Ordinary Meeting - 18 September 2025
Date: Thursday, 18 September 2025 at 10:00AM
Location: Noosa Shire Council Chambers , 9 Pelican Street , Tewantin , QLD 4565 , Australia
Organiser: Noosa Shire Council
Duration: 02:58:07
Synopsis: Planning scheme amendment adopted amid split vote and property rights concerns, Enhanced notification approved, Parking law and Cultural plan adopted, Tourism Noosa concerns noted.
Meeting Attendees
Councillors
Frank Wilkie Karen Finzel Jessica Phillips Amelia Lorentson Brian Stockwell Tom Wegener Nicola Wilson Executive Officers
Acting Chief Executive Officer & Director Community Services Kerri Contini Acting Director Corporate Services Margaret Gatt Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Director Strategy And Environment Kim Rawlings Director Infrastructure Services Shaun Walsh Deputations
Thomas Draper Jason Beckton Public Question Time
Alan Deering Patricia Spicer AI-Generated Meeting Insight
Key Decisions & Discussions Frank Wilkie : Council adopted Noosa Plan 2020 Amendment No. 2 under s22 of the Minister’s Guidelines and Rules, incl. gazettal, owner notification, CEO authority for minor corrections, and new monthly metric on superseded scheme applications; carried 4–3 (For: Wilkie, Stockwell, Finzel, Wegener; Against: Phillips, Lorentson, Wilson). (01:24:26–02:18:39) (Item 11.1.2) Jessica Phillips : Secured addition “F” to monthly delegated reports to include counts of superseded planning scheme applications; carried unanimously. (01:31:40–01:35:09) (Item 11.1.2, Amend. No.1) Amelia Lorentson : Motion to enhance public notification for future planning scheme provision changes passed, as amended to require a report once substantive changes are known and to outline resourcing/costs; carried unanimously after corrected vote. (47:16–01:19:14) (Item 10.1) Brian Stockwell : Added timing qualifier to Lorentson motion so the comms report is prepared “once substantive changes…are known”; carried unanimously. (01:07:36–01:11:50) (Item 10.1, Amend. No.2) Council : Noted Planning Applications decided by Delegated Authority (July), Financial Performance (Aug), WHS Annual Report 24/25. (02:45:47) (Items 11.3.1–11.3.4) Council : Adopted Parking (Amendment) Subordinate Local Law (No. 1) 2025 and adopted a consolidated Subordinate Local Law No.5 (Parking) 2015. (02:45:47) (Item 11.3.3) Council : Noted 2025 Annual Disaster Management Report. (02:44:55) (Item 11.2.1) Council : Approved release of draft Noosa Botanic Gardens Master Plan for next engagement phase. (02:44:55) (Item 11.2.2) Council : Adopted Noosa Cultural Plan 2025–2030; CEO authorised to implement, subject to resourcing. (02:44:55) (Item 11.2.3) Council : Adopted revised Audit & Risk Committee Charter and Internal Audit Policy. (02:44:55) (Item 11.2.4) Council : Noted execution of Tourism Noosa 12‑month Funding Deed and roadmap status; roadmap process underway with option for independent peer review. (02:46:44–02:56:20) (Item 12.1) Contentious / Transparency Matters Amelia Lorentson : Argued residents missed significant planning provision changes; pushed for direct, tailored notifications beyond legislative minima; motion reframed to require scoped report. (47:31–01:02:09) (Item 10.1) Frank Wilkie : Corrected standing orders error (seconder conflict) and re‑put unanimous vote on Stockwell amendment to ensure procedural validity. (01:18:09–01:19:14) (Item 10.1) Jessica Phillips : Opposed adopting Amendment No. 2, citing inadequate community clarity, infrastructure lag (traffic, waste), and reputational risk; urged return for a “legacy plan.” (01:54:32–02:00:10) (Item 11.1.2) Nicola Wilson : Opposed citing feasibility: ministerial condition forcing 3+ dwellings on ≥600m² lots, dwelling houses inconsistent on ≥500m² lots, and affordability bonuses unlikely to work in current market. (02:00:30–02:06:35) (Item 11.1.2) Amelia Lorentson : Opposed loss of property rights and “blunt” thresholds reshaping neighbourhoods; warned trust erosion. (02:06:44–02:11:11) (Item 11.1.2) Nicola Wilson : Flagged inconsistency between Tourism Noosa’s air‑travel marketing focus and council’s net zero/sustainable tourism ambitions. (02:48:56–02:51:11) (Item 12.1) Legal / Risk Frank Wilkie : Framed adoption under Minister’s Guidelines and Rules s22; warned non‑adoption risks state intervention, breaching ministerial conditions, wasted expenditure, and undermined SEQ targets. (01:24:26–02:18:39) (Item 11.1.2) Richard MacGillivray : Clarified superseded planning scheme pathway: 12 months to request; council 30 business days to decide; 6 months to lodge resulting DA; 2‑year currency (dwellings). (01:48:00–01:52:23) (Item 11.1.2) Kim Rawlings : Noted ongoing SEQ Regional Plan review will later require alignment; immediate adoption still aligns with current plan and mitigates risk of State direction (e.g., Redlands precedent). (01:39:54–01:46:10) (Item 11.1.2) Shaun Walsh : On unsealed roads, council not strictly bound to Austroads/TMR; can vary widths with engineering justification; IPWEA 2024 allows 5.5m sealed carriage for low volumes. (19:17) (Item 8.1) Shaun Walsh : On dust/silica risk, cited standards (MRTS05, Austroads Pt 6), studies indicating minimal ambient RCS risk; chemical suppressants short‑lived, costly, with environmental/safety downsides. (24:43–29:39) (Item 8.1) Council : Lawful process to amend Parking Subordinate Local Law completed, adopting advertised amendment and consolidated version under Local Government Act 2009 s32. (02:45:47) (Item 11.3.3) Planning Scheme, Zoning Changes, Short-Stay Letting Frank Wilkie : Amendment package aims to expand smaller/affordable dwellings, enable tiny homes on community/church land, tighten STA as inconsistent in MDR/HDR/rural res/business centres, and adjust Noosa Business Centre controls. (01:24:26–01:31:56) (Item 11.1.2) Councillors : Debate centred on ministerial condition pushing ≥3 dwellings on ≥600m² MDR lots and houses as inconsistent on ≥500m² lots; split view on feasibility and property rights. (01:39:54–02:11:11) (Item 11.1.2) Nicola Wilson : Cited Sunshine Coast Council approach differentiating medium vs low‑to‑medium density, allowing houses as expected uses in LMR; contrasted with Noosa’s two–three storey cap. (02:00:30–02:06:35) (Item 11.1.2) Council : Enhanced future comms for scheme amendments: targeted owner notifications to be scoped with costs once changes are known; report back requirement added. (47:31–01:11:50) (Item 10.1) Richard MacGillivray : Noted tools like “Development.i” can push DA alerts but do not automatically notify of scheme amendments without a new opt‑in system. (59:00–01:00:09) (Item 10.1) Infrastructure, Roads, and Environmental Concerns Alan Deering : Pressed for 9m minimum sealed widths on dirt road upgrades; Walsh confirmed ability to adopt tailored widths with justification, incl. reference to IPWEA 2024 lower-order