorentson 41:36.593
I'd like to move an amendment to put you. 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 41:56.646
The idea to re-argue previous amendments is contrary to media protocol and procedure. If we. Did that, the meeting 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'm, I wouldn't be allowed to. Amelia Lorentson 42:28.412
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 to believe that discussion only was to partake at the last General Committee, Councillors were led to believe, so I'm not debating y 'all, I've made an order. So my motion to allow flexibility in the Standing Orders to allow Councillors to re-prosecute 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 re-debated. Are you refusing me that right to put that to Council for a decision? Frank Wilkie 43:19.594
Councillor, you need to move a motion to dissent from the challenge ruling. Amelia Lorentson 43:23.414
So I'll give you moved the motion. Move your motion. And then he'll tell you. 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. Commotion. Just one at a time. Yeah. Re-argue the motion to retain the status quo, medium and high density residential zoning. Frank Wilkie 43:50.293
All right, 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 that have already 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 way. 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. From the chairman's ruling. There's motions on the screen. Yeah. So you have the right to ask the meeting that the chairman's ruling be dissented from and then allow, to the amendment to be discussed. Amelia Lorentson 44:42.196
I'll move to allow that the Chairperson's ruling be dissented. Great. Frank Wilkie 44:47.559
Could we have a seconder for that motion, please? Jessica Phillips 44:51.104
I'll second. Frank Wilkie 44:51.965
Okay. Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson, would you like to speak? Respectfully. Amelia Lorentson 44:58.012
I'll we entered the last Special Meeting under the misperception 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 respect to the people that were a coming to the meeting and b anyone listening online. That did not happen. We went straight into amendments and a 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 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 to allow more information and that today we would be arguing and debating amendments. So I personally believe that my democratic right to speak on behalf of the people that speak on behalf of the people that elected me has been breached. So I'm requesting through this dissension motion that the Councillors are given their democratic right to speak and also we talk about integrity, trust and integrity of Council. I'm asking trust and the integrity of yourself Mayor the and the 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 their issues are debated thoroughly. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 47:14.874
Councillor Lorentson, you have a widely diversion understanding of what took place in that informal Council discussion among Councillors about the way a Special Meeting is to be conducted. There was certainly a when a deferral motion might be exercised, either at the start of the meeting or at the end of the meeting. 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 the end of the meeting they're still unsatisfied 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 a Councillor to go into a Special Meeting and have an agreement, reach a decision, that no amendments will be moved during a Special Meeting to discuss Planning Scheme amendments. It would be highly irregular. Again, I said, as I said previously, the democratic process is that amendments, amended motions. In the meeting are discussed and openly and fairly, wherever the Councillor has a say in the meeting, they're either lost or they're won. The whole integrity of the democratic process is that whichever way they fall, the meeting respects. The decision of the Council as a whole. Not seek other avenues to re-prosecute it. 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 Councillors 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. Okay. Nicola Wilson 49:58.182
I'd like to move an amendment please relating to 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. Frank Wilkie 50:17.401
We'll just get that on the screen. Nicola Wilson 50:27.570
Thank you. We'll get you to read that out if you could please, Councillors. Do you want to take a picture? Yes, please. So, in item C in the report we have the list of recommendations. I'm making some amendments to those recommendations, so not seeking to change high-density homes. Section 5, dwelling houses become inconsistent in medium and high-density residential zones to be amended to REIT, make the use of a dwelling house consistent development and subject to requirements if located on a lot less than a thousand square metres in that medium density residential zones. Make the use of a dwelling house, that next one should have been. Unidentified Speaker 51:22.512
Deleted, make the use inconsistent. Nicola Wilson 51:35.853
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 7.7, 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 amenatory. 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 link the next line. Encourage greater good on lots over 1,000 square metres that are appropriate to the site. Kim Rawlings 52:21.312
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. Nicola Wilson 52:30.940
In the report, the numbers are different to what's in the table. You need to refer to the attachment. Okay. So 4 and 6? Yes. So 4 and 6? Yes. 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. Landowners 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 1,000 square metres that currently have one house on the lot, and there's about 34 lots that are over 1,500 square metres. 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. 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 it with would maximise the yield on sites 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 1,000 square metres 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 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 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 to build multiple dwellings on the same block. This seems unfair. Making a dwelling house inconsistent in medium density is contrary to the objectives of a major amendment that seeks to support housing supply, housing choice, housing diversity, and housing affordability. We need 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 houses all need to be replaced. A new family home with enough space that adults plus school-age children to grow and meet parents' standards. 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. We should not have to pay the extra cost to build duplexes instead of a family home. We chose our property for its location in the 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. 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? Frank Wilkie 56:58.161
Yes. Brian Stockwell 57:00.599
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. That be considered a significant change to your recommendation? Thank you very much. Yes. It's smudging. Unidentified Speaker 57:41.902
Yeah. Unidentified Speaker 57:47.099
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's a variation of it. Don't is it significant? Think it is no I don't I can. Brian Stockwell 58:07.014
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 I the truth. Frank Wilkie 58:35.036
Well, I think the. I think the minute amendment the motion to 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. Brian Stockwell 58:52.036
Recommendations 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 bearing 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 that actually follow the act. Frank Wilkie 59:14.666
I'll respond if this amendment is passed we could include it in the reasons in the final motion. Would that be acceptable? I just think it's something we need to be aware of. Thank you, comment taken. Any other Councillors wish to speak. The motion or for the motion? Jessica Phillips 59:35.472
I'll speak up for the four, 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 DMN's work that has gone into this process. From the Council staff, to the community members, stakeholders and my fellow this has been a collective effort spanning across years of consultation and work chops and debates prior to Councillor Wilson and I being elected. But the outcomes we seek 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 Noosa home. But as I sit here this morning, I also want to reflect on the process itself 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. These 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's 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 equally 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 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 in terms of 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. Kind of it's not in the technical details of the amendment but in the process itself because I still want to ask, I still want to know have we asked the right questions? Have we listened to the right people? Have we listened to people who will be most affected? Have we balanced the need? For progress and 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 groups 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 a 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 the cost of living 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 and I want to be able to achieve my dream home like many of these residents have asked and that could potentially be taken away from me and that 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 be able to in ten years given the age of my kids. 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 in Noosa. And their these amendments 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 we're about meeting quotas, it's about ensuring that we're protecting our environment and the lifestyle, but it's also about people. Thanks. Amelia Lorentson 01:05:54.782
