Planning & Environment Committee Agenda - 9 September 2025
Date: Tuesday, 9 September 2025 at 9:30AM
Location: Noosa Shire Council Chambers , 9 Pelican Street , Tewantin , QLD 4565 , Australia
Organiser: Noosa Shire Council
Duration: 01:27:24
Synopsis: Amendment adopted with State conditions: prioritize housing, restrict STA, revert dual occupancy ≥600m², Notifications dispute, Coastal refusals appealed, Delegation risks, Superseded planning/compensation.
Meeting Attendees
Committee Members
Amelia Lorentson Brian Stockwell Tom Wegener Frank Wilkie Non-Committee Members
Karen Finzel Jessica Phillips Executive Officers
Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Strategy And Environment Kim Rawlings Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Director Community Services Kerri Contini AI-Generated Meeting Insight
Key Decisions & Discussions Amelia Lorentson: Corrected the delegated decisions report, noting RAP25-0012 (32 Park Crescent, Sunshine Beach) was refused, not approved; item 7.1 was referred to General Committee to fix the record (03:23–03:40; 7.1). Richard MacGillivray: Clarified July had 60 approvals and 4 refusals (incl. 32 Park Crescent), with 20 operational works approvals; high productivity month (01:55–03:10; 7.1). Richard MacGillivray: Two coastal refusals now under appeal (one to P&E Court, one to Tribunal); key grounds were coastal erosion risk management and over-height/site cover exacerbation (04:19–04:57; 7.1). Brian Stockwell: Supported staff refusals, warning against “monuments” breaching Noosa Plan height/site cover; urged consistency to protect scheme integrity (08:34–09:35; 7.1). Richard MacGillivray: Delegations used due to code-assessable timeframes and deemed approval risk; one applicant pressed timeframes (05:09–05:40; 7.1). Committee: Recommended Council adopt Noosa Plan 2020 Amendment No. 2 (with Ministerial conditions), set start on Gazette date, publish notices, notify affected owners/submitters, and allow CEO minor corrections; carried 3–1 (For: Stockwell, Wegener, Wilkie; Against: Lorentson) (12:07–13:10; 7.2). Kim Rawlings: Stated State signed off twice (state interest; final approval with conditions), and endorsed engagement plan; three-year process with extensive consultation (12:07–14:05; 7.2). Staff: Key amendment outcomes: prioritize permanent housing in medium/high density and centre zones; rezone parts of tourist accommodation to residential/centres; restrict further STA; pathway for affordable housing; innovation zone streamlining; Noosa Business Centre village concept; expanded Junction trading hours with “amplified music” definition; health/wellbeing precinct at Noosa District Sports Complex (14:05–18:00; 7.2). Staff: Minister imposed 8 conditions incl. reverting dual occupancy threshold to ≥600m² in medium density, limiting amplified music AO to outdoor spaces, accepted dwelling houses in community facilities where regulation allows, removing post-notice noise/privacy measures in high density near centres; all conditions mandatory (18:00–18:55; 7.2). Frank Wilkie: Highlighted enabling tiny homes (relocatable home parks) on community facilities land for crisis/temporary housing and STA curbs to protect permanent housing (01:09:17–01:11:54; 7.2). Amelia Lorentson: Opposed adoption solely due to lack of direct notification to owners affected by provision changes (as distinct from zone changes) and impacts on medium density dwelling/duplex permissions; acknowledged superseded rights but equity/cost concerns (01:22:30–01:26:11; 7.2). Contentious / Transparency Matters Amelia Lorentson: Queried why only zone-change owners (≈1,000 letters) were directly notified; sought inclusion of owners affected by provision changes; staff agreed current rec. re-notifies zone-change owners/submitters, with public notice; further offline discussion flagged (22:05–23:44; 7.2). Staff: Confirmed no consultation with Council on Ministerial condition reverting dual occupancy threshold; end-stage options are adopt or not adopt entire package (33:00–34:23; 01:06:24–01:08:05; 7.2). Staff: Noise/privacy additions near major centres deemed “significantly different” post-notification; State required reverting to notified version; staff propose reintroducing via future amendment (37:01–38:21; 7.2). Brian Stockwell: Called out State delays and structural subordination of local government; emphasized STA wind-back significance and housing incentives in centres (01:16:14–01:20:12; 7.2). Committee: Fast-track (tailored) amendment process noted; staff cautioned risk if State/community consultation run in parallel and State changes require re-notification (01:12:33–01:15:53; 7.2). Record Integrity: Delegations report error corrected in public meeting; referral to General Committee preserves transparency and administrative accuracy (01:55–03:23; 7.1). Legal / Risk Richard MacGillivray: Appeals: one refusal in P&E Court, one in Tribunal; Tribunal decisions non-precedential; Council tracks cases and costs; 80–90% resolve at mediation with amendments aligning to scheme (04:19–08:17; 7.1). Delegations: Code-assessable coastal matters determined under delegation due to deemed approval risk; time extensions sometimes contentious (05:09–05:40; 7.1). Superseded Planning: Owners have 12 months to request assessment under superseded scheme; Council has 30 business days or deemed approval; if granted, 6 months to lodge DA; standard two-year substantial commencement for building works; up to 6 years for MCU (43:09–45:50; 7.2). Compensation Pathway: If Council refuses superseded request and subsequent DA is refused/conditioned, an applicant may claim compensation for loss of value due to scheme change; multi-step process under Planning Act (01:02:33–01:04:04; 7.2). Call-up Risk: Bringing superseded matters to Council requires applicant’s agreed extension; otherwise deemed approval risk within statutory timeframe (01:00:36–01:02:27; 7.2). OLGR Alignment: Amplified music hours in planning scheme stay consistent with OLGR; State required limiting AO to outdoor spaces (57:51–01:00:22; 7.2). Short-Term Accommodation and Housing Affordability Staff: Amendments prioritize permanent residents in residential and key centre zones by restricting new STA; parts of tourist accommodation rezoned to support permanent housing (14:05–18:00; 7.2). Brian Stockwell: Asserted Noosa’s STA controls are among Queensland’s strongest; anticipates gradual return of neighbours as abandoned STA use rights lapse (01:16:14–01:20:12; 7.2). Frank Wilkie: Emphasized enabling tiny homes (relocatable home parks) in community facilities to deliver crisis/temporary housing on church land via impact assessment (20:19–21:11; 01:09:17–01:11:54; 7.2). Staff: Affordable housing definition used: lower 30% income households spending ≤30% of income; achieving true affordability in Noosa generally requires subsidy/community housing providers (51:27–51:54; 49:34–50:46; 7.2). Staff: Secondary dwellings eased and exempt from infrastructure charges when for permanent rental/family (not STA), improving affordability by design (50:57–51:27; 7.2). Zoning Changes, Medium/High Density Policy, and Noosa Business Centre Staff: Minister reverted dual occupancy in medium density to lots ≥600m² (not ≥1,000m² as Council sought post-notification); dwelling houses under 500m² permitted as proposed (31:31–32:36; 7.2). Amelia Lorentson: Opposed package based on impacts to owners in medium density (duplex limitations) and equity for those unable to fund superseded applications; sought broader direct notification (29:21–33:57; 22:05–23:44; 7.2). Brian Stockwell & Staff: Flagged future review of zone naming/intent to better match Noosa’s desired outcomes (e.g., low-medium vs medium/high); align with regional plan while preserving character (28:33–30:46; 7.2). Staff: Noosa Business Centre: establishes integrated village with diverse housing/employment; relocates transit hub; innovation zone streamlines non-traditional enterprise with setback tweaks; residential zoning clarified (40:39–41:52; 7.2). Brian Stockwell: Warned of transport constraints at Noosa Business Centre; urged TransLink hub focus and active/public transport investment to support intended density (01:52:33–01:54:14; 7.2). Staff: Housing/density growth targeted to major centres; must meet regional dwelling targets while minimizing village impacts (54:14–56:34; 7.2). Sunshine Beach and Coastal/Noise Issues Richard MacGillivray: 32 Park Crescent, Sunshine Beach refusal reasons included amplified height/site cover due to topography and amenity/character impacts; currently under appeal (09:48–10:37; 7.1). Staff: Coastal refusal grounded in inadequate response to erosion-prone area coastal processes; aligns with State and scheme coastal hazard requirements (04:19–04:57; 7.1). Staff: Sheds exceeding 3.5m no longer enjoy rear setback exclusions in urban zones to protect amenity; rural lots excepted (21:16–22:00; 7.2). Staff: Amplified music AO limited to outdoor spaces per Minister; flexibility to consider proposals via PO remains; OLGR hours align (57:51–01:00:22; 7.2). Process, Appeals, and Costs Staff: Mediation is first step in P&E appeals; majority resolve at mediation with lower costs; complex cases with multiple experts and barristers can be costly (07:07–08:17; 7.1). Staff: Monthly appeals spreadsheet (incl. historical cases, financials) provided to Mayor; Tribunal decisions do not bind; P&E Court decisions may guide (06:03–06:52; 7.1). Staff: Tailored (fast-track) amendment process under s18 available; tighter timeframes, potential parallel steps; staff caution on community engagement risks if State alters content mid-process (01:12:33–01:15:53; 7.2). Tom Wegener: Noted amendment cycles continuous (“painting the Harbour Bridge”); numerous small fixes to reduce red tape (e.g., cottage food producers) (26:43–26:51; 7.2).