roads. (14:56–19:17) (Item 8.1) Alan Deering : Challenged Council’s dust stance; Walsh detailed assessment finding minimal ambient RCS risk and limits to chemical suppressants across ~200km unsealed roads. (21:19–29:39) (Item 8.1) Council : Released draft Noosa Botanic Gardens Master Plan for further engagement, balancing amenity and environmental stewardship. (02:44:55) (Item 11.2.2) Housing Supply Projects & Funding Patricia Spicer : Asked about RAF grant for 64 Lake Macdonald Dr; Rawlings confirmed application lodged for enabling infrastructure/civil works; outcome pending. (29:52–32:23) (Item 8.2) Patricia Spicer : Queried whether remediation/subdivision tenders for 62/64 Lake Macdonald matched estimates; Rawlings: slightly above estimates but within budget. (32:48–34:43) (Item 8.2) Tourism, DMP, and Governance Council : Noted Tourism Noosa deed execution; roadmap group (CEO, Rawlings, TN Chair/Board/CEO) with senior project manager; option for independent peer review; KPI targets completion/endorsement by Nov–Dec 2025 with payment flexibility. (02:46:44–02:55:49) (Item 12.1) Thomas Draper : Deputation proposed multi‑level car park at Noosa Spit, a culvert/bridge link to Noosa Parade, and a luxury hotel/entertainment centre at an old quarry; no council resolution; significant statutory/environmental hurdles implied. (02:00–14:31) (Item 7.1) Nicola Wilson : Sought consistency between DMP’s sustainable/regenerative aims and TN’s high‑value traveller marketing reliant on air travel; urged alignment across strategy and deeds. (02:48:56–02:51:11) (Item 12.1)
Official Meeting Minutes
MINUTES Ordinary Meeting Thursday, 18 September 2025 10:00 AM Council Chambers, 9 Pelican Street, Tewantin Cr Frank Wilkie (Chair), Karen Finzel, Amelia Lorentson, Jessica Phillips, Brian Stockwell, Tom Wegener, Nicola Wilson “Noosa Shire – different by nature” ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 18 SEPTEMBER 2025 1 DECLARATION OF OPENING The meeting was declared open at 10.00am. 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY Noosa Council respectfully acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of the lands and waters of the Noosa area, the Kabi Kabi people, and pays respect to their Elders, past, present and emerging. 3 ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES COUNCILLORS Cr Frank Wilkie (Chair) Cr Karen Finzel Cr Jessica Phillips Cr Amelia Lorentson Cr Brian Stockwell Cr Tom Wegener (via Microsoft Teams) Cr Nicola Wilson EXECUTIVE Acting Chief Executive Officer & Director Community Services Kerri Contini Acting Director Corporate Services Margaret Gatt Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Director Strategy and Environment Kim Rawlings Director Infrastructure Services Shaun Walsh APOLOGIES Nil. 4 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 1 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - ORDINARY MEETING DATED 21 AUGUST 2025 Council Resolution Moved: Cr Karen Finzel Seconded: Cr Nicola Wilson That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on 21 August 2025 be received and confirmed. Carried. For: Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: None 5 PETITIONS Nil. 6. PRESENTATIONS Nil. ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 18 SEPTEMBER 2025 7. DEPUTATIONS 7.1 APPLICANT: THOMAS DRAPER TOPIC: DMP SPEAKERS: THOMAS DRAPER & JASON BECKTON 8. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 8.1 ALAN DEERING QUESTION 1 Noosa Council is guided by, and not dictated by the Austroads Standards and Guidelines, also the Department of Main Roads Planning and Design Manual, so the Noosa Plan that states when sealing dirt roads they must be no less than 9 metres is a Noosa Council initiative. Does Noosa Council agree that any future sealing of dirt roads in the Noosa Shire will be to a minimum width of 9 metres? RESPONSE by Shaun Walsh, Director Infrastructure Services Noosa Council is guided by, but not strictly bound to, professional standards like: Austroads Standards and Guidelines; Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR) Planning and Design Manual; Institute of Public Works Engineering Australasia (IPWEA) “Lower Order Road Design Guidelines”. These documents provide best-practice frameworks, but local governments like Noosa Council have the autonomy to adopt higher or more tailored standards based on local priorities, environmental considerations, and community expectations. You are correct that the Noosa Plan (and associated infrastructure policies) specifies minimum carriageway and shoulder widths for various road classifications for Noosa Shire. We can vary from these specifications for a specific project requiring engineering justification to enable Council support. Notably, the IPWEA “Lower Order Road Design Guidelines” updated recently in 2024, specifies a sealed carriage width of 5.5 metres when traffic volumes are low, and provides a very good reference to inform any future detailed design for lower order unsealed roads across Noosa Shire. Council can also consider this recently updated document in any future review of the Noosa Plan and associated infrastructure policies. I also note that following various representations from the community, Council has initiated a review of Council's approach to management of unsealed roads, with broader consideration of environmental, community benefit and traffic safety matters to more fully inform future prioritisation and budget submissions for road sealing, of course subject to Council budget approval. QUESTION 2 Noosa Council employees such as Plant Operators are required to undergo a mandatory silica test every 12 months. Noosa Council recognises the workplace risks of airborne dust but totally ignores the health risks of airborne dust to ratepayers living on dirt roads. Why hasn't Noosa Council addressed the dust issue of residents living on dirt roads in Noosa Shire by at least adding dust suppressant in water trucks when annual resheeting of dirt roads? RESPONSE by Shaun Walsh, Director Infrastructure Services In terms of health risk, Council has undertaken a technical assessment of the potential health risks associated with silica dust generated from unsealed gravel roads within the Noosa Council region. It has evaluated the material composition, maintenance practices, and environmental exposure context, referencing applicable standards and research findings. Crystalline silica (SiO₂), primarily in the form of quartz, is a naturally occurring mineral found in many geological materials including sand, clay, and gravel. Respirable crystalline silica ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 18 SEPTEMBER 2025 (RCS) is a known occupational hazard in industries involving cutting, crushing or drilling of silica-containing materials. However, the context of road dust from unsealed surfaces, particularly those maintained