Thank you, Councillor Phillips. Through the Chair, I have a few questions. Is there any specific timeframe there a specific timeframe or deadline with these ministerial conditions? Kim Rawlings 01:06:10.468
I'm not sure what ministerial conditions you're talking about. Do you mean is there a timeframe for these amendments? Amelia Lorentson 01:06:16.653
So, my question is, do the amendments relate to the South East Queensland Regional Plan? Does it relate to the ministerial conditions? Why are we in a rush to endorse this today, is my question. Kim Rawlings 01:06:34.999
So as I discussed in when the Mayor asked the opening Mayor asked question. There are a range 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 plan, South East Queensland Regional Plan. Is there a time frame to have to do this? No. No, there's no set time frame we need to do this by. There's a process we need 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 01:07:29.894
Can I go on? Sorry I withdraw the word rushed my probably what I wanted to say is whether the economic, social, cultural implications have they been thoroughly understood by Councillors. Kim Rawlings 01:07:47.098
What I would say is that though as we talked about the last meeting those issues are all considered in the process. They have to be by under in compliance with state planning policy. State interest check has been achieved. Ministers signed off on them. Our strategic framework seeks to balance all of those things. We've got a raft of strategies and technical background information, feasibility analysis, all of those things have gone into a very considered and of information. I can't comment on whether Council has understood those. Frank Wilkie 01:08:29.183
Do you wish to speak for or against the amendment? A little what are the laws? Amelia Lorentson 01:08:36.405
A little 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 I have is the word compromise. Can only be achieved when all the parties have been engaged and agree on a course of action. That hasn't happened Councillors and that's where I'm sitting really uncomfortable with any of these on the run type of amendments. The fundamental problem we've got here today is that those impacted as Councillor Jess 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 photos. 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 the we've got an application at the moment in planning an environment where, again, in 2020, the unintended implications of decisions, significant decisions 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 I changed a again. Will. Frank Wilkie 01:10:48.008
I will. Amelia Lorentson 01:10:48.188
So so my question is that actually I came speaking to the motion and I will support this because it's better than what 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 to property rights and even changes this is still presenting changes in property rights and medium and high density residential zones challenge responsibilities as Councillors our core responsibilities 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 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 and character of their neighbourhoods 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 acting in the absence of thorough understanding of consequences in my opinion undermines trust and creates undue anxiety and stress within our community. Proposed amendments even one in front of us still will diminish our property owners, some of our property owners 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 how 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 neighbourhoods. 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 in post-urgency requiring immediate action 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 their voices guide our decision. Again 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. Frank Wilkie 01:15:05.521
Councillor Stockwell. Brian Stockwell 01:15:07.425
Yes, 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 opposite view is that the current settings of the 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. Report came out and I think one of the reasons why we're debating this, and 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% of those people have jobs. So we're not talking about the traditional view of the homeless person, we're talking about society having this fundamental crisis in social provision of housing. But also it's flow on to 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 the argument so beautifully captured in the movie the castle, no doubt, but everyone lying into a medium-density residential zone should aware that those zones' primary purpose is for multi-unit dwellings. It has always been the case. So why do we have to change the settings if it's always been the case? Well, the reason is, historically what happened is you have your old houses there, one 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. That's changed with the value of land in our coastal area such that now instead of going to multi-unit developments there is a to greater drive change to 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 2,400 people. They're what this scheme's about. Now, we won't ever get to 100% development, we won't ever get to 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. We 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. The amendments are set up to achieve those dwelling targets set in the SEQ Regional Plan. If we don't achieve them, or can't demonstrate we can achieve them in the medium density and high density residential zone, where will we have to achieve them? Will the State come back and say that's fine, but you have to have duplexes in all your low density residential zones and up to three storeys? Then how many of our existing residents and character amenity are going to be challenged? Or 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 that the purpose of the medium density, high density residential zone, considering the current trends and trajectories, can be met. Amelia Lorentson 01:20:01.395
Could I ask a question through the Chair? So just follow 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? Reading the 137 pages and the submissions, there was some very good ready to go submissions. Of thank you. Kim Rawlings 01:20:26.121
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 01:20:55.442
Not everyone would be aware of the external pressures being put on Noosa Shire to provide the right supply of available housing and affordable housing. I accept Councillor Phillips' argument on that. A lot of people are unaware. But those of us that are in sphere and charged with protecting the values of Noosa Shire, the liveability we all love, our right to good, sound living, are painfully aware that during the original SEQ review we were looking at possibly four or eight stories. We were looking at 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 high density residential zones work as intended under the Planning Scheme are absolutely key to that. In terms of having the 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 a house and expand 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 a 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 dwelling 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 zone work as intended. 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 move 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 with Noosa Council, we've been told by staff, it's 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. Rather than have our planning rights taken away from the State because we cannot make our Planning Scheme, zonings, work as intended. We've also heard that property rights are protected. There are existing use rights. House can 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 a superseded Planning Scheme in 12 months and then you have pitch a DA and 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 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 sense of 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 and I'm talking people in the middle, as Councillor Phillips refers to, teachers, police, paramedics, hospitality workers. Councillors, honour it is a hard decision but please think of the long-term future of the Noosa Shire. I still recall the furore when the Planning Scheme, Noosa's Planning Scheme, faced heightenings instead of a property owner being able to build to six storeys that were limited to two or three. That was a 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 dwelling targets so the State away, doesn't take our right thank to self-determination you. Thank you. Jessica Phillips 01:27:10.289