Official Meeting Minutes
MINUTES Planning & Environment Committee Meeting Tuesday, 9 September 2025 9:30 AM Council Chambers, 9 Pelican Street, Tewantin Committee: Crs Amelia Lorentson (Chair), Brian Stockwell, Frank Wilkie, Tom Wegener “Noosa Shire – different by nature” PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 9 SEPTEMBER 2025 1 DECLARATION OF OPENING The meeting was declared open at 9.32 AM. 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY Noosa Council respectfully acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of the lands and waters of the Noosa area, the Kabi Kabi people, and pays respect to their Elders, past, present and emerging. 3 ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES COMMITTEE MEMBERS Cr Amelia Lorentson (Chair) Cr Brian Stockwell Cr Tom Wegener Cr Frank Wilkie NON COMMITTEE MEMBERS Cr Karen Finzel Cr Jessica Phillips EXECUTIVE Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Strategy and Environment Kim Rawlings Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Director Community Services Kerri Contini APOLOGIES Nil. 4 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 4.1 PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES DATED 12 AUGUST 2025 Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener The Minutes of the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting held on 12 August 2025 be received and confirmed. Carried. For: Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Frank Wilkie Against: None PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 9 SEPTEMBER 2025 5. PRESENTATIONS Nil. 6. DEPUTATIONS Nil. 7 REPORTS FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE COMMITTEE Nil. 7.1. PLANNING APPLICATIONS DECIDED BY DELEGATED AUTHORITY – JULY 2025 Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Brian Stockwell That Planning & Environment Committee Agenda Item 7.1 be referred to the General Committee for further consideration. Carried. For: Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Frank Wilkie Against: None 7.2. NOOSA PLAN 2020 - AMENDMENT NO. 2 - COUNCIL ADOPTION Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Brian Stockwell That Council A. Note the report by the Strategy and Sustainability Manager to the Planning and Environment Committee on 9 September 2025 regarding proposed Amendment No. 2 to Noosa Plan 2020 and; B. Under section 22 of the Minister's Guidelines and Rules: 1. Adopt proposed Amendment No. 2 to Noosa Plan 2020 as contained in Attachments 3-14 which incorporates changes as required by the Ministerial conditions outlined in this report; 2. Publish a public notice in the newspaper and Queensland Government Gazette; and 3. Notify property owners affected by the amendments who were notified during public notification. C. Set a date for Amendment No. 2 to Noosa Plan 2020 to take effect being the date the notice appears in the Queensland Government Gazette; D. Provide the Chief Executive Officer for State Development and Infrastructure Planning a copy of the public notice and certified copy of the amendment. PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 9 SEPTEMBER 2025 E. Delegate to the Chief Executive Officer to be able to make minor corrections if required prior to gazettal. Carried. For: Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Frank Wilkie Against: Cr Amelia Lorentson 8 REPORTS FOR NOTING BY THE COMMITTEE Nil. 9 CONFIDENTIAL SESSION Nil. 10 MEETING CLOSURE The meeting closed at 11.00 AM.
Meeting Transcript
Amelia Lorentson 00:00.000
The Planning and Environment Committee meeting. It's now 9:30. I declare the meeting open and I'll start by an acknowledgement to country. Noosa Council proudly acknowledges and respects Australia's First Nations people and their deep and abiding connection to the country, this country. We recognise the Kabi Kabi people as the traditional owners of the lands and waters of the Noosa area. area. We pay respect to Kabi Kabi elders who have come before us and acknowledge and acknowledge their enduring commitment in pursuing a healthy future to First Nations people. We pay respect to the people of Noosa. We pay respects to elders past, present and emerging. Attendance, I'd like to welcome to the desk Mayor Wilkie, Deputy Mayor Councillor Stockwell and Councillor Tom Wegener, Larry and online welcome Councillor Karen Finzel. Welcome online also Jessica Phillips, Councillor. Can I please request before commencing the meeting that everyone have their phones on silent or turned off and we'll start And we'll start with item 4, confirmation of minutes. Can I please have a mover and a seconder. Thank You Mayor Wilkie, Thank You Councillor Tom Wegener. No discussion, all in favour? Presentations, deputations? There are none. So we go straight to reports for consideration of the committee. Item 7.1 planning applications decided by delegated authority in July 2025. And welcome to the desk, Patrick Murphy. Thanks, Patrick. If you want to give us an overview of the report in front of us. Thank you, Councillor. Patrick Murphy 01:55.344
Yes, this is the monthly report of those decisions that were decided under delegated authority. Delegated authority for the month of July. Quite a busy month. 60 applications that were determined. So 60 applications that were approved and it's showing through that were refused. You'll note there's quite a lot of operational works approval. through that month. The team were very, very diligent and have done a great job in getting out a large number of decisions. So yeah, very productive month for the team. I am aware that the report is for noting, but I'd like to point out there's one application approval RAP250012 for 32 Park Crescent Sunshine Beach. It was an early referral response. It was a combined application. There was also associated development permit for building works. Both of those applications were refused. Unfortunately, the report shows the RAP, the early referral response being approved, but it was actually refused. Amelia Lorentson 02:51.752
Can I just clarify that's RAP250012 on the report? That's correct. So there was four refusals, not three refusals in the 65? That's correct. Thank you. Patrick Murphy 03:04.472
So two combined applications. Thank you very much for your questions. Results, they were both refused. Brian Stockwell 03:11.896
Is it appropriate to have the motion that amends the table before it's adopted? Patrick Murphy 03:17.796
It would be pertinent to do that, yes. Amelia Lorentson 03:21.816
I think so. So we might leave the amendment for general meeting, is that the process? Yep, we can do that. That would be great. That would be great, Thank you. So questions around the table? Councillors? SPEAKER_05 03:38.972
Just noting it seems to have twice the amount of approvals or matters than previous months. Patrick Murphy 03:45.540
Often we're in the high 30s, and yes, this certainly was a very productive month for the team, again going back to the number of operational works approvals. Twenty for the month is quite a large amount. The team were just incredibly productive through that month, so yeah. Amelia Lorentson 04:05.488
In terms of the properties that were refused, all of them were coastal properties. Can I ask what specific planning scheme provisions or criteria led to the refusals? Patrick Murphy 04:19.268
Just mindful that both of those applications are now subject to appeal. Yeah, so one in the Planning Environment Court and the other with the Tribunal. They are. Broadly speaking, one of the properties, there are issues with how they're demonstrating they will deal with coastal properties. They will deal with coastal processes being in an erosion prone area. And the other application related to an existing dwelling that's already over height and over site cover, for which they were seeking to extend and exacerbate both of those elements. And that was refused on those grounds. Amelia Lorentson 04:57.064
And is it standard process that those decisions are made under delegations or in some instances we've seen them in the past come to council for a decision? Patrick Murphy 05:09.444
Yeah, being code accessible and having time frames associated with them, they are able to be made under They are able to be made under delegated authority. The applications needed to be determined. The time was certainly getting to that point where they could have won deemed approval and we had had some issues Some issues with one of the applicants around the time frames and they're seeking potential deemed approval. Amelia Lorentson 05:39.252
My last question in terms of just past legal cases and planning appeals. Does Council actually have a database where we can access decisions made in the past and whether that can help us as part of the assessment process to give some of the applications some context? Is that information collated? Patrick Murphy 06:02.960
We have a monthly spreadsheet of cases that's provided to the Mayor that includes historical cases as well so it gives a summation of the cases it gives some financial context to the cases as well. in terms of an actual database we certainly record all the all the relevant matters associated with the appeal in our electronic records and it's something that we when we're making determinations are certainly mindful of previous decisions Noting that the decisions by the tribunal are not we're not bound by two decisions of the tribunal they don't set a precedent. Amelia Lorentson 06:46.188
Decisions made by the Planning and Environment Court certainly are those that And in terms of estimated costs, mediation versus if it actually goes to Planning and Environment Court, can you give us an idea of what estimated costs are for Council? Patrick Murphy 07:06.972
So I suppose just to separate them out again, in terms of the tribunal, if they go to the tribunal, there's no legal representation. It'll be officers' time, so it's quite minimal. Going to appeals, certainly. We've had cases that have been quite significant in terms of the cost that's been associated with them. There have been long cases that have maybe gone on for a number of years, many experts, and involve court time with barristers. so at that we the certainly the higher end of the range some matters can be resolved quite quickly through mediation still probably involving experts it's and I've recently provided some data to the director around decisions that were made in I think the last 14 months or so and I'd say that 80 to 90 percent of them were resolved through through the the mediation mediation process process and you know generally with the applicant amending their proposal to align with council's planning scheme and our intent for the site and therefore the cost of those was certainly at the lower end of the scale just following on from that mediation is always the first step yeah yeah that's that's correct the The sometimes sometimes an appellant may seek to to push on on the matter but the courts are generally will seek that the mediation occurred early in the process. Brian Stockwell 08:33.328