using natural gravel and recycled asphalt, differs significantly from high-risk occupational environments where RCS may be present. Noosa Council maintain their unsealed road networks using natural gravel blends and recycled asphalt pavement (RAP). These materials are selected in accordance with: Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads MRTS05 – Unbound Pavements; and Austroads Guide to Pavement Technology Part 6: Unsealed Pavements. These standards ensure that materials meet performance criteria such as California Bearing Ratio (CBR), shrinkage product and grading coefficient, which indirectly influence dust generation and stability. In terms of health risk exposure: Unsealed roads in these regions typically carry low traffic volumes (30–500 vehicles/day). Dust exposure is intermittent, outdoor and dispersed, significantly reducing concentration compared to enclosed occupational settings. A New Zealand Transport Agency study found that while PM₁₀ dust from unsealed roads can be present, respirable silica levels were generally low and not linked to adverse health outcomes in ambient settings. NIOSH evaluations of dirt road maintenance found no erionite and only occasional silica exceedances, primarily in active roadwork zones, not general public exposure. The Workplace Exposure Standard (WES) for RCS in Australia is 0.05 mg/m³ (8-hour TWA). Ambient exposure from unsealed roads is not known to exceed this threshold in SE Queensland. Based on current material usage, maintenance practices and environmental exposure conditions, there is minimal to no health risk from silica dust generated by unsealed gravel roads in the Noosa Council region. There is no confirmed evidence of harmful silica dust concentrations in these areas, and no recorded public health impacts attributable to road dust. The use of natural gravel and recycled asphalt, combined with routine grading and dust suppression, ensures compliance with engineering and environmental standards. In terms of testing its workforce, Noosa Council test the workers that are exposed to Respirable Crystalline Silica (RCS) such as concrete cutting, drilling and crushing works which is approximately 50 workers. Crews working on our unsealed roads such as grader crews and plant crews are not tested due to low risk profile. In terms of dust management for the community, Council’s current dust mitigation strategies include: Routine grading and re-sheeting based on traffic volume and environmental conditions; Use of impervious gravel blends (such as recycled road profiles) where possible and available to reduce water ingress and dust lift-off; and Community education sheets recommending various practices including vegetative screening and reduce dust impacts near residences. Council has explored the use of dust suppressants as noted in the question and can advise as follows: Dust suppression chemical treatments can be used to treat problematic areas and are commonly used in intensive industrial and mining applications; The treatment is usually only effective for approximately 3 months and can make the road slippery when it rains as they are commonly hydrophobic and cause water to pond on the surface causing possible safety issues; These chemicals are powerful and would need to be applied with great prudence as could have adverse environmental implications if overused particularly pertinent in environmentally sensitive areas of Noosa Shire; ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 18 SEPTEMBER 2025 The high cost of this treatment, short term benefits and the need for regular reapplication mean this treatment is cost prohibitive for application in Noosa Shire which has 200kms of unsealed roads. 8.2 PATRICIA SPICER QUESTION 1 Has Noosa Council applied for a grant towards infrastructure costs through the Residential Activation Fund in relation to 64 Lake Macdonald Drive? RESPONSE by Kim Rawlings, Director Strategy & Environment Council has applied for a grant via the Residential Activation Fund for the enabling of infrastructure and civil works for the site. The Queensland government is making progressive announcements on the RAF funding, and we look forward to an announcement on the outcome of Noosa's application. QUESTION 2 As contract details have been released and remediation work has commenced did the tender price for the remediation work and subdivision work at 62/64 Lake Macdonald Drive match the estimates? RESPONSE by Kim Rawlings, Director Strategy & Environment The tender price came in slightly above estimates and within budget. The meeting adjourned at 10.35am. The meeting resumed at 10.47am. 9 MAYORAL MINUTES Nil. 10 NOTIFIED MOTIONS 10.1 ENHANCING FUTURE PUBLIC NOTIFICATION FOR PLANNING SCHEME PROVISION CHANGES Motion Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Council review its communication strategy for future planning scheme amendments and consider undertaking direct and tailored communication approach to public consultation to each landowner to make them aware of the changes and where to easily access information to understand what the changes mean for them. ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 18 SEPTEMBER 2025 Amendment No. 1 Moved: Cr Jessica Phillips Seconded: Cr Nicola Wilson That the following words be added to the motion: "and request a report to a future council meeting outlining details on a possible communication strategy and expenditure required." Carried. For: Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener Amendment No. 2 Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Frank Wilkie That the following words be added to the motion: "and request a report to a future council meeting, once the substantive changes proposed in any future planning scheme amendment are known, outlining details on a possible communication strategy and expenditure required." Carried. For: Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: None Council Resolution Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Council review its communication strategy for future planning scheme amendments and consider undertaking direct and tailored communication approach to public consultation to each landowner to make them aware of the changes and where to easily access information to understand what the changes mean for them and request a report to a future council meeting, once the substantive changes proposed in any future planning scheme amendment are known, outlining details on a possible communication strategy and expenditure required. Carried. For: Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: None 11. CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 18 SEPTEMBER 2025 11.1 PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS DATED 9 SEPTEMBER 2025 11.1.1. PLANNING APPLICATIONS DECIDED BY DELEGATED AUTHORITY – JULY 2025 That Planning & Environment Committee Agenda Item 7.1 be referred to the General Committee for further consideration. 