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 some just need to circle context, because dwellings lie supply in high density, I don't believe will achieve essential worker affordable housing. Is it is that a question or an opinion? As of the previous place, I'm sorry, I still won't be able to afford a unit in a high density area, but I'll get to that. Frank Wilkie 01:27:41.054
You're making comments, Councillor, please. Jessica Phillips 01:27:42.734
My question is, when I refer to Noosa's planning strategic framework regarding infill and underutilised land, my question have is we looked at, in these amendments, utilising that strategic framework that was mentioned in the 2020 plan about infill and underutilised land please? Kim Rawlings 01:28:09.428
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. In 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 01:29:02.657
So just to follow up because it probably wasn't as clear when. With the underutilised land. When was the last time we tested communities' 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 as evidence? Kim Rawlings 01:29:37.939
So the-- 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's lifestyle and character. And held very dear to anyone who's lived here. And has been, you know, an important part of the DNA 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 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 housing outcomes. And 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 general statement, but generally, people are not keen on increasing and would know that through the submissions, we've got a lo as a key issue in Noosa. Generally, like I said, that's a massive generalisation, so I 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 01:31:55.860
I'm going to May I ask a follow-up question? Can you give a sense of the feeling, the community feeling, during the SEQ planning, the recent SEQ planning process, when GPS is up to three levels, we'll propose a new audit where you can see your zone and apartments four and eight stories were proposed in other zones. What's the community feeling about that sort of height increase? Thanks for that prompt, Councillor Wilkie. Through the Chair. I want that question answered, please. Amelia Lorentson 01:32:26.089
Is that relevant to the. Frank Wilkie 01:32:27.402
Motion-- it's a follow-up question to Councillor Phillips' question about the community's feeling about height? Kim Rawlings 01:32:36.538
Yes, so there was a lot of community angst about the South East Queensland Regional Plan process around. Across South East Queensland, 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, you know, staff were very much given, you know, the direction to. Our involvement in that process reflected those concerns very much. A lot of concern about potential increases in height. And when the drive South East Queensland Regional Plan came out, it came out with some, you know, some wording and images that did. Talk to 8 stories. And yeah, that was. There was great concern from the community around that. And we also saw more just recently around the SFG. Was some, you know, some 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 a whole lot of concern in the community. Amelia Lorentson 01:33:59.813
A follow-up question given that we're. Little bit off track. I'll be quite specific. Has the question been asked in terms of Noosa Civic? Is there an 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 01:34:28.024
There's probably two responses to that. We significantly increased the housing at Noosa Civic during the housing crisis. 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. Residential zoning and also in the village mixed use zone above the commercial and retail. So we are already using our major centres, the same with Noosa Junction, to cater for the more 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. Amelia Lorentson 01:35:24.214
In terms of another specific site, TAFE site, is there opportunity to explore bonus provisions there? Frank Wilkie 01:35:31.586
I think that's why we're out of SCOBA Council licence. I accept that. You. Councillor Wilson, do you wish to close? Councillor Wilson. Tom Wegener 01:35:45.447
I really appreciate your motion. Councillor Lorentson, I appreciate your. 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. We've 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 we have to make. And when you're going to make Noosa more perfect, you're always going to potentially 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 the greater good for Noosa in the long term. And that's what our planners here have done. And that's what we have been talking about for years. There's nothing new here. So I won't support the amendment. Mr Lewis, do you want to try it? Frank Wilkie 01:36:49.488
Sure do. Nicola Wilson 01:36:52.845
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 as a set of amendments. Residential amenity, sense of community and belonging, that's what our residents in the medium density zone want to maintain. Yes, I agree the medium density zone, as Councillor Stockwell said, is intended for greater densification but a house has always been. A consistent use till now anyone 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. We're 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. Are not going to be able 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 they're probably not going to be able to extend it. Extending 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. What's 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. Frank Wilkie 01:38:57.723
We'll put the amendment of those in favour. That's Councillor Phillips, Lawrence Lorentson and 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 01:39:18.232
My needs are in relation to this junction, but before I go on to my amendment, can I ask a couple of questions? We'll start yes, of course. Start them roll-in. All rolling for this since we're going from one topic to the next. Can you explain more to people watching around the level front playing bill that the amendment is trying to achieve uh 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 um what I'd about like to do is when you explain was me a new when occupation coming in and existing businesses please. Kim Rawlings 01:40:06.838
Um through the Chair um thanks Councillor Phillips um so the proposed changes to the Noosa Junction area relate both to hours of operation um and amplified music um 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 the Office of Liquor and Gaming Regulation but that's they're established these are going forward so if there are new businesses established so if there was a new food and drink outlet to open up the changes current situation the many of the businesses 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 until midnight. At the moment our Planning Scheme says until 10pm. So if there was a new business, if these amendments get in, a new business wants to start, and if your drink outlet wants to start, they open up, the business next door can operate until 12. Under the current arrangements they can only operate until 10. Under these amendments that they would be able to then operate to trial level plan good so when we talk level plan good 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 their facility, acoustically, in a way that met the requirements for amplified music. So it is about the new businesses coming in it's not about what's their existing. Jessica Phillips 01:42:10.465
Absolutely thank you. Frank Wilkie 01:42:12.721
So my- No, you have got the call. Jessica Phillips 01:42:15.844
But my amendment, 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 a new application having to acoustically treat will need to be included in my proposed amendment but my proposed amendment starts with the most extended hours of operation for food and drink outlets to 12 midnight seven days a week Cathy. Include new applications needed to acoustically treat so, is there anything we need to talk about music? Definitely. No, I don't think so. Requiring acoustic treatment. Acoustically treated to the appropriate level. No, that's why. I'll keep. Thank you. Thanks. To be specific. Acoustically 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. Kim Rawlings 01:43:58.325
We probably need to include new applications where amplified music is proposed to be acoustically treated. Oh, sorry. Yeah. Unidentified Speaker 01:44:29.920
Thank you. I'll be a second with the first speaker. Frank Wilkie 01:44:32.829
We'll just get the recording on, Jess, if that's okay. So proceed with the proposed extended hours of operation for food and media outlets to 12 to 9, seven days per week, including new applications where amplified music is proposed. Be acoustically treated. Jessica Phillips 01:44:51.816
Including new applications? It won't be possible. Applies to the new applications? Michelle 01:45:03.294
Yeah. And it should be a movie and where I'm filming music is proposed to be acoustically treated. Frank Wilkie 01:45:09.590
Including new applications and where? Thank you, Michelle. Thank you. That helps. Amelia Lorentson 01:45:16.111
We don't need so many questions. If I second, I can still move in the main mat because it's a main mat. I'm happy to sit and take it. Frank Wilkie 01:45:30.881