So are we going to refer it? I'll talk to it first. I'd just like to support the staff's refusal of the two applications. I think we're seeing an increasing number of people trying to push the boundary of the Noosa Plan by building excessively large monuments to themselves in their houses. I think it's an issue that we need to make it really loud make it really loud and clear from this council that the Noosa Plan is something that this community holds very close and very dearly and that just because they can afford to take to appeal it's not the right thing to do the right thing to do The right thing to do is to build a house in compliance with the planning scheme and I think this community should make it really clear to all applicants and any planning consultant pushing the boundaries in this regard that the Noosa Plan, our expectations on pipe and site cover are negotiable. SPEAKER_05 09:34.512
Thank you. Question, Madam Chair. Thanks. Yeah. Just a question about the whole thing. Question about the height and setbacks for 32 Park Crescent. Could you explain what the issues are with the height and the setbacks of 32 Park Crescent? Patrick Murphy 09:47.980
There's height setbacks in the site cover as well on that one. So it's a quite a large So it's a quite a large house that exists there at the moment with the topography of the site. As the house extends to the rear of the site, the height issues are amplified. They're seeking to extend the building further so that the height would get greater and that the site cover would be further increased and we are not satisfied with that on the basis of potential impacts to adjoining property owners, the appearance of the built form to the surrounding area. Amelia Lorentson 10:36.552
Any further comments or questions before I refer this to the general meeting? And I'd like to also acknowledge how many applications have gone through, how many approvals have gone through and you know that takes a lot of work so thank you very much. I'll move that the report is moved to the general meeting just to allow for some technical corrections. Thank you. That planning environment committee agenda item 7.1 be referred to the general committee for further consideration. Can I have a seconder please? Thank you Councillor Stockwell. No discussion, no further discussion. All in favour please. Thank you. And that brings us to the next item on the agenda. Which is 7.2 Noosa Plan 2020, amendment number 2, council adoption. And I welcome to the desk Kim, Director of Environment and Strategy for Noosa Council, Anita and Rowena to the desk. If I can ask if you can just start with an overview. If you can just start with an overview of the report in front of us today. Kim Rawlings 12:07.118
Sure. I might just start if that's okay. Councillors, today's report signifies a very significant milestone for amendment number 2, which has been in the making for well over three years. We are now at the point of the final step in the process, which is the recommending to Council for the adoption of this amendment package, and Anita will go through a quick summary on what the package contains, but what I just did want to say is, one, to acknowledge the significance of the milestone and the endurance of the team over those last three years, and the Council, in many hours of workshops and processes and consultation and the community for the significant amount of feedback we got on this package to refine it. But I also wanted to say that, importantly, Importantly, the State government have signed off on this package on two occasions. So the first process is the State interest process, which gives council the confidence that... confidence that the State interest are incorporated into the planning scheme and it complies with state planning policy. So the first tick is received and as part of that process the State government also sign off on our communication and engagement plan, which they did. And sign off as it being compliant and appropriate. We then delivered our consultation in accordance with that endorsed communications plan, which was a very extensive consultation process. is the State government also signing off with a number of conditions, which we will step through briefly. and then this stage But essentially it says that, you know, subject to those conditions, council is now able to adopt the scheme. It has met state requirements again. So just wanted to provide that context before we provide a little bit of summary of what's in the package. Sure. Thanks, Anita. Anita 14:10.154
Council, you recall that at its meeting in December, well, over two meetings, the 5th and 12th of December last year, Council endorsed the amendments for the purpose of final state interest check and ministerial approval. And the key outcomes of the amendments were to implement the recommendations of the housing strategy, as well as the short-term accommodation monitoring report. The short-term accommodation monitoring report was a requirement to prepare that as a ministerial condition and implement those recommendations. The amendments seek to ensure sufficient land is available for permanent residential housing and facilitates improved housing security, choice, diversity and affordability to meet the housing needs of Noosa Shire residents. It also establishes a pathway for the delivery of affordable housing and prioritises permanent residents in residential zones and key centre zones by restricting further short-term accommodation. All of those were recommendations of both the short-term accommodation monitoring report and the housing strategy. So amongst a range of other things, other key elements of the amendments are that we are restricting future development in the medium and high density residential zones and high density residential zones and most centre zones to permanent housing, which is the key purpose of those zones, excluding further short term accommodation. We're also rezoning parts of the tourist accommodation zone to residential and centre zones to support permanent housing. As opposed to more short term accommodation, because we have an extensive tourist accommodation zone, which allows for development for visitor accommodation. We're increasing housing diversity and choice, particularly around small dwellings, and we're allowing visitor accommodations such as cabins and rules in the rural and rural residential zone to continue, provided the permanent resident remains on site in their dwellings, so we don't lose further permanent housing to short-term accommodation, but they can still operate short-term accommodation whilst they're on site. Additionally, the amendment defines clear outcomes for Noosa Business Centre as an integrated village combining diverse housing and employment opportunities. This was a ministerial condition which we are now implementing. It also establishes guidelines for development within that innovation zone. It expands allowable trading hours for food and drink outlets in Noosa Junction hospitality precinct with a new definition of amplified music. And it supports the future of sports medicine through the creation of a health and wellbeing precinct within the Noosa district sports complex. It also improves the general operation and workability of the scheme by making improvements to its workability, interpretation and clarification. as complex. So the Minister has now following our submission of those amendments endorsed by Council reviewed the amendments and approved it subject to eight conditions. Three of the conditions were at the request of Council staff. Two were to correct a couple of errors that we had picked up and one was to facilitate the rezoning of three lots that we purchased under the voluntary buyback scheme to Recreation Active Space to avoid having to do another amendment process. There were two conditions that the Ministers directed us to revert back to the publicly notified version of the amendment and that's around making dual occupancy inconsistent on lots equal to or greater than 600 square metres in the medium density residential zone and applying the amplified music provision AO only to outdoor spaces. The Minister has also directed that we comply with requirements under the planning regulation around making dwelling houses accepted development in the community facilities zone where it complies with the regulation. There's a captural condition to make any changes arising from any of these amendments and a condition that removes noise attenuation and privacy measures that we tried to implement post notification in the high density and residential zones which adjoin major centres. So they're the eight conditions. It's a requirement as part of the minister's approval that we adopt all of those conditions. There's no picking and choosing. So it's a whole package which we're recommending for adoption by council. So following council's formal adoption we will place a public notice in the local paper. We also will update our website and put a notice in the Queensland Government Gazette. So we're proposing to commence the amendments on the 26th of September. Property owners affected by a zone change, previous submitters and key community industry groups will also be notified and we'll have supporting package of explanatory information fact sheets to assist in the understanding of changes and we'll all take inquiries on that. So as Kim has already mentioned, considerable time and resources have been expended to deliver these amendments. Over nearly a three-year period and the adoption of these amendments represent a significant update to Noosa Plan 2020 delivering key actions from the housing strategy and short-term accommodation monitoring report particularly in relation to increasing outcomes for permanent housing to the most needy in our community. SPEAKER_05 19:59.004
Thank you for the summary of the extensive range of changes that this package will bring in. There was some changes to do with allowing tiny homes on church land, community facilities land. Could you just speak to that please? Rowena 20:18.874
Do you want to talk to that? Sure. The definition, the land use definition of relocatable home parks has been made a consistent use in the community facility zone, just as the use of retirement village already is. So if a place of worship has spare capacity within their property, within their land holdings and they want to put two, three, four, five tiny homes on their property they can seek approval of council through an impact assessment application to do that. SPEAKER_05 21:01.739
And this was in response to churches asking for changes. They could provide temporary accommodation. We had drafted it even before then but yes it aligns with that policy. And there were some changes to the limit size of, we got some feedback from residents in urban areas about two storey sheds appearing on their boundary fences in urban areas. There are some changes that are that are protecting the amenity of residents in regards to impact of large sheds. Could you just explain what that change involves, please? Rowena 21:40.063