11.1.2. NOOSA PLAN 2020 - AMENDMENT NO. 2 - COUNCIL ADOPTION Motion 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. E. Delegate to the Chief Executive Officer to be able to make minor corrections if required prior to gazettal. Amendment No. 1 Moved: Cr Jessica Phillips Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson That Item F be added to read: F. As part of regular monthly delegated reporting on development application numbers and decisions, include additional metrics on numbers of superseded planning scheme applications. Carried. For: Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: None ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 18 SEPTEMBER 2025 Council Resolution 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. E. Delegate to the Chief Executive Officer to be able to make minor corrections if required prior to gazettal. F. As part of regular monthly delegated reporting on development application numbers and decisions, include additional metrics on numbers of superseded planning scheme applications. Carried. For: Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener Against: Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Nicola Wilson 11.1.3. PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS EN BLOC Council Resolution Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That the Recommendations of the Planning and Environment Committee meeting dated 9 September 2025 be received and adopted except where dealt with by separate resolution. Carried. For: Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: None Cr Tom Wegener left the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 12.25pm. The meeting resumed at 12:45pm. ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 18 SEPTEMBER 2025 11.2 SERVICES & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS DATED 9 SEPTEMBER 2025 11.2.1. 2025 ANNUAL DISASTER MANAGEMENT REPORT That Council A. Note the report by the Disaster Management Officer to the Services & Organisation Committee dated 9 September 2025 providing an update on disaster management, resilience and reconstruction activities to 30 June 2025; and B. Thank the members and advisors to the Noosa Local Disaster Management Group for their participation. 11.2.2. NOOSA BOTANIC GARDENS MASTER PLAN That Council A. Note the report by the Parks and Streetscapes Coordinator to the Services & Organisation Committee dated 9 September 2025 regarding the draft Masterplan for the Noosa Botanic Gardens. B. Approve the draft to: 1. be released for the next phase of community engagement; and 2. note that a final summary of engagement and master plan will be presented for Council consideration. 11.2.3. NOOSA CULTURAL PLAN 2025-2030 ADOPTION That Council note the report by the Arts & Cultural Manager to the Services & Organisation Committee dated 9 September 2025 regarding the Noosa Council Cultural Plan 2025-2030 and: A. Adopt the final Noosa Cultural Plan 2025-30 provided as Attachment 1; B. Authorise the CEO to make any necessary minor changes to the Cultural Plan, if required; and C. Authorise the CEO to implement the Cultural Plan subject to available resourcing. 11.2.4. REVIEW OF THE AUDIT AND RISK COMMITTEE CHARTER & REVIEW OF THE INTERNAL AUDIT POLICY That Council A. Note the report by the Executive Officer to the Services & Organisation Committee meeting dated 9 September 2025 regarding the Audit and Risk Committee Charter and Internal Audit Policy; B. Adopt the 1. Audit and Risk Committee Charter provided as Attachment 1; and 2. Internal Audit Policy provided as Attachment 2. 11.2.5. SERVICES & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS ENBLOC Council Resolution Moved: Cr Karen Finzel Seconded: Cr Nicola Wilson ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 18 SEPTEMBER 2025 That the Recommendations of the Services & Organisation Committee meeting dated 9 September 2025 be received and adopted. Carried. For: Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: None 11.3 GENERAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS DATED 15 SEPTEMBER 2025 11.3.1. PLANNING APPLICATIONS DECIDED BY DELEGATED AUTHORITY – JULY 2025 That Council note the report by the Development Assessment Manager to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting on 9 September 2025 regarding applications that have been decided by delegated authority for July 2025 as per "Attachment 1 to the General Committee Minutes - Amended Delegated Report July 2025" (with amendments, as tabled at the meeting). 11.3.2. FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE REPORT – AUGUST 2025 That Council note the report by the Acting Financial Services Manager to the General Committee Meeting dated 15 September 2025 on Council's financial performance for the period ending 31 August 2025. 11.3.3. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SUBORDINATE LOCAL LAW NO. 5 (PARKING) 2015 - PUBLIC CONSULTATION OUTCOMES That Council A. Note the report by the Acting Local Laws and Environmental Health Manager to the General Committee dated 15 September 2025; B. Resolve to make Parking (Amendment) Subordinate Local Law (No. 1) 2025 as advertised (refer Attachment 1); and C. Resolve to adopt, pursuant to section 32 of the Local Government Act 2009, as provided at Attachment 2 to the Report, a consolidated version of Subordinate Local Law No. 5 (Parking) 2015. 11.3.4. WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY ANNUAL REPORT 2024/25 That Council note the report by the Workplace Health and Safety Co-ordinator to the General Committee Meeting dated 15 September 2025 regarding Workplace Health and Safety Annual Report 2024/25. ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 18 SEPTEMBER 2025 11.3.5. GENERAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS EN BLOC Council Resolution Moved: Cr Nicola Wilson Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That the Recommendations of the General Committee meeting dated 15 September 2025 be received and adopted. Carried. For: Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: None 12 ORDINARY MEETING REPORTS 12.1 TOURISM NOOSA 12 MONTH FUNDING DEED (AGREEMENT) & ROAD MAP STATUS REPORT Council Resolution Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That Council A. Note the report by the Chief Executive Officer to the General Committee dated 15 September 2025; B. Note the executed Tourism Noosa 12-month Funding Deed provided at Attachment 1; and C. Note the Road Map status as outlined in this report. Carried. For: Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: None 13 CONFIDENTIAL SESSION Nil. 14 NEXT MEETING The next Ordinary Meeting will be held at Council Chambers, 9 Pelican St, Tewantin on Thursday 16 October 2025 at 10.00am. 15 MEETING CLOSURE The meeting closed at 12.58pm.