We'll just get the wording on. Are you happy with part four? Jessica Phillips 01:45:35.491
Yes, because we're taking out the restrictions around, although I won't say restrictions. Apologies, I don't have a point to allot, but if you can pardon me. Kim Rawlings 01:45:49.494
I just want to make the point now with that little addition, that if you can point before you delete the definition of amplified music. We don't have a definition of amplified music. Jessica Phillips 01:45:59.508
I thought that, that's why I was looking at you. Yes. We're going to need to keep the definition and just sort of 1.2 then, because 1.3 is the definition. Kabi, just include the definition of amplified music. I did say this would have to roll and I'll tell you all. Frank Wilkie 01:46:18.050
Delete proposed 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. Unless the site has been acoustically treated to the appropriate levels. Jessica Phillips 01:46:35.938
If I may be able to play with the wording, can I give you why. What are you trying to achieve? Brian Stockwell 01:46:41.904
Can we do that? And I think it will be very clear. Yeah, definitely. 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 01:46:55.530
Okay. Councillor Stockwell is quite right. If we can test this and question it, and if it's lost, we can redraft and better suit what you're trying to there is a. Jessica Phillips 01:47:05.324
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 we've 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. I want to make that really clear. What I don't want to do is 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. We are not police. I am worried that we are 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 to go and enforce something to do with music down in 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 isn't. I don't want to complicate things. I 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 OLGR, what's. OLGR, what's Council's remit and I want that really clear in the amendment. Brian Stockwell 01:49:26.419
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 01:49:41.161
Just to, it does say where amplified music is composed. Brian Stockwell 01:49:47.389
Yes, yeah, 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 01:50:04.220
My question to cleta 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 don't, I want to make sure that everyone has a level playing field. New applications have to acoustically treat 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, um, compliancing. Kim Rawlings 01:50:45.403
Thank you. What, I understand you're seeking to achieve is to, uh, revert to the current provisions of the Noosa Plan regarding operating hours. I don't know. Let's see. Sorry. To, um, to create a level playing field. So to, um, revert to the provisions that were advertised in this, in these amendments, not the current provisions. The advertised 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 the changes relating to that, but to still include the definition of amplified music. Is that correct? Jessica Phillips 01:52:07.578
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 yeah. Kim Rawlings 01:52:21.162
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So the first part of that amendment does what you intended to do. The second part of the amendment? Frank Wilkie 01:52:38.546
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 a comfort break and give Councillor Phillips an opportunity. To talk to staff about his wording and also refresh our brains. Jessica Phillips 01:52:56.946
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. So by consent of the meeting. Frank Wilkie 01:53:12.524
It can be adjourned for 15 minutes. I've been working on it and I'm just here. We're back. We're 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 01:53:40.846
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. Frank Wilkie 01:53:49.259
Those in favour? Those against? Motion to be defeated. Councillor Phillips. Oh no, Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 01:53:59.810
I have an amendment that I'd like to move. And the amendment is. Oh, sorry. Of the amendment is that item 3 be added to item C. 3 delete section 1.1 to 1.4 and replace with 1.1 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 and the Environmental Protection Act and that these investigations inform any future amendments, if appropriate. Frank Wilkie 01:54:57.158
Is anyone wanting to second that? We not proceed with the amendment package? Did you just talk about the junction amendment? No, of or all the whole thing? Just the whole Planning Scheme amendment. No, no, no. Just section 1.1. Yeah, 1.1. Well, the way I read it, obviously, I see. Not proceed with the proposed. With the proposed. In I place of 1.1, not proceed with the proposed amendments advertised. Oh, this term is just a misnomer. Sorry, I've misread it. No, excuse me. Anyone willing to second that? Brian Stockwell 01:55:42.526
So just a clarification, how it's referred to, it does just refer to the noise and operating hours. Nicola Wilson 01:55:50.700
Mr Macmillan, can I second if I have another amendment? Frank Wilkie 01:55:59.199
Look, um, you can't. You. Can. I'm just checking to see that it's not what the outcome that this amendment is seeking is not the same as what we discussed last week. Amelia Lorentson 01:56:17.726
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. Which 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. 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. Office of Liquor and Gaming Regulation 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 01:57:22.967
Okay 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 of the Planning Scheme. Until investigations have been undertaken into suitable precinct management frameworks. Which is part two of that amendment. 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. That seems. Largely the same as the amendment that we discussed last time. I cannot see any difference. Amelia Lorentson 01:58:19.039
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. Yeah, I think you said the same last time, so this is. 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 can make this part of the amendments. If we could include that as part of the precinct management framework investigations. Frank Wilkie 01:58:59.194
Yeah, so this is not received with the proposed amendments as advertised, which means no changes to the hours of operation and or the music, or the definitions of amplified music. And conduct further investigations. About noise related provisions. Look, okay, look, we'll allow it and let it either fall. Or stay. Can 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 preclude any further changes to the hours of operation to amplify music in the junction. In terms of any other amendments, it would stop other amendments to amplify music or hours of operation being discussed as needed. Kim Rawlings 02:00:04.154
What this seeks to do is delete any of the proposed changes and just maintain standard 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. You would then have to move an amendment to bring portions of that back in. Tom Wegener 02:00:33.584
Council, just for clarity, so what Jess was proposing, if this got up, that wouldn't, we be debating that on, it would be null and moot, because this would supersede that. Kim Rawlings 02:00:50.062
This would delay what's been proposed, any changes? Brian Stockwell 02:00:55.588
Yeah, so, just to clarify, even if this did get up, there'd be no in other procedural impediment on moving amendments that brought things back in. Frank Wilkie 02:01:05.870
That's right. It wouldn't be a direct negation of what's. Brian Stockwell 02:01:10.194
Not a direct negation of the original motion. So, you can change an amendment. Are you still only amending the overall motion? Frank Wilkie 02:01:18.242
Yeah. Okay, well, we'll allow it. We 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 02:01:48.941
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 the notice of motion from Councillor Lorentson in October about future of the junction but what I seek to achieve today is clarity today. What I seek today is to 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 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 02:03:04.321
So you. 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 02:03:33.932
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. Okay. Frank Wilkie 02:03:57.593
We have a seconder for this one. Councillor Wegener, Councillor Phillips. Jessica Phillips 02:04:04.320
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 are in compliance in the where Council sits in its remit. My purpose directly relates to not complicating things that Council. It in our lane? Is it not in our lane? 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 requirements for acoustic treatment. For new dwellings in the high density residential zones where immediate 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 02:05:44.240
Questions, Councillors? I'm trying to find it. Brian Stockwell 02:05:52.144
Yes, stop It is there any current provisions in the existing news plan 2020 in relation to hours and relative and relevant noise limits or amplified music? Is there anything that says currently it's 10pm or 9pm or 12pm? Michelle 02:06:12.380