So, um, the planning scheme side and rear setback provisions, there were exclusions for carports and sheds, but we've tightened that so that if the shed exceeds four point... Three and a half. Three and a half metres, then they won't get that extension. SPEAKER_05 21:59.809
Unless they're on a rural lot. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 22:05.789
I'll ask a question. So the recommendation number recommendation number three is notify property owners affected by the amendments who were notified during the public notification period. My understanding there was a thousand letters sent to property owners that The property owners that were potentially being affected by either overlay or zone changes. The property owners that were affected by changes in the provision of the zones were not notified. Are we going to notify them of this change and is that captured? under the recommendation, the way it's worded at the moment says those already notified. Can we expand that to include those that are impacted by provision changes? And is that difficult in terms of resourcing new costs? Kim Rawlings 23:06.537
Yeah, so as Anita just outlined, we will re-notify those who received letters last time that had a zone change. We will also notify those who are submitters. So if people submitted, we'll notify them as well. And then there will be public notification of the changes. If there's been a provision change within a zone and they didn't submit, then currently we haven't got in here that we would write to them. Amelia Lorentson 23:43.119
Does a petition give any information? Only to the main petitioner. Kim Rawlings 23:53.579
I might talk to you about that offline. Thank you very much. Questions around the table? Tom Wegener 24:04.021
Just the history of the planning scheme. So we had the 2020 planning scheme, which is quite an ordeal. Before that it was 2006. So between 2006 was 14 years. Before that, so there's big changes, you know, in over a 14-year period. When was the first planning scheme? Because it goes back to before 2006. SPEAKER_02 24:30.086
Well, the previous one was non-A-95. So 1985, but Councillor, it was amended quite a number of times between 1985 and 2006. Kim Rawlings 24:42.571
So 1985 was a very significant planning scheme. It's quite a famous Noosa planning scheme where it put in place a lot of the key elements of what we are the beneficiaries of today, Councillor Wegener. know, that was a very significant strategic plan that was developed at the time. That was a very significant... But as Rowena mentioned, it was amended a number of times between 1985 and 2006. There was then a change in the planning legislation. Planning legislation at the State level, which required quite a significant shift in how planning schemes were developed and drafted. It was called the Integrated Planning Act. So then there was IPA, Integrated Planning Act, planning schemes that came out, which the two... that came out, which the 2006 one was. And then we had the 2021 under the new Planning Act. Tom Wegener 25:32.866
So there's, as times change, like we need to continue to evolve the planning scheme. Oh, absolutely. Because imagine if we were still in the 2006 era without that planning scheme. So it's been three and a half years. It's been three and a half years of these amendments in the making. It usually doesn't take three and a half years, does it? Kim Rawlings 25:53.096
No, this has been a particularly long process. So no, it does take some time, but that is probably the longest I've experienced. Tom Wegener 26:24.425
Scheme runs smoother for example with small businesses and people wanting to make food products in they don't need huge applications to have to make a little product to take to the markets now under the planning scheme and there's lots of little things that like smooth that the way for a better better working new set yeah and this is but amendment package two so even since 2020 we've done this is a second round of amendments we've done and they'll probably be a third are you working on the third before we start the new planning scheme yeah yes we're starting on the third you were always like painting the Harbour Bridge finish it and then you Amelia Lorentson 27:09.540
I recall there was one condition before advertising that noted that these set of amendments weren't the response needed or foreshadowed in the review of the SDQ regional plan but that hasn't shown up in the ministerial conditions is that because the new government's changed tact have or they're a likely to different approach going forward. Kim Rawlings 27:31.079
There was an advisory comment in the first round of state interests that said please note there might be some more requirements to make changes to implement the SDQ regional plan. Yes that was a previous government. There is a review that's been announced for the SDQ regional plan that was developed finalised last year and that review will begin later this year under the new government so that review is absolutely prioritising housing and employment so you know it's intended to be a fairly really, um... Brian Stockwell 28:34.000
Um in 2018 I think we made a decision to reflect the same name for medium density and high density residential zones as was in the 2006 to make it easy Since that time we've seen SEQ regional plans pushing more density into those two zones. Will our next review look at the potential to change the names to be more fitting Easy. To what we aspire? It is low, medium and medium, rather than medium and high. SPEAKER_01 29:08.392
It's something that we will be looking at in terms of what outcomes we want to see in terms of what outcomes that are specific to that overall state definition and whether they match. So yeah, we'll do that as part of the review. Is that something that's happening already in New South Wales where they're referencing like low rise instead of medium? Kim Rawlings 29:30.412
So there are other zones that are available to utilise in the suite of the planning provisions in Queensland. So New South Wales has its own set of zones, operates under a different planning legislation. Planning legislation is state by state. But it's that definition that replaced medium density with low rise density? I think they've put multiple so there's multiple descriptions and we already have it so we have a low medium rise zone that exists here in Brisbane for example at doing a review of their low at medium the medium moment to to look at the outcomes and potentially increase its density so yeah there are and that's what you're asking yeah it was a decision made basically saying so people understand Brian Stockwell 30:16.288
Basically saying so people understand that the zone hasn't changed but it's having ramifications down if we looked at that review of the regional plan what other councils do in high density residential is very different from what we do in high density residential other councils called medium density and then we haven't used the low medium whereas probably a range of our medium density areas are really what we desire is into what the low medium is. Amelia Lorentson 30:44.940
Can I ask, there were two changes that the ministers came back and imposed additional conditions. One was in terms of medium density that we reverted back to the maximum lots size from 100,000 square metres to 600 square metres. Can I start with that one and just ask, can you just clarify what was resolved in terms of dwelling houses and dual occupancy, what we presented and what came back? Can we just unpack that a little bit? Anita 31:31.902
Following public notification we made some recommendations to make some changes to the lot sizes for houses, dwelling houses and dual occupancies. One was to allow dwelling houses on lots less than 500 square metres and the other was to allow dual occupancies up to or less than a thousand square metres. In the medium. In the medium density zone. Yeah. Dual occupancies are not consistent in the high density residential zone. That was in response to submission. Kim Rawlings 32:08.511
Yeah. Amelia Lorentson 32:10.971
So the Minister So the Minister came back. Yes. And said and said no to the thousand square metres and reverted back to the original amendment which was 600 square metres. Correct. Anita 32:32.680
That was the only change the Minister made. Amelia Lorentson 32:35.100
That was the only change. Related to medium density. Did we at the time take the opportunity to try to discuss discuss with the Minister pros and cons and the reasons why we presented a thousand square metres. What is that process? Is there any communication or any discussion during that state interest public interest team meeting? State interest public interest test period. Kim Rawlings 32:59.805
So after we need to resubmit to the State government we provide them all the information and all the justification including our council report and our Submissions report and justification as to why we've recommended that change. It then gets considered and there's a there's a little bit of toing and froing about issues. We were not consulted about this ministerial condition. Amelia Lorentson 33:24.045
So what recourse is available to council given that we have a written agreement or just a written statement from the deputy saying that he would work with local councils to help respect community expectations in terms of any changes in Noosa Plan. Kim Rawlings 33:24.685
Patient. Amelia Lorentson 33:47.245
Can we go back to him and ask? we further discuss that change given it's quite significant? Kim Rawlings 33:56.698
At this stage of the process council have two options to adopt or to not adopt that's the ministerial the ministerial conditions conditions aren't negotiable they are under the legislation they're like at the final stage you must you can adopt your scheme but you must incorporate the ministerial you conditions and decide then council whether you want to adopt that or not adopt that so yeah that's do you get it do we get another shot at it in the next future packages for amendments can can we we resubmit how does that process yeah the next round of amendments council can put on the table of anything you want to look at that you want to amend so yes a new amendment process can re-look at at things things yes yes for for sure sure I guess what what the ministerial change says to us is that the minister who is both the deputy premier and has made that statement that he will support local governments also the minister of planning both wears both very significant important important hats hats is is that that council you are to use your zones as they're intended. It's a medium density residential zone and it should be used as intended and and to deliver you know outcomes and I think it goes to the heart of what Councillor Stockwell was saying that the government are saying to us utilise your zones appropriately. Amelia Lorentson 35:31.960
So then my next question sort of feeds into the next question there are only two councils in Queensland that don't allow you to build a dwelling house in a medium density zone so that conflicts with... Kim Rawlings 35:48.904