Meeting Transcript
Frank Wilkie 00:01.040
We begin by acknowledging that we are meeting on the traditional lands and waters of the Kabi Kabi People. We pay our respects to elders past, present and recognise the acknowledgement that we are all joint custodians and serve to respect and care for the lands that we all love and respect and care for each other. All councils are in attendance with Councillor Tom Wegener attending via Microsoft Teams. Welcome Tom, can you hear us? You're on mute Tom. Yes, I can hear you, thank you. Welcome Tom, thank you. Our CEO Larry Sengstock is currently on leave so we have Acting CEO Kerri Contini with us today. Item four is confirmation of the minutes. May I have a move and a seconder of the minutes for the Ordinary Meeting held on 21st August. Moved by Councillor Finzel, seconded by Councillor Wilson. All in favour? Thank you Tom, that's unanimous. Petition. There are no presentations. We have one deputation from Mr Thomas Draper. We have 15 minutes set aside for you Mr Draper. The topic is the DMP. Would you like to come to the lectern and present your deputation Thomas? Thomas Draper 02:01.060
2025 Noosa Destination Management Plan. Parking. It is felt that the Noosa CBD destination is half-baked. The assertion of expenditure on CBD infrastructure as uneconomic is false. Both tourists and residents prefer to drive and park their vehicles near Hastings Street. 120 metres west of Hastings Street, one site has year-round potential to grow Hastings Street business, it seems compelling to build a multi-use four-level strata-titled car park on Noosa Spit at the Noosa Woods border. Circa five hectares would be required near the Main Beach groin between Claude Batten Drive and is dependent upon Noosa Woods, upon a Noosa Woods to Noosa Parade connection which is addressed later. Positive attributes: west of the Sofitel, potential for growth exists where little has eventuated in fifty years. A six hundred-car strata-titled parking garage at the Main Beach groin should attract public investment. The ground floor could accommodate fire, ambulance departments and also strata-titled whatever. Hidden from view by scrubs. Centres for operations would be a family manager's residence and control centre. Convenient 24-hour parking for Hastings Street business owners and staff would be featuring. Surely appreciated. Phone charge booking system, cloud based with AI camera analytics. Passes should be issued in various classes for all Noosa Shire residents. Advanced phone booking should give great advantage secured bicycle and motorcycle parking. Headroom provided on ground floor for high vehicles, kayaks and beach furniture. An electric vertical take-off and landing EV tunnel, air taxi flight centre on the roof. Features down washer uber taxi and ambulance ramp to the roof for helicopter ambulance services. Various refuelling options for hybrid, road and aerial taxis on the roof. Direct air taxi service to headquarters, Cooroy, Boreen Point, Sunshine Coast airport and other. Best low impact helicopter and electric vertical take off and landing flight path destination in Noosa. Car rentals and service workshops to be provided. Covered parking provides protection. Coloured from sun and hail, likely to increase in frequency. Covered and eliminated walk to connect garage to Hastings Street and ferry ticket office. Middle aged to elderly driver access to Main Beach shops and restaurants. Outgoing traffic to pass over Sofitel passage to Noosa Parade and Isabel. This issue is addressed later. Iguana, serpio, 20-person tractor track amphibious tender for major economic gain to be provided and garaged. Will sealegs then produce previous technical servers and ports Subsequently, but. Subsequently, all but local surfers should be banned from Laguna park, Laguna Bay. I should say national park, Laguna Bay track. Subsequently parking in national park and nearby streets may be shared with the elderly and incapacitated. Surfboard. Kayak sails rental and repair shop to be provided. Short order barbeque, cafe, snack shop and gravel roof metal staff is required. Public shower and toilet facilities and gravel roof levels. Golf buggy parking and maintenance workshop may also be provided on the ground floor. Beach goers will spread to the west, taking pressure off the beach near the surf club to the east. Hastings Street conversion to one-way required and addressed in the following statement. The outcome will be parking in two enclaves, east and west of suffolk hill and Hastings Street. Increased popularity of the currently quiet zone of Hastings Street west of the suffolk hill. An optimised. City west end will lead to scaling up of all business along Hastings Street. Potential for any increases in the quiet zone west of suffolk hill should eventually. The attraction of shoppers to the west and to the west end could give property owners incentive to redevelop. Investigate the possibility of a multi-level cultural zone, the one traffic entanglement will be resolved at Noosa Drive on Park Road junction in peacow. Place an electronic gate on Claude Batten Drive at the board marker and charge all but dove beach visitors to the spit. Give drivers advance surety of parking spots so they can plan their day with confidence. Overflow. Cars from Noosa drives are unlikely to park in Noosa Parade west of Belli Street. Prioritisation will be given to the incapacitated, their special equipment and their beach assets. For many, a proximity to wedding what it is a major larger events in this which is obvious after increased fees will be collected by Noosa Council. While further increases are expected in real estate prices, basic cash flow for start and final should be about $30 million. Construction costs upwards of $30 million. Construction of a connection across soft-tail passage is essential. For the above-mentioned advantages to be realised. About the bridge. Poor traffic flow can cause driving dissatisfaction when arriving in Noosa CBD. A twin-lane road link connecting the western end of Hastings Street to Noosa Parade. Would solve the problem. It should connect from the banks of Noosa. Woods passing across the softened el paso Cooroy to the western end of Garth Prowd Bridge. There, a twin-lane roundabout would allow both through-traffic freedom and left-lane entry from the west to Noosa Woods. The links across the passage could include a parallel pathway on the eastern side. A road branch leading heading northwest would connect directly to the drive's main reach floor level garage brought to your attention