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 hours of operation of a venue, they're separate. Amelia Lorentson 02:06:31.823
Thanks so much. So for clarity, Environmental Protection Act allows noise levels no 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? 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 Office of Liquor and Gaming Regulation, liquor and those acts supersede, like they're not mandated, they're not related to the Planning Scheme, they're outside the Planning Scheme. So obviously if someone's playing music, they're under a liquor licence. Selling alcohol, they're under a liquor licence, 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 02:07:48.905
So I'll ask the question, how would this amendment if passed. On 1.3, which is amend amplified music provisions to apply to inside and outside the venue unless acoustically treated to the appropriate levels? That's still in? It doesn't change it. If 1.2 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 legal and game regulation currently apply to the deduction? How does it sit with that? And is it complete with conditions that OLGR imposes? Michelle 02:08:52.564
We look to the Planning Scheme for guidance around operation hours. So they would use the Planning Scheme as a guide. Generally, 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 02:09:19.267
If this amendment was passed, what would the hours of operation, what hours where live music could be played, what would they be? And how would they be 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. Which 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 02:09:51.965
So we currently do stipulate, Council still currently does stipulate through the Planning Scheme, hours of amplified music. Through the Planning Scheme, so wouldn't this stop that. No. And if but if 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 02:10:21.677
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. And operation hours of music. Kim Rawlings 02:10:38.033
If 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 that's covered. It was really to provide a bit more clarity about both what amplified music means and where. So it the indoor /outdoor piece that was trying to seek clarity. But if this amendment gets through, there are still provisions in the scheme that will guide this issue. Brian Stockwell 02:11:16.190
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 a 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. 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 acoustic live music 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 Sunday to Thursday and by 12 midnight Friday to Saturday. So it is a bit of a wind back of one hour. The antifreeze the amplified live music ceases to operate in outdoor spaces by 7pm. Oh, I'm not going to go into it. There's another one there in 14.3. Amplified live music ceases to operate in outdoor spaces by 7pm seven days a week. If it's in the Noosa Junction, where it can operate until 9pm Sunday to Thursday, 10pm Friday and Saturday. 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 02:13:57.996
Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 02:14:00.131
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 to these proposed changes. Can I ask why they weren't consulted? Michelle 02:14:29.323
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 02:14:56.445
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, we've also been in consultation with the Noosa Junction Association. We've met with a lecturer in tourism events. We've already started a process investigating. My question is, the amendments in front of us, do they contradict the notified motion and are they also a breach of good faith, given that we've already begun conversations with the Junction Association? Frank Wilkie 02:15:49.325
I'm not going to allow the question about whether it's a breach of good faith. That's a comment. The question will be, does it in any way contradict the notified motion? Kim Rawlings 02:16:03.044
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. 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. So, no, I don't think it contradicts that much. 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 changes can be made to the amendment. And what I will say again is that these changes are for new businesses. They are for new. 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. They already have liquor license. They already have operating hours. They already have, you know, these are not retrospective provisions. They are going forward. Frank Wilkie 02:17:23.621
So it doesn't change the operating hours. For existing businesses? Kim Rawlings 02:17:28.093
No. No. If they were lawfully established and have approved operating hours. Frank Wilkie 02:17:33.759
Okay. Thank you for the clarity. Right. Any other Councillors wish to speak to the amendment? Who would it apply to? What would be the impact? Kim Rawlings 02:18:07.322
All. So that's two different questions. It would apply to new businesses going forward, not retrospective, what it seeks to do is to provide a little bit more clarity that amplified music relates to indoor and outdoor indoor outdoor and music. Outdoors so there's a locational aspect to it and it if it is either indoor and outdoor that place is acoustically so it seeks to provide that. There are still provisions in an existing scheme around acoustic and amplified music. So there's a little bit of nuance. It's not that significant if it doesn't proceed. I'm trying to figure out what's going on. Is trading hours still exist? Yeah. That stays. That's not subject to this amendment. So the trading hours are not subject to this amendment. They stay. This is only relating to 1.2 which is around amplified music. It's located on site. Indoor or outdoor beyond 9:00pm. 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 7:00pm. Seven days a week. Ceases to operate by 7:00pm. Seven days a week except if located in Hastings Street or in the Noosa Junction precinct where it can operate until 9:00pm. Sunday to Thursday and 10:00pm. Friday to Saturday. So that's what would guide the issue of amplify basic. So there's not a major gap, nothing's majorly lost. I don't think it's hugely significant if this doesn't. Nicola Wilson 02:20:31.476
All right, here's just a question. I think what you just read out was only about outside, so that loses our ability to. 1.3. If current provisions in the current plan were only about outside music, then. Sorry, by deleting this 1.2, do we lose the ability to. No, we don't. Kim Rawlings 02:20:51.448
We don't, because 1.3 introduces a definition, which doesn't exist in the current scheme, that amplified music. Um, music includes 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 02:21:17.687
Can I actually look at 14.3 again, because I don't think it does, because it says that 14.3 only relates to outdoor space. 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 02:21:43.302
You're right. So 1 michonne, you have the question. Michelle 02:21:46.983
So 1.3 1.3 talks to amending those provisions in the plan to apply to both inside and outside the venue. Kim Rawlings 02:21:57.038
So it would pick it up. It would amend the definition and 14.3 in the scheme. I speak to it? Frank Wilkie 02:22:05.606
Yes, Tom. Tom Wegener 02:22:07.488
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 maybe that 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, it's 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 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 gonna going to do it. I what think that's 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 02:23:06.810
Any other Councillors? Kim Rawlings 02:23:08.060
Yes, Councillors. At the risk of influencing the debate, I would be comfortable if this amendment proceeded. Preceded. Tom Wegener 02:23:24.616
It doesn't do what she was arguing. It doesn't? Okay, sorry. Did I get it wrong? I'm glad I got it right. Frank Wilkie 02:23:35.048
Do you wish to close? Jessica Phillips 02:23:35.782
I will. Put the financial report in front of me. Not so clear this is 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 02:23:55.231
I'll put the amendment. Those in favour? That's unanimous. Carried. Do we have any other amendments? Thank you. Yes, Councillor Wilson. Nicola Wilson 02:24:06.734
I'd like to bring up that amendment relating to the bonus provisions. So coming back to how do we get more houses? What was put forward in the advertised amendments was optional development bonuses in. I think you need to move and have a seat. Oh sorry. To talk you through it. Sorry. Item four 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 two to four. So only the top bullet point that was in the bonus provisions as advertised remain and the rest would be deleted. Frank Wilkie 02:25:08.860
So you're not saying remove the affordable rental bonus provisions? Nicola Wilson 02:25:13.878
The recommendation at the moment says to remove them. I'm asking for them to stay. Unidentified Speaker 02:25:31.033
So. Frank Wilkie 02:25:38.142
Confused. Nicola Wilson 02:25:38.768
Yeah sorry that's um. Was not wording quite right. So there were four bullet points. I was keeping the top one and then deleting the 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 2 and then that's for bullet points. So I wanted to keep I wanted that recommendation. Frank Wilkie 02:26:03.598