So in 2022 the State made a change to the regulations to allow councils to make dwelling houses in consistent in medium and high density residential zones because it was noted that what was happening was an underutilisation of those zones. So the State government made... So the State government made the change to allow councils to do that. So it'll only be the councils who've made amendments to their planning schemes or new planning schemes in the last two years that will have taken up that provision. I would suggest there will be many more. There will be many more. In the near future. But currently Sunshine Coast Council and Noosa Council. Yes, so only councils who've done amendments to their schemes or a new scheme. Now that won't be all of the councils. You know, because you can see how what the process takes. So yeah, it's it's about that provision only being available in the last two years. Amelia Lorentson 36:49.746
Did they give you any reason Condition 8 remove Noosa Tewantin Condition 8 remove noise attenuation and privacy measures in high density residential zones? Did they give you any reasons why that got knocked back? Kim Rawlings 37:01.658
Yeah, that was there's a provision in the Minister's guidelines and rules around amending planning schemes, that after a consultation process, if you make changes to your planning scheme that are considered significantly different, there is a requirement. to re-advertise those changes. We made this change to noise attenuation measures in response to submissions around the noise issues around the junction. Noise attenuation measures already exist in the major centre zone to manage noise and we considered it appropriate to expand that to the surrounding residential areas for medium and medium. High density new residential development you know to try and mitigate future noise implications. The department state government Department of Planning considered that was a significant change to significant change at the final point not previously and said they reverted back to what was advertised said that they thought it was a good provision but that it was considered significant Amelia Lorentson 38:08.972
Could provision but that it was considered significantly different so have required us to change it back we could we will and put that into another round of amendment processes and you mentioned before jokingly but I wonder whether it was jokingly we either sort of undertake another future set of amendments or a new planning scheme yeah were you serious and I'm thinking under a new planning scheme then this wouldn't be a significant change it would just be part of a new planning scheme is that right yeah we would do it we would look start to look at the new planning scheme planning schemes are around ten years okay so you know as we lead into ten years we'll start to look at a new planning scheme potentially or if there's regulations major changes or to the State Planning Act so there'll be there'll be another round of amendments before we start to look at a new planning scheme when we're not we're only halfway there. Thank you. SPEAKER_05 39:08.709
Question. Mayor Wilkie. What are the most pressing requests in terms of when the planning scheme amendments going to be coming in? what quarters of the community or industry are you receiving the most urgent requests for updates on the planning scheme amendments? Which groups are most urgently awaiting these changes? Kim Rawlings 39:34.882
It's probably a combination of responses there. We've got people in our centres, zones, that are waiting for these provisions. Because there are some incentive provisions in centre zones. So there are a couple of large sites in both our centres. We've definitely got our Shire Business Centre that is waiting for these provisions to come into place. There's some efficiencies in the provisions and streamlining around dwelling houses. So you know that there's a some red tape reduction elements of the amendments. Anyone else want to jump in? Frank Wilkie 40:20.388
So like the capacity to now allow tiny homes on community facilities land, church land is certainly a huge game changer. SPEAKER_01 40:29.288
Yes and affordable housing. Frank Wilkie 40:32.348
Could you refresh my memory on what's proposed to happen? This allows the innovation zone? Kim Rawlings 40:39.104
Yes, so this, you have to refresh my memory. It's been a while. Yeah, Michelle do you want to join in? Come up to the table please. SPEAKER_02 40:49.504
So these amendments will significantly streamline uses and what can go into the innovation zone precinct, reducing a lot of red tape, allowing for new innovative businesses to happen there. There's some changes to some provisions around setbacks and things like that to cater for new enterprise models that don't traditionally sit in a normal industrial zone. So it creates all those things. All those things for that innovation and future employment. It also was a response to a minister of condition in 2020 that we look at the different uses and the more detailed planning around the Noosa Business Centre. You know, kind of corrects, you know, aligns with the new road and what's happened there with the subdivision, allows for the relocation of the transit hub to a more centralised site, so there's a range of... There's a range of economic development opportunities sitting with these amendments that... Reduces levels of assessment. Reduces levels of assessment. Reduces red tape. Yeah. SPEAKER_01 41:49.129
Residential zoning as well, instead of it being a precinct, so it establishes that land use. in that zone, as opposed to currently it's under a major centre zone as a precinct. Yeah. So we'll deliver that outcome for housing. Yeah. Kim Rawlings 42:03.378
Provides for some more detailed design guidance around the development of the village centre precinct there. Yeah. So we did quite much more finer grain master planning around that. Yeah. Frank Wilkie 42:14.798
Yeah. Thank you. It's just a reminder of how... Yeah. Multi-layered this package of amendments really is. Thank you. It's an enormous amount of work that you've done. Yeah. Amelia Lorentson 42:26.462
In terms of going back to meeting density and the changes that were made... So, if you've got a property that's 600 square metres or greater, you're no longer allowed to build a dual-occupancy house...in terms of existing use rights and formal requests under a superseded planning scheme, can you go through what is available to residents at the moment? In terms of... How can they retain their existing use rights? And can you talk through the process? Yeah, I'm happy to take that back. Thank you, Richard. Richard MacGillivray 43:07.327
So, the Planning Act actually gives provisions to people... The Planning Act actually gives provisions to people to protect and gives them a 12-month period, essentially, to undertake what's called a superseded planning request, so that can give them the ability to apply under a superseded planning scheme, so they make a... request through the prescribed form, and we will assess that based on the merits of that proposal. In response to existing homes, particularly the medium density residential zone, so once they're established, they're protected as is, so they don't have to get any changes, so that the changes don't affect them as such. If there's a situation of like a fire or something and their house burns down, they need to... they need to rebuild, they're able to do that, so that doesn't constitute a material change of use. They can do minor alterations to their house as they normally would without triggering the need for a material change. range of scalability. scale intensity as long as it meets the scheme provisions that are relevant at the time. So they can do minor work but if they, if it's either a vacant lot or it's a complete knockdown and a significant increase in scale and intensity of a new dwelling for example that will, that will trigger assessment and they'll need to apply under the superseded planning scheme to do that. So there's a 12 month period from the date of the scheme. is endorsed. They have 12 months to lodge a request for a superseded application and the council has 30 business days to assess that superseded request and if If we support that, then they've got a further six months to lodge that development application for that particular activity as well. Uh, if... So there is a considerable period of time for people to apply to be accepted under. Amelia Lorentson 45:02.282
And if the development application is approved, the currency period is two years, and they must substantially start the build within two years. Can you just speak to that? So there's different provisions in the Planning Act around the dwelling houses. So where there's accepted development, for say a building works or a dwelling, there's a requirement around a two year to substantially commence the works. For an example where there's a material change of use, it may be up to an order of six years. Under the currency periods under the Act, but council can specify a particular time frame, but generally it's a two year period for dwelling houses or buildings that must substantially commence that work. Substantially commence. Thank you. Yeah, that helps a lot. Does that assist? Thank you. Just questions. Jessica Phillips has got her hand up. I might finish some questions before I go online. In terms of monitoring and evaluation, is there going to be like a formal review process? Just assessing whether or not these recent planning scheme changes have actually achieved their intended outcome. I know that the housing monitoring report will be coming to Council and is part of And it's part of just even planning decisions made under delegation. That information will feed whether or not we've been successful. How often are we to expect like a report to come to Council just to evaluate how successful these changes are? Kim Rawlings 46:48.553
Yeah so that is a that is an ongoing process so that the process of amending a planning scheme is is driven by a number of factors. One is that you know Council may have endorsed new strategies or policies that need implementation through the planning scheme. There are new state requirements or there are changes happening in our community you know new trends new things happening you know the rise of Airbnb those sorts of things so planning schemes need to respond to but also a regular review of how the provisions are working and that happens across both development assessment you know where they apply the provisions and often say to us this one doesn't quite work as we might have thought it did and there's an you know ongoing process of capturing those things and same with the team. you know continually looking at whether or not how it was drafted how it was intended is actually resulting in what's happening on the ground so that's that is ongoing all the time in how we maintain and monitor the planning scheme but yes you're right through things like the housing monitoring report that will be a key report that'll you know look at whether or not you know what was intended whether or not you know what was intended with the planning scheme amendments is actually occurring. Now it does take a good 12 months to two years to see the outcomes of planning scheme changes for for the reasons Richard's just outlined. That you know sometimes you're still operating under a superseded planning scheme for a significant period of time. Sometimes people get approvals and don't act on them for a number of years so there is a lag time between you where you can actually see whether or not a change to a planning scheme. is actually resulting in outcomes on the ground. So it is an ongoing and iterative process. Amelia Lorentson 48:37.055