earlier. Positive attributes: the design should meet permissible grade and hydraulic modelling requirements. It is recommended that Hastings Street traffic be rerouted to one-way traffic east to west as. Mentioned in paragraph 31 of the 12-gallon address on the proposed. Main Beach groin parking garage. The frequent traffic tangling at the Hastings Street police junction caused by exiting Hastings Street vehicular traffic. Would be resolved as mentioned in point 37 of the foregoing address on parking. Outgoing park Ron trucking would never be confronted by a truck accident in Hastings Street. Pedestrian traffic would then present only a minor problem for drivers, no worse than any city intersection. Exiting onto newston parade be inconvenient of course, while spots would have to be found somewhere in the direction of Noosaville, involving. A considerable walk back, better than nothing should Street level parking on Noosa bit be full. Of course, parking service could be available in point of wide ongoing. Ingoing footpath. Alternatively, traffic could follow Claude Batten Drive, the continuation of Hastings Street, to the proposed 600 vehicle parking complex, addressed previously, or onto inadequate existing extensive Street level parking throughout Noosa bit. Left turn on the Garth Prowd Bridge could be camera regulated in peak traffic periods. Right and left turns on the Noosa Parade from drive should it then also A raised viewing platform at the crest of the main arch of the provider's culvert. Architecturally blending into the facade could provide a pearly river and sunset views. Passage for ferries would be assured at highest astronomical time. Post design should significantly enhance the general appeal of the CBD. Facade tiling providing modern aesthetic elegance while attractive would also reduce structural corrosion. The arches would carry heavy vehicle loads. The cost of construction for the entire bridge, culvert that is, segment. Including an ancillary should be less than that would be expected of any alternate bridge design. Precast arches are estimated to cost only $660,000. The entire project and all associated road work from Noosa Parade but not including the multi-tiered garage would cost upwards of $30 million, according to Brady, Moran and silver. Construction of a culvert across sofford hill passage is essential for the previously presented project for a multi-level garage to be realised. 5-7 star hotel and entertainment centre. Newslessly many roads and parking infrastructure problems are tackled in the two other 2017 Draper project segments presented today, where some funding is to be sourced through strata title. Here, however, sourced through the sale of 63 hectares of re-zoned public property for the herein addressed third project sector, the loggerhead hotel, would also be needed to go towards the proposed Sofitel passage culvert addressed earlier, if funding is unavoidable unavailable elsewhere. Is a one-time rock quarry I saw closed down in 1952 and is of great value. The quarry is, however, for some inconceivable reason, locked and gated within the national park. Development of the otherwise unused largely barren site would get rid of illegal camera. A magnificent 1,500 seat entertainment centre and a five to seven star hotel could fill the hole. If rezoning from the national park proves impossible, then a land swap could be pursued. A land passing yonamaya reserve. It is unmarked continuation of the national park. A line plot survey identifies the suggested parcel. It lies between the Cooroy and peppers resort to the southwest. Yonamaya reserve, part of Noosa Shire, runs north and south along a line bordering peppers resort and viridian resort, the latter otherwise known as Noosa residences. Exterior hotel design resembles a loggerhead turtle common in our waters. The recommendation will be beyond the boundaries of traditional architecture. It should blend into the landscape giving a feel of luxury and science fiction, that is, Neo-cosmic. Ideally suited to extrapolation by highly intelligent, experienced, award-winning architects. Internally themed will Noosa River, the epic ways of intimidating culture aboriginal. Reclaimed or recycled. Timber, porcelain, tile, and figurative grass wall art recommended internally to accentuate appeal. The project will attract the skills of local wood sculptors. Hopefully the whole quarried through old blasted cabinry garden as construction space. The quarried space could also be developed for staff, housing, and provide parking. For coaches and private vehicles is situated at the northern extremity of the land pass. Proceeding parking space should be jointly utilised by visitors to muguna walkout and the hotel. The hotel top level should provide a 180 degree view of Sunshine Beach and Isabel. Hightower hotel complex is proposed to be split into two categories with separate entrances. The entertainment centre can also cater for conventions and is one third tiered. The centre designed for the stage with 930 retractable seats would allow diverse utilisation. Australian star rating standards. Hotel main section should be a 500 bed five star. A smaller seven star but an all suites complex shall offer service equal to galleria Vic Milan. The entire complex should equal the six star Australian sustainability rating of crown city. Sidney. A traffic meant to the hotel light from Hastings Street is possible by a main rail rise of moorwell drive. The proposed link is referenced and clearly defined in the before mentioned line item number seven, line plot survey. The sale would easily fund all government works for the hotel, the sophomore counter, and the spit garage. In other words, the three projects complete would cost the public nothing. The extra hotel rooms will reduce the demands on the STA mark. The seven star hotel segment should be in demand by the super yacht's high income mark. Our view land drive may be widened to accommodate over-throw parking from peppers conferences. Increased popularity of Laguna lookout demands road widening and extra parking. All the preceding and necessary widening would benefit the loggerhead. An alternative road link was proposed in the 2017 Draper project in 2019, drawing about. An elevator element of some kind should provide a connection to a loggerhead lookout. The land parcel of ideally 63 hectares should. Raise 103 million. It could be shaved back to a minimum and still. Raise 75 million. International interest has already been expressed on the status of this project. That's it, ladies and gentlemen. Frank Wilkie 14:32.281