In to amend the affordable rental premises and take up all the rest. And remove the bullet points, that's what it's saying? Yeah. Brian Stockwell 02:26:13.898
For clarity, are the bullet points are actually 7.2, 7.3 and 7.4. Frank Wilkie 02:26:21.316
This is about removing the incentives for private landowners to provide affordable housing. Anyone willing to second that. Nicola Wilson 02:26:43.245
I'll second. Frank Wilkie 02:26:44.666
Councillor Phillips, Councillor Wilson. Nicola Wilson 02:26:47.348
Thank you. So the advertised amendments proposed. The definition of affordable rental premises requiring management by a registered housing provider is long-term rental for a minimum of 30 years. We're now proposing to change that to 20 years. Optional development bonus is in the medium and high density residential zone if providing 10% of the total GFA as affordable rental premises. These recommendations now say take those away. So remove saying the affordable rental 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 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 zone at glitter junction clothing. They have now been recommended 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 such as 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. For 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. Housing supply. 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 were mandating 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 got a house. So the combination of some of the amendments have sort of meant that we lose some of the 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. That can make it work financially, so why would we not give them that option? Frank Wilkie 02:30:26.857
Councillor you can cancel Lawson. Thing. Questions to staff. Amelia Lorentson 02:30:34.632
Why have the affordable rental bonus provisions been removed from areas like the major signs at Noosa Junction and Doonella Street. They haven't. No. Brian Stockwell 02:30:50.862
Such a good question. Excuse me. Can you explain more 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? Unidentified Speaker 02:31:06.259
Me to go to oh through my god. Glenn 02:31:13.476
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 provisions 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 was no funding available, then they became unviable for development adults to go forward. The motion here is saying to retain those provisions, there would be consequential changes to needing some sort of incentive because just generally most developers wouldn't come some wouldn't come just on the back and then lose money over time because of that development. It. Other part to that is that the there's no funding available currently which is called 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 that feasibility came and discussed. With the motion the this one before us? Yes, motion before us. Yes, this amendment. Nicola's amendment, 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 there they're that it would be sitting in as a, waste but as a superfluous type of provision, particularly when it's unlikely to be taken up because of feasibility. Unidentified Speaker 02:34:16.879
I might, just add on to that. So, the current provisions, which are, as Glenn said, are opt-in provisions for small dwellings, which give a small gross for area owners and site. Cover-up bonus. 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 any inquik creek road that have taken up those provisions. And 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 those bonus provisions if you delivered 10% affordable housing. That we're providing is for and 75% of the total gross for area was small dwellings. So that was a mandate. The provisions also mandated dwellings small for 75% of the gross for area regardless of getting any bonus provisions. So we got feedback through the submissions that question 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 which we talked about construction costs, holding costs, lending costs, the 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 we 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 from a studio, but also a small three-bedroom dwelling. So it provides a greater diversity and range of housing types. And it's considered that the current incentives are working and we should learn from 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 navigate sites, and the bigger sites such as the former Noosa Bowls 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. For affordable rental premises set. 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 02:37:59.486
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 02:38:38.765
Yeah, just for clarity, I apologise actually, I misread that. One of the bullets is being removed on a separate team, so, but still 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 Business Centre. So, if, I'm kind of confused because we don't generally consider whether a development application is actually viable or not for the development, 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 medium 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 02:39:40.851
I'll leave it there. So, come a couple 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 affordable housing. Available 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 more potentially, more GFA. Often 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. Mend 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 stepped why we into that space to answer those questions and respond to it. 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 02:41:07.001
Yes, on that basis, I 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. Frank Wilkie 02:41:20.080
I don't know what speak. Amelia Lorentson 02:41:23.963
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 02:41:55.103
Other Councillors wish any to speak to the amendment before. Jessica Phillips 02:42:02.640
I'm I how was much just going do you to speak in just thanking Councillor Wilson for actually putting the effort into it. Really what I'm trying to highlight is obviously the new Councillors that people like to refer to us haven't just gone along with the writing. Putting 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. Unidentified Speaker 02:42:37.588
I'd I don't hate to think who I am. Nicola Wilson 02:42:40.771
I will 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 newborn woman as long as it's permitted. I'm just a clarifier as I am seeking to maximise yield and I was concerned about bonus provisions being taken away. That's when I was confused. So I apologise for the bad reading last night. That I failed to retain this room so I was concerned options being removed that may have actually been 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 02:43:24.789
Thank you, Councillor Wilson. Those in favour of the amendment? Those against? Brian Stockwell 02:43:31.701
Just for clarity, I suggest an amendment that makes a minor change to item 7.2 in the table to remove the mandatory elements of affordable rental premise bonus provisions from the mayhew and high density residential zones and business centre. Business India. In the senate. You. Frank Wilkie 02:43:58.831
I'm happy to second that. Brian Stockwell 02:44:13.483
I think we just need to remove some mandatory to move to. Frank Wilkie 02:44:20.541
That what you're saying? Brian Stockwell 02:44:21.782
Yeah. Or just mandatory elements. Remove that. Elements is there. Yeah, remove the mandatory elements of the affordable. That so that retains the optic, the way it's way it could have been. Evolved. Frank Wilkie 02:44:45.859
So does that mean, that will be mandatory on key sites in the form of. Yeah. Brian Stockwell 02:44:57.153
It doesn't affect 7.3, which is the next one. Believe that's what it reflects the intent that I just heard, that I'm seeing my questioning that. Kim Rawlings 02:45:12.260
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 my 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. I 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, could be other mandatory provisions relating to size of dwellings and things like that. Brian Stockwell 02:46:04.864
I see what you mean. I'd better vote against it then, it's already been moved and taken. Frank Wilkie 02:46:11.153
Any Councillors wish to speak to the amendment? Can I just talk to you just a moment? Brian Stockwell 02:46:16.791
No. I just don't believe what I right. Just said before. Frank Wilkie 02:46:21.210
Alright then. Those in 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 02:46:34.938
I'd love to test this one please, to retain car parks in Albert Street. That Council 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 4 Albert Street, Noosaville Council car park from the high density residential zone and the site remain in the Tourism Accommodation Zone. Okay, I'll speak to it. 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 in 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 which plan. Scaled 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 Albert 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 remind everyone we've 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 transit. Transport with more frequent buses. Brian Stockwell 02:50:11.222
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 02:50:20.165