Can I ask, and this is just what I think about a lot, is have we actually really had a robust honest conversation about what is affordable? And should we have a proper legal or planning definition of affordable? You know concerns that I have you know whether it's a hundred square metres it's got to be a win-win situation. It's got to be something for a developer for him to step into the space totally agree but in ascertaining whether you know we are successfully achieving the outcomes which is affordable housing. On top of diversity and supply I think we need to have a definition of what affordable is and again take offline but is that something you consider key? Kim Rawlings 49:34.256
Yeah look we're we're always up for discussions about what is affordable housing and in the context of Noosa but it is important to note that there are very clear definitions of what's affordable that exist both at the State level and at the local level and in the industry that are well understood in terms of what's considered affordable affordable is used in a number of ways though you know sometimes it's affordable by design so the inference that if it's smaller it's affordable or more affordable or less expensive as one of the councillors might have said yesterday as opposed to affordable and in the Noosa context that's not always the case we know that whereas you know the same dwelling in somewhere other another location might actually be affordable by definition it is a wicked problem for us in in reality to get truly affordable housing in Noosa it requires government support and government subsidy to get affordable housing. Amelia Lorentson 50:45.391
Or alternatively secondary dwellings or tiny houses where by the nature of their size, you know, you can only rent them out for $400. That's right. Exactly. And we know... year we've made some changes in the State of allowed secondary dwellings to be easier on properties for permanent rental or for family, not for short stay letting. And council have also removed the infrastructure charges requirements on secondary dwellings, again, making them, you know, more affordable. SPEAKER_05 51:26.360
But there is a, to take the Chair's point, there is a technical definition of affordable that we operate on. It's been clear in the housing strategy and the paintings. That's correct. Could you explain what that is? Kim Rawlings 51:37.419
Rowena, can you explain that definition? Something to do with 30% of household income. Rowena 51:42.019
Yes, the lower 30% of income household. Don't pay more than 30% of their income. So truly affordable housing is that that is subsidised? Subsidised, that's correct. By community housing providers or the State? Yes, or the State, yes. Amelia Lorentson 52:01.840
And affordable is also location. If it's located near a business district where you don't have to get in a car. That's right. You don't have to commute. You can walk. Yeah, so there's affordable living also. and that relates to location and access, easy access to, you know, low cost of transport, you know, climate responsive. So electricity bills are low. All of those sorts of things also contribute to affordable living. Brian Stockwell 52:31.269
I think the conversation about how we've now zoned in the Noosa Business Centre for residential and the Innovation Precinct, there's a lot of the content there is people working and living in close proximity. It probably raises a very big challenge for this council in that this business centre will be the biggest greenfield development site over the next decade and we've already got a road network that is over capacity. So the big challenge of approving that is, is to improve the public and active transport links. So there's excellent active transport to the beach but trying to get across Noosa Eumundi Road is, you know, you take your life into your hands. The public transport is all focused around Hastings Street and the junction where if, you know, we need to advocate continually and strongly. We need to advocate continually and strongly to TransLink that emerging that the Noosa Business Centre should be the core hub for all our local and inter-regional transport because the whole concept of doing what we... did in the planning scheme there is about transport-oriented data development, and at the moment it's one of the worst-connected shopping centres on the Sunshine Coast, I reckon. So, to me, that's the challenge we're raising by focusing our... our medium-density-type developments around existing employment opportunities, existing opportunities in terms of retail, is we need to then follow that with infrastructure planning, and it will come at a cost both to the State and to ourselves. Amelia Lorentson 54:14.219
In terms of Noosa Civic, a conversation we've had a lot over probably the last five years, just To spare our residential zones and these discussions that, you know, state might target our residential zones and put pressure on us to, you know, build up. Can we... Can we go to state and say, "Let's make Noosa Civic six storeys." Is that... That's a conversation we as a council have had for some time. Has that... Has that... I don't know. Has that conversation started with state, or are we still at just discussion and thought bubbles? But it's appropriate development in an appropriate location, and I think the Noosa... And I think the Noosa Civic is appropriate location for densification. Keep it out of our villages, basically. So the planning scheme already says that our major centres are the areas for growth. And our major centres are the areas for growth and densification. And this round of amendments does... Address that address that. You know, if council want to re-look at that and increase densities increase densities and increase height limits, that's up to council to drive that. So... As part of next set of... As part of next set, yeah set of amendments. Exactly. But would that offset any conversation? Offset any... Offset any densification in our villages and our suburbs? any different. Offset any densification in our villages and our suburbs? Kim Rawlings 55:50.934
Ultimately, we have dwelling targets that we need to meet under the regional plan. And to date, the State have... We've been able to demonstrate that within our planning scheme and these amendments, we can meet those dwelling targets. That's what we'll need to continue to do, to demonstrate how we can meet dwelling targets, not just... in terms of ultimately the dwelling targets, but in increments. You know, how they're actually seeing some of that supply come on board. How we do that, we will continue to do that in a way that is most appropriate. It's most appropriate to Noosa and putting that forward. But we'll need to continue to demonstrate how we meet our dwelling targets and that might be increasing in and around centres. Brian Stockwell 56:35.387
Excellent. Just to clarify, I think that that was made of... Just to clarify, I think that that was made that wasn't intended, but we haven't previously gone to the State about six storeys Amelia Lorentson 56:43.791
In the... Oh, no, excuse me. We have not. Can I thank you? No. I really appreciate that, Councillor Stockwell, but my conversation is, again, appropriate densification in appropriate areas and I would love just to have some further discussion about... Sure Noosa Civic as one of those appropriate locations... Sure for densification. SPEAKER_05 57:06.447
Yep. A tree farm. Four storeys then. Four storeys. Amelia Lorentson 57:11.847
Four storeys. Four storeys currently. Four storeys currently, yep. Kim Rawlings 57:15.227
Only if you deliver a 4,000 house. Amelia Lorentson 57:19.587
Thank you. Just through the CEO, questions around the table first and then I'll go online, thank you. Last question in terms of the other change that was made in terms of amplified music. Can we have just that explained also, again, what we brought to state and what was actually... Anita 57:51.060
Following public notification and in response to submissions. Sorry, I'm just going to go to it. Here we go. Yes, so the minister's condition is that we revert to the publicly notified version, which refers to amplified music occurring in outdoor spaces only. What we were proposing post-notification was that we clarify that it applies to both... indoor and outdoor spaces, and that where attenuation is included, that there might be scope to operate outside the specified hours of operation. So the minister's condition is that we go back to what was publicly notified that only referred to outdoor spaces, and there was no option to actually... have attenuation which might allow for music outside those specified hours. Is that clear? SPEAKER_02 58:56.172
It's a bit tricky. It's a bit of a double negative provision. Yeah. Anita 59:01.492
Because it is an AO, it means that there's still scope somewhat for an application to come forward. Um, and propose, um, hours outside of what that AO says, um, which could be considered where it meets the PO outcomes around amenity and the like. Kim Rawlings 59:24.532
We were looking to provide some flexibility. Okay. Um, but yeah, the State for some reason has gone no. Bring it back to really clear about where it applies and where it doesn't apply. Whereas the AO was giving it a bit more flexibility that if you can put in place these measures to manage the impacts of noise, then potentially we'll consider the hours of operation. Amelia Lorentson 59:53.516
So now they're saying council just, just operate the hours. And leave all the Office of Liquor and Gaming regulations to manage the noise, stay in your lane. And how do those hours relate to the hours that RLGR was set? They don't normally adopt the council hours? Yes, yes, they're consistent with the planning scheme. Further questions around the table? No? I'll now move to questions online. Observer, oh, hello, Councillor Phillips. Can you tell us your question, please? Jessica Phillips 01:00:36.020
Good morning, thank you. Just a quick question back to, it'll probably be to Richard, around sub-seeded planning application. Wondering if there was one about the application. 'm under the sub-seeded planning scheme. Would that be a decision under delegation or would it be cancelled? Richard MacGillivray 01:00:55.077