Thank you very much. We're going to have a 10-minute adjournment after question time, and we'll catch up with you then. We have two submissions for public question time. The first is from Mr. Alan Deering. Dearing. Mr. Deering, would you like to come to lectern to read your questions which will be answered. By Shaun Walsh, the Director Infrastructure Services. Alright, good morning. Alan Deering 14:58.285
Thanks for the opportunity for me to ask these questions. Question one, I bought my property 40 years ago on the eastern end of kroon mountain road. As with most rural roads, it was dirt with minimal traffic. With time and development, roads are sealed with traffic increases. The western is four kilometres sealed, the last two kilometres sealed. Its section was sealed last century. The last road sealed in Noosa Shire was Dr page's road, a width of 8.5 metres undertaken by Mayor Noel playford across the 5.6 million, who set upon opening in 2016 a wind. Hinterland tourism. Disasperated by the dust issue, what seemed to be council policy of not sealing dirt roads, the three property owners on the 200 metre section between dath, Henderson road and tumbar court pay for that section of road to be sealed by a spray seal application to a width of 7 metres by a licensed and certified contractor. This is the same service and width of most sealed hinterland roads, including the road in hindostex. Dan Henderson road, an 80 kilometre an hour road. The easternmost section of road has the most amount of traffic on the road, with nine properties from tumbar court, including Noosa polo, exclusively passing these three properties. The approximate vehicle count is 300 per day, with 20% being heavy vehicles. The response from council's then planning and design delivery manager, Craig Eldridge, to our offer was approving a sealed road than nine metre width on Cooroy Mountain road would directly contradict council's endorsed Noosa Plan. And, while there is some expectation from the residents of Cooroy Mountain road to ultimately undertake sealing works for the full length of this road, council is under no obligation to do so and the traffic data does not support an upgrade at this time. Under the 10-year capital program in 2028-29 years 1.85 million is budgeted Carrick Way widening on the sealed western end of Cooroy Mountain road. It definitely seems that there is a Noosa Council policy to not seal dirt roads. Noosa is an inesco biosphere reserve where people strive to live in harmony with nature. I am appalled that if under the Noosa Plan there is support for nine metre wide highways to traverse the hinterland. The residents have not been consulted on this issue. They don't want or need highways in the hinterland. What they want is sealed roads that complement the rural nature of why they live there. Narrow roads calming would suit a biosphere status. A last word for the wildlife. There are too many wildlife vehicle strikes on as it stands. Some killed instantly, some injured to agoniser. Die an agonisingly slow death. Why increase the risk for wildlife by constructing race tracks in the hinterland? My question, nurse guided by and not dictated by the Australian standards, Austroads standards guidelines. Also the department of Main Roads planning and design manual. So the Noosa plan that wind when sealing dirt roads they must be no less than nine metres is a Noosa Council initiative. Does Noosa Council agree that any future sealing of dirt roads in the Noosa Shire will be to a minimum width of 9 metres. Director Walsh. Shaun Walsh 19:13.659
Good morning, I'm not also a mentor on site. So, yeah. Thank you for the question. Noosa Council is guided by but not strictly bound to professional standards like the Australian standards in guidelines. The Queensland department of transport Main Roads planning and design manual, but also the institute of public works engineering australasia, which is IPWEA, lower order road design guidelines. These documents provide best practice frameworks, but local governments like Noosa Council have the autonomy to adopt higher or more tailored standards on local based priorities, environmental considerations, and community expectations. You are correct that the Noosa Plan and associated infrastructure policies specifies minimum Carrick Way and shoulder widths for various road classifications for Noosa Shire. We can vary from these specifications for a specific project requiring engineering justification to enable council support. Notably, the IPWEA lower order road design guidelines updated recently in 2024 specifies a sealed carriage with width of 5. Metres when traffic volume volumes are low and provides a very good reference to inform any future detailed design for lower order unsealed roads across Noosa Shire. Council can also consider this recently updated document in any future review of associated infrastructure policies. Separately, I also note that following various representations from the community, council has initiated a review of council's approach to management of unsealed roads with broader consideration of environmental, community benefit and traffic safety matters to more fully inform future prioritisation and budget submissions for road sealing, of course subject to council budget approval. Frank Wilkie 21:05.583
Question? Yeah? Alan Deering 21:12.563
Question two. I'm not finished yet. Background road dust especially fine particle dust poses health risks including respiratory issues like asthma chronic and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and cardiovascular problems such as heart attacks and reduced heart function with more serious effects from long-term exposure the developing bodies of children among more vulnerable to air pollutants Noosa Council states there is between over 170 kilometers and over 200 kilometers of dirt roads some with heavy traffic use, which creates, especially after the annual re-sheeting has occurred major dust problems for nearby residents. Noosa Council officers do not seem to comprehend the serious health issues emanating from dust inhalation. In December 2016 Brian O'Connor wrote: "While council sympathises with your concerns regarding dust, this is an unfortunate by-product of gravel roads and not a safety this situation absurdly has been exasperated by the dry weather Noosa Shire experience over the winter months and should reduce with recent rain also in June 25 2025 he wrote we strive to minimise dust through regular grading and dust suppression techniques which help to reduce the amount of