I disagree. The issue of car 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 in that location 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 him. Brian Stockwell 02:50:54.225
I'll further point out that the car parking implications of whether it's a high density residential zone or a Tourism Accommodation Zone are no different. Difference, so the amendment makes no difference. Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 02:51:11.816
I might start all over again because I find point of orders disrupts the flow of argument. I would like to start all over again with the Chair. Frank Wilkie 02:51:21.903
Excuse me, 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 or discussion. We've so urged we've heard you. For what you said today, so please continue to do that. Amelia Lorentson 02:51:40.728
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. For 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. Removing car parts. Parks. Express before 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, our essential workers, our Noosa's that work night shifts, our hospitality workers that work night shifts. Who on their cars 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 parks is. Critical not only for our residents who value their cars, 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 consideration. Give some consideration into if we densify our urban areas, let's start actively looking at alternate transport solutions first. Frank Wilkie 02:54:18.073
Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Phillips. Jessica Phillips 02:54:21.353
I'll speak to it. Please. In support of removing hore alpha street from high-density residential. Zone. And I'm going to make it 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. Tewantin, Noosaville. Noosaville 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, we can't take away car parks. Until we've got connected the town so that we can reduce traffic. It's. I'm not saying this isn't something to revisit down the track, now, but we just don't have the cycle ways to support removing any car parks at the moment. I am down the river daily with family. There's not enough heartbeats we want to 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 if we take away car parks, just begin to sit in their car and create 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 any car parks. Frank Wilkie 02:55:54.422
It's a matter of passion. Does the understanding talk about removing car parks from this site? Kim Rawlings 02:56:02.564
Thank you for that question, 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 is currently 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 be more appropriately zoned as a residential zone. Nowhere, zone? Anywhere is it suggested that this car park will be removed. Nicola Wilson 02:56:41.235
Can I just ask a question. Jessica Phillips 02:56:42.557
Kim? 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 4 Albert Street, does that include higher 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 02:57:08.815
Firstly, it's Council-owned property, so it's up to Council what the Council will do with that property going forward. As you know, in the Housing Strategy, sorry, may not, but in the Housing Strategy, 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 donal street car park. If. Early investigations, we haven't done a lot to advance 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 development that occurs above car parts, above public car parts, that public car parking will be retained. Additional car parking would be required to service the residential. Amelia Lorentson 02:58:07.123
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 02:58:25.478
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 a high density residential zone. Okay, second. Separate issue. Then I reference that as part of the Housing Strategy, 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, but that would then need to deliver 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 02:59:18.657
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 02:59:44.465
I can propose another adjournment at some stage in the near future. Apologies, thank you. We can test other amendments in the meantime. That's a great idea. Thank you very much. We move this one back? Oh, well, just, Council Councillor Phillips has requested a comfort break now. So perhaps this one can fail. Amelia Lorentson 03:00:05.967
I'm happy for this one to fall and revisit different wording. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 03:00:11.125
We've 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 minutes. Welcome back, everybody. We've just had an amendment voted upon and it's lost. We have a new amendment. Amelia Lorentson 03:00:42.978
I'd like to move an amendment that item 4 be added under item C for 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. Frank Wilkie 03:01:08.896
I'll second that, just to prove I was here. Amelia Lorentson 03:01:12.899
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 the intent of which is not to remove the car parking space and I think the wording acknowledges the discussion we've just had. Frank Wilkie 03:01:40.105
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 03:01:55.500
No, just some questions if we can just continue a couple of questions. Yep. Thank you. Just in terms of short-term accommodation, in terms of superseded Planning Scheme applications, in 2020 when the amendments were endorsed, can I ask staff how many superseded Planning Scheme applications for short-term accommodations were lodged and endorsed? Kim Rawlings 03:02:32.141
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. Amelia Lorentson 03:02:47.551
50 Applications, so so it's single dwellings and I think that was single dwellings, is that correct? Kim Rawlings 03:03:02.262
That's correct. Single dwellings. Amelia Lorentson 03:03:08.698
And in terms of units, how many units were lodged after the 2020 amendments and endorsed for short-term accommodation existing rights. Unidentified Speaker 03:03:27.627
Sorry, do you have the speaker? I'd have to have a look at the Short-term Accommodation Monitoring Report, which is. Identify I don't what those figures are, so if you bear with me, I can have a look and get back to you. Frank Wilkie 03:03:41.458
We would be fair to say the difference between the changes made for the MDR and HDR is opposed to the changes made type for HTA and LDR, was that there was in the MDR and HDR, Council is already refusing applications for STA and MDR and HDR. There is likely to be far fewer, if any, applications. Unidentified Speaker 03:04:10.777
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. Hmm. So if they it. 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 03:04:31.457
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. The amended motion, which is now an amended motion. Nicola Wilson 03:04:58.280
I'll ask you to cancel the motion. Tom Wegener 03:05:02.976
The Director of Kim Rawlings spoke about the evolution of the Planning Scheme through the eyes of the staff, it just shows the enormous, ridiculously enormous amount of work that staff went through to bring this to us. I'm just going to talk to everybody out there on TV land. And to the new Councillors about the journey that we've gone on, from my perspective, of the history of Noosa's evolution and these planning commitments. Four years ago, Clare Stewart, the previous Mayor, made a motion declaring a housing emergency in 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 to market. Council prepared two. Brian Stockwell 03:05:56.631
Reports showing a link between the housing crisis. Tom Wegener 03:05:59.915
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 Council mark embarked 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. 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 the strategy, and 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 has 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 zones include units, not single homes. Review the tourist zones to consider if some may be more appropriate as high density zones. This helps create more permanent versus tourist accommodation. 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, like along 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 here's the Planning Scheme amendments 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 to the. 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, new deliver Housing Strategy and 2.1, and one signature and 2.1, project, 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, a 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 and the wants 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, or SFD, came about and Noosa was soon facing the risk of high-rise development. And then we got an of 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, the new government clearly supports population protection for growth and supports increased housing in 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 time were doing this, the State was looking at what we were doing, and we were actually with are our amendments. And so that was fantastic. The second option we do. 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. The third is the worst. Comes in with new SD, FSD-type scenarios overriding our Planning Scheme and 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 you're going to 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 03:12:50.002