Yeah, thanks, Jessica Phillips. Yeah, so the decisions will be made under delegation. There's a 30 business day turnaround for us to make those decisions. And if we don't make them within the prescribed timeframe, they'd be. In the prescribed timeframe, they become deemed approved. So similar to our code assessment provisions, we need to be quite diligent and efficient around making those decisions. We will, however, update councils on a very regular and frequent basis regarding the number and the types of superseded requests coming through so that councils are fully informed and across the deck. Amelia Lorentson 01:01:31.880
Councillor Phillips, have you got a follow-up question? Richard MacGillivray 01:01:50.437
Yes, so if there was a call up we would need a written I guess agreement for the time frames to be extended to allow for that decision to be made otherwise there would be a risk of a deemed superseded approval if we didn't make the decision within time frame. So there are risks I guess with that approach you'd have to get confirmation of an extension to that time frame to happen. From the applicant? From the applicant, correct, and council would need to agree to that. Amelia Lorentson 01:02:27.020
Council, Jessica Phillips, any further questions? SPEAKER_02 01:02:30.540
No, that's great, thank you for that. Amelia Lorentson 01:02:33.160
Just a follow-up. So council have the discretion to approve an application under a superseded planning scheme. If council refuses the application to retain existing use rights, at that point then an applicant may or may not want to make an application for compensation for adverse changes made to a planning scheme. Is that correct? Richard MacGillivray 01:03:05.916
Yes, so the process has a couple of steps to it. So the first step is, as you highlighted around the superseded planning request, so actually an application to request cannot be considered under the superseded scheme, and Council makes a decision in those 30 days to say approve or refuse. In the event that we refuse that request, the applicant has the ability to lodge a further application, develop an application, and if that is refused or approved in part or approved with condition, then the... the person may file a claim and that is basically for the loss of value and interest with Unknown 01:03:44.946
The... the former scheme to compete with the new scheme. Richard MacGillivray 01:03:47.766
So there's a series of steps that have to go through and the first step really is... is considering that superseded request and can they be assessed under the superseded assessed under the superseded within that 12-month window and then we've got a further six months to lodge an application to be considered. Amelia Lorentson 01:04:04.562
Thank you, that was really clear. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie, yeah. SPEAKER_05 01:04:08.502
What is the likelihood of an approval if the applicant lodges a request to build a house that complies with the superseded planning scheme? Richard MacGillivray 01:04:19.282
Yeah, under the superseded... complies with the conditions and provisions of the superseded planning scheme? Yeah. What's the likelihood of the applicant gaining approval for that? Yeah, so you're talking about the superseded planning requests that were actually developed? or actually a development approval subsequent to the superseded request? SPEAKER_05 01:04:38.121
If someone wants to build a duplex on a property that's say 700 square metres, which they can under the current planning scheme, if they make these planning scheme changes come in, they make an application on the superseded planning scheme, what's the likelihood of them gaining approval? If they comply with the provisions. Yeah, so they have a 12 month window to lodge that request with us and we'll consider that based on the individual merits of each proposal and if supportable then they'll be able to lodge that development application. They'll be able to lodge that development application within six months of that decision so they still have consideration of using those existing provisions to be assessed under the former scheme. Yeah. I'm just expressing a personal view here unless it's over height or over scale or ridiculously beyond the provision of the planning scheme it's likely to be approved. It's just my observation. Richard MacGillivray 01:05:37.312
No, absolutely. Yeah. And look, there's a range of factors we consider. There's obviously the legislative elements. There's the potential risk of a claim for compensation. We'll evaluate that. There's also the public interest test around is it in the public interest to allow or consider that. And we've got other relevant matters we consider. Amelia Lorentson 01:06:14.660
There are the questions around the table or online. Councillor Karen, you've got your hand up. What question would you like to ask? Karen Finzel 01:06:24.080
Yes, thank you Madam Chair. Through to the staff, thank you for the report and the questions around the table being well answered today. I'm just seeking further clarification around the process to accept or not adopt completely the plan. Can you give some further clarifications if Council was not to adopt the plan in its entirety at this point in time, please? Kim Rawlings 01:06:51.223
Sure, Councillor Finzel. So, as mentioned, we are at the final step of the process of amending a planning scheme as guided by the Minister's Guidelines and Rules, which is a state sort of rule book. For how you amend a planning scheme. So, we're at the final step. And the final step of the process is for the local government to decide whether or not they wish to adopt the amendments. Or not adopt the amendments. If you adopt then there is one more stage where you have to gazette the final amendments which Anita outlined would be on the 26th of September and advise the department and submitters and everything. So your options at this point are to adopt or to not adopt. If you do decide not to adopt then the we continue to operate under the current Noosa Plan as it currently stands with no changes and and the whole package of amendments is Amelia Lorentson 01:08:04.940
Councillor Finzel any further questions? Rowena 01:08:07.900
Thank you yes I just have another question around heritage and character areas and the maps. The work that's being done in that space how does that affect future planning applications for people especially in the hinterland around Cooran village, Pomona village, Cooroy etc. So they are matters that we will be looking at at the next round of amendments so the third round of amendment to this planning scheme would include those heritage and character considerations. Kim Rawlings 01:08:48.487
So still to come Councillor Finzel. SPEAKER_02 01:08:51.647
Thank you. Thank you. So that will go out as a normal process to community engagement? Yeah, absolutely, yeah. Thank you for the clarification, that's all. Amelia Lorentson 01:09:05.013
Mayor Wilkie, would you like to move? I'm happy to move to the recommendation, Madam Chair. Can I have a seconder, please? Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. And Mayor Wilkie, would you like to speak to the report? Thank you, Madam Chair. Frank Wilkie 01:09:18.416
Already been said, this has been a long time coming. The community and industry are awaiting the changes contained in this. For me personally, perhaps the most significant change is the provision that allows tiny homes, relocatable homes on community facilities land which will allow tiny homes to provide temporary or crisis accommodation on church land. great need for that. Also the changes around short term accommodation in response to the short term accommodation monitoring report. This will make new application, new developments in medium density, high density, rural res and rural and business centres for permanent residents only. further limiting the loss of dwellings to short term accommodation. Further limiting There is a There are also other provisions for the innovation centre and residential zones out of Noosa Civic which will allow greater economic development and residential dwellings in that area as well. The Noosa district sports complex and their members are looking forward to the provision which will now allow allied health services to set up out there and support their members. I think they're the main ones but they just illustrate how significant a package of amendments these are and there are as always with the introduction of new amendments. Provisions for property owners to make application under superseded planning schemes to protect their use rights on their land under the superseded planning scheme. So I just want to commend so I just want to commend councillors, I want to commend the staff and the community for their patience and hard work in giving this package of amendments to where they are. They were delayed at state levels for reasons beyond the control of planning staff and councillors. So there have been some time in coming and there is opportunity through a fast track what we understand has now been described as a fast track planning amendment process under the new state government for future amendments to come before the council to make further refinements to the Noosa Plan 2020. Amelia Lorentson 01:11:49.704
Um i'd like to move this report to general due to the significance of of the matter it's already been moved and seconded it's already moved and seconded there'll be a process um we can still we can still pull it out no worries um Mayor Wilkie referenced the fast-tracked planning can i ask a question um can you speak to that and i'm just thinking the State government i'm trying to think of the legislation um where where they're discussing um fast tracking planning amendments is that yeah yeah sure so the State have already announced the process for fast track so it's more than discussing they've put actually it in place um provided that information to the councillors yesterday it's it's called a tailored amendment process under section 18 of the act and it it still steps through the same steps in the process essentially but it does provide much tighter time frames and it does allow potentially depending on the scope of the amendment for some of those steps to happen in parallel which would mean you know the process would be shorter so yet they're particularly keen to do those processes when they were when it relates to housing yep and enabling housing outcomes so yeah it would be interesting to test that process and I'm not aware yet of any how that process has been activated by any local of our local government counterparts so see it'll how be interesting to that process goes but yeah it is in place so that's the right plan for Queensland's future and their target is delivering 1 million homes over 20 years yeah Wow so probably the only concern I have is in terms of public consultation and state interest review how flexible this plan is going to be in talking to and us consulting yeah with our community about what's right for us yeah yeah so the the process allows for early engagement with the State which we do as a matter of course out of interest we engage with the State for 18 months on these amendments before we actually formally submitted them well so in theory that should have streamlined the process this this process encourage does early engagement with the State and if we do that then potentially they would do state interest review and community engagement happening at the same time now that sounds great in theory because there's an efficiency but we know we have first-hand experience that at every step in the State process we get changes from from the the State state required required for but us to do so you know I'm a little concerned about the risks of that that we go out to our community with a package of amendments we go to the State at the same time with a package of amendments assuming we've got them on board beforehand and that happens in parallel well if what if the State changes it do we then have to go back out to our community not efficient so we do need to test these processes I think Kim Rawlings 01:15:15.027
On smaller amendments more confined amendments more contained amendments around one particular issue it probably would be effective we tend to have a package of amendments you know like Rowena's just mentioned we've got the heritage and character amendments ready to go on the next round so we tend to have a more complex set of amendments and particularly because it's been more than three years you know we've got a list of things we already need to amend so yeah it's we would probably just need to step into the process and test it. Frank Wilkie 01:15:53.944
Just a technical question Madam Chair, if you wanted to go to general if we approve this here it can be pulled out? Amelia Lorentson 01:15:59.804
Absolutely. Ordinary, so the discussion is for ordinary meeting? Yes. Okay any further comments? Brian Stockwell 01:16:10.557
The key thing here is this plan is is a little testament to the tenacity of our staff in negotiating up to three years ago with a sweep of initiatives to improve housing and housing affordability and housing choice. We were two years in advance of the State in providing incentives for developers to produce a component of every development in our major centre zones to be affordable managed by a housing cooperative. It took quite a long time to get them to agree to advertise because they were worried that ours would conflict with theirs. So it is great to have them finding board. It is one of the frustrations of being in local government that we are an entity subordinate to the State. And that hopefully new processes will... new processes will facilitate it because some of these initiatives are very important for people trying to get a roof over their head or people who work in an organisation that have funds to spend to put roofs over people's heads that can be afforded. Some of them are about winding back the excesses that affected our community as much or more than any other community in Noosa in terms of the initial foray of the online booking systems into our suburbs. Now we do know over the course of 2020 that we're probably somewhere near up to 20% lower than what was thought to be in the case back in something that I But this suite of amendments is probably the most significant wind back of that use right in Queensland. Because now what we say if you're in a residential zone or a rural zone, you can still use your online booking provided what was initially developed for that is providing it's an ancillary use to someone living there. It's going back to the you know the old Airbnb, not creating a market whereby a house is more valued to be bought by an investor to rent out online where all most of the money goes out of the Shire. So the new provisions in relation to STA I believe probably are the the most significant and probably the the most controlled environment for online booking in residential suburbs and rural areas in the State. That is a major advancement and what we will see is, as was said before, it won't be overnight but what we'll see is a gradual reduction of those numbers and a return of neighbourhoods. We'll see it, it might be a decade hence where there'll be meaningful change but we're already seeing that those uses are abandoned and once they're abandoned their existing use rights disappear. So there's a range of good news. flexibility in our community facility zone which will provide a lot more opportunity for housing is another significant step forward. So I'd like to thank the staff. We sometimes, you know, people come to town and start talking about planning and the population cap and how we've avoided it. We've still got a strategic planner who was around in the The 1997 strategic plan. She was only 15 at the time. Kim Rawlings 01:19:42.806
But those principles and we've got one of the most stable strategic planning squads in our history and we just continue to push forward on making those changes needed to try and keep Noosa the sustainable place to live and to visit. Amelia Lorentson 01:20:08.780
Councillor Wegener. Tom Wegener 01:20:10.400
I'll speak to it. It seems to me that what we're doing with the planning scheme amendments is trying to level the playing field. And sometimes we think, oh, if we don't do anything, you know, the playing field will stay level. But it doesn't. We have Airbnbs, we have pressures from the State, we have all sorts of things. All sorts of things that warp that playing field. And the business environment and workings is not fair, and so we, as a council, what we want to do is iron out and bring back a level playing field for it to make a better society. And that is a hard job. And the planning scheme amendments that have been going through are difficult, and we've watched you for years now struggle through the piece by piece by piece, these little jigs. These little jigs and jerks that iron out, that can smooth out all sorts of things. And it's our job as councillors to continue to level the playing field. Because that's our number one job, is to make sure that things run smoothly and there's fairness, there's fairness and equity amongst our community. And I'd just like to congratulate the staff for this effort, because it's been whopping. I think it's really, for us to not pass this would be a true failing of what it is to be a councillor, because we have been on this journey. I regret that we didn't get this through last term because we have two new councillors that I don't think that it's possible for them to understand the gravity of what we went through the first term with all the, you know, the huge, the two-inch thick files that we would... two-inch thick files that we would get with going through all the little highlights of the little micro changes that are there and they're all very very important so I'm looking forward to this and I think that we are we've succeeded in doing our job because of yourselves and the councillors involved in those early early manifestations arguments pushing to and fro, creating these planning scheme amendments and making a amendments and making a planning scheme even better because it's really important that is our roadmap and I used to bring the planning scheme in here but I can't anymore because it hurts my back it's too big but that's how big the darn thing is it's incredible and that's what we depend on to make new... depend on to make Noosa this paradise that it is so thank you very much and I look forward to this being passed. Amelia Lorentson 01:22:31.773
I'll speak to this and probably my position hasn't changed from the last time this came to council. I really wish I could pull one little section out and approve the whole package and we can't it's all nothing and that makes me really quite sad because I really commend and congratulate and I know how much work and how committed to Noosa all of you are my decision is I still can't go past and I wrote this quote down when I'm out in community speaking to people is ability to build a home or develop a lot is an expectation of land ownership and any restriction on that right should be communicated directly and transparently and I wrote that down because it sums up exactly exactly what I what I feel and council have done nothing wrong they have done they've communicated to the property owners with the zoning changes the gap which is that you know communicating to those with provision changes That I keep going there it's still affected by the planning change and I understand as Mayor Wilkie and Richard explained really clearly existing use rights can still be retained under a superseded planning scheme. planning scheme change. My issue with that is that's great if you've got spare 60 grand or spare 100,000 to go to a planner or designer to submit the drawings but what happens to those residents who don't? Their kids' future are impacted by this house is what people own, their number one asset. So in front of us what was resolved was that dwelling houses under, you can't build a dwelling house under 500 metres and you can't build and you can't build dual occupancy under a thousand square metres. That sits uncomfortably with me knowing, you know, how many people signed a petition to try to change that. So again, my position hasn't changed from last time. It's that one issue and I need to and I need to represent those voices and on that basis I'm not going to be supporting the amendment only on that basis. But please know that I know how committed you are to Noosa and I'm actually really excited at seeing whether we can achieve the outcomes which is more housing supply, more diversity and good outcomes. for our economy and for our community. Kim Rawlings 01:25:36.661
I know this is not correct but I just need to pick up. Please. You mentioned that you can't build houses under 500. Oh excuse me. It's over. Over. Amelia Lorentson 01:25:49.541
Excuse me. Not under. Over. I did say that. Thank you for the correction. In case anyone. No please. No please. Over 500 square feet. Over 500 square metres. And then dual occupancy is over 600. And dual occupancy. Not under. Thank you. I've got my L's and my greater than's mixed up. Thank you. I'll put that to a vote. No further discussion. All close. All close. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 01:26:11.146
Yeah, look, I also want to make it clear that you can build a dwelling. You can build a dwelling house under 500 square metre lot. And you can build a duplex on lots under 600 square metres. Amelia Lorentson 01:26:21.973
Under 600 square metres, excuse me. Yeah. Frank Wilkie 01:26:25.093
It's important that we have the correct information out there. But I understand this is going to be re-prosecuted again at the ordinary meeting, so I'll leave it at that. Amelia Lorentson 01:26:32.973
Fantastic. Thank you. All those in favour? Yes. Thank you. That brings us to item 8, reports for noting. There are none. Thank you very much. Item 9, thank you. Item 9, confidential sessions. There are none. So I now declare the meeting closed at exactly 11 o 'clock and I thank the councillors, CEO and all the staff for their hard work. Thank you very much. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