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 in the adoption of the 2020 plan actually added a 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 across the spectrum. 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, really. Astute and grace. But that's really not what I'm voting for today. The demographic I'm voting for today 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 a solar power house. And you could 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 this Noosa Shire. 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 market. 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's 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 that economic modelling really just want development economics or development finance. Is it feasible? The economics behind plans are far more complex. Far more 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% in four years leading to 2023. We know that directs the expenditure on homelessness is not the only cost. There's costs in housing, there's costs in 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 one of the biggest 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 that they deal with day in, out, trying support to 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 whether you're a 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 that we're going against the principles of the population cap. Can I say the principles of the population cap 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. And 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 has gone down. 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 ouse have the two-car that family. But ability the work people within have the two the people who 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. We have to retain the values of Noosa. At the same time, adjust our planning settings to reflect the real world as it is today and I think where we've ended up is a good mix. Frank Wilkie 03:19:23.700
Our planning settings to. Nicola Wilson 03:19:33.742
During the election campaign I talked about housing, so I'm not going to stand in the way of anything 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 distil that down to just a few recommendations or one 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. Of 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 Scheme 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 security provision of long of 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 be 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 in the coming years. Frank Wilkie 03:21:58.586
Thank you Councillor Wilson. Councillor Phillips. Jessica Phillips 03:22:05.638
Okay firstly I would like to thank Kim for the many hours and calls and emails over the last week especially so I have walked in here with and 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 love. A place where thoughtful planning preserves what makes Noosa unique while ensuring our community continues to thrive. Out of the tea before was cool, before anyone could hashtag Noosa fairy pools. And it didn't then and nor does it still in my mind include high density living areas where it fundamentally changes what we know about this place. I'll say it again but I'm standing here as Jess. Whichever one around the room will now know is the same Jess that you're going to see every day here. The same Jess 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 someone who leaves with my heart. I trust my very high moral compass and I believe in doing what's right even when it's hard. I 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 to start 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, student 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 even more closely with Kim Rawlings, asked some pretty tough questions, reflected on concerns posted by our community, or on Facebook, posed by our community, 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 I cannot in good faith support, and that's taking away property rights of owners. These rights 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 my support for that goal. Support the incredible work that's going into these amendments. I support the intention that I 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 that's I've also 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 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, their dreams and their futures without exhausting every single Avenue. I just don't amendments believe these are going to achieve the outcomes that we so desperately want to see. I want to find another way. I support the work, the goal and the need, but today, as they stand, my integrity demands that need, 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. Frank Wilkie 03:26:55.764
Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 03:27:03.320
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 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 been asked to prove today is not just a set of amendments, it's an entire package that will fundamentally shape Noosa's 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. I do not have that clarity 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 is our I do identity, 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 depend on those areas? Without answers to these fundamental questions, I believe we're moving forward blind. Community support is the cornerstone of any successful initiative. 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 TAFE where infrastructure already exists and increased density could make sense. Research, there 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 go back to past experiences. In 2020, by a majority of five Councillors, affordable housing located in medium density zones, a critical resource for our 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, rezoned 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 we need to 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 timeframe or specific timeframe 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. I stand here today with those who were not consulted. I stand here today with the people who have no idea that these changes are even being made that impact their rights. I stand with small businesses who don't understand the economic implications of these decisions. Again I support very many parts of these amendments but again the decision we've been asked today is to support the package in its entirety. I cannot in good conscience support this package in its entirety. My vote is no. Frank Wilkie 03:32:36.695
Sometimes the role of the Councillor is to look beyond your own particular narrow focus. The role of the Councillor is to look at the entirety of the package. I A vote against this package is a vote against the restriction, further restrictions on short-term accommodation in the medium density, high density, rural residential and rural zones. We all know when we endorse the Housing Strategy that knew we 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. We cannot 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, clearly presented material which had been available for the best part of the year. We know that those 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 vote against this significant advancement. To improve the services that could be provided to every member who enjoyed the Tewantin Noosa sports complex and that's a lot of young people that's a lot of families in our heartland. A vote against these amendments at this moment would be a vote against providing greater a range of housing choice in a half national housing crisis it would be a vote against 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 reality 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 the Noosa Plan 2020 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 see things through 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 short-term accommodation in medium and high density, there's likely to be a flood of superseded applications that are going to be approved because we're already knocking them back in those locations already. We can talk about thanking 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. The housing, I have to say the Housing Strategy was also endorsed by the community. We 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 this package of Planning Scheme amendments to my colleagues here and the community and I'm sincerely hoping that everyone around this table will reconsider consider just seeing it through a particular narrow lens and getting taken on board that it's not just about our particular focus, it's about all the other benefits that will flow from this package. Including the mums and dads and the kids that will benefit from the changes at the time in the registered sporting complex. And those who will no longer have their backyard views. Overshadowed by sheds the size of two-storey homes on their boundary fences. I'm not going to make a start because I don't know how it will feel. And anything we say today I think will be inadequate. So so I'm going to be voting for this package and I encourage your Councillors please reconsider and consider the whole package. Thank you. I'll 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. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