loose gravel. He also goes on to give tips for residents such as planning vegetative screens, utilise water filters pollution, remove pollutants and build away from areas prone to dust and nuisance. There is no recognition of dust as a health issue from Noosa Council. Also the cost of trying to deal with this problem falls on the residents. Grading is not regular and does alleviate dust. There are no dust suppression techniques applied. Noosa Council failed in their expensive legal action against courthouse to have their trucks removed from the road during school there is no such concern from council of the serious health effects of small particle airborne road dust on children. To my knowledge there has been only one case of dust suppressant being used by Noosa Council. It was on the last unsealed section dath-Henderson road about 20 years ago. It was donated to council. It worked well. Presumably Noosa Council rates cost over the health of its ratepayers on dirt roads. Question. Noosa Council employees such as plant operators are required to undergo a mandatory silica test every 12 months. Noosa Council recognise the workplace risks of airborne dust but totally ignore the health risks of directly. Airborne dust to rateboats living on dirt roads. Why hasn't Noosa Council addressed the dust issues of the residents living on dirt roads in the Shire by at least adding dust suppressant in water trucks when annual re-sheeting of dirt roads. Frank Wilkie 24:39.455
Thank you Mr Deering. This is Director Walsh. Shaun Walsh 24:43.455
Thank you Alan for the question. It's a long answer which I think it's quite important to put on a public record and this will be distributed to you Alan and it will be part of the council minutes as well. So in terms council has undertaken a technical assessment of the potential health risks associated with silica dust generated from unsealed gravel roads within the Noosa Council region. It has evaluated the material composition, maintenance practices and environmental exposure context referencing applicable standards and research findings. Crystalline silica which abbreviation SiO2 primarily in the form of quartz is a naturally occurring mineral found in many geological materials including sand, clay and gravel. Respirable crystalline silica also as RCS is a known occupational hazard in industries involving cutting, crushing or drilling of silica containing materials. However the context of road dust from unsealed surfaces, particularly those maintained using natural gravel and recycled asphalt, differs significantly from high-risk occupational environments where RCS or respiratory crystalline silica may be present. Noosa Council maintained present. Noosa Council maintained their unsealed road networks using natural gravel blends and recycled asphalt pavement. These materials are selected in accordance with Queensland department of transport Main Roads MRTS05 unbound pavements and the Austroads guide to pavement technology 6 unsealed pavements. These standards ensure the materials meet performance criteria such as the California Bearing Ratio, shrinkage product and grading coefficient which directly influence dust generation and stability. In terms of health exposure, risk unsealed roads in these regions typically carry low traffic volumes between 30 and 500 vehicles per day. Dust exposure is intermittent, outdoor and dispersed, significantly reducing concentration compared to enclosed occupational settings. New Zealand transport agency study found that while PM10 dust from unsealed roads can be present, respirable silica levels were generally low and not linked to adverse health outcomes. In ambient settings. NIOSH evaluations of dirt road maintenance found no erionite and only occasional silica exceedances, primarily in active roadwork zones, not general public exposure. The workplace exposure standard for RCS in Australia is 0.05 mg /m3 for 8-hour TWA ambient exposure from unsealed roads. It is not known to exceed this threshold in South East Queensland. Based on current material usage, maintenance practices and environmental exposure conditions, there is minimal to no health risk from silica dust generated by unsealed gravel roads in the Noosa Council region. There is no confirmed evidence of harmful silica dust concentration in these areas and no recorded public health impacts attributable to road dust. The use of natural gravel and recycled asphalt combined with routine grading and dust suppression ensures compliance. With the engineering and environmental standards. In terms of testing its workforce, Noosa Council tests the workers that are exposed to. Respirable crystalline silica, RCS, such as concrete cutting, drilling and crushing works, which is approximately 50 workers. Crews working on our roads, such as grader crews and plant crews, are not tested due to the low risk profile. In terms of dust management for the. Community, council's current dust mitigation strategies include routine grading and re-sheeting. Based on traffic volume and environmental conditions. Use of impervious gravel lands. Such as recycled road profiles where possible and available to reduce water ingress and dust liftoff. Community education sheets recommending various practices including vegetative screening and reduce dust impacts near residences. Council has explored the use of dust suppressants as noted in the question and can advise as follows: dust suppression chemical treatments can only be. Can be used to treat problematic areas and are commonly used in intensive industrial and mining applications. The treatment is usually only effective for approximately three months and can make the roads slippery when rains as they are commonly hydrophobic and. Cause water to pond on the surface causing possible safety issues. These chemicals are. Powerful and would need to be applied with great Prudence as could have adverse environmental. Implications if overused, particularly pertinent in environmentally sensitive areas of Noosa Shire. The high cost of the treatment, short-term benefits and the need for regular reapplication mean this treatment is cost prohibitive for application in Noosa Shire which has 200 kilometres of unsealed roads. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 29:38.437
Director Walsh. The next two Spicer. Ms Spicer would you like to come to lectern and your questions will be answered by Kim Rawlings, Director Strategy & Environment. Pat Spicer 29:52.479
My name is Pat Spicer, Through the Chair. Background information. Council in resolution 20th of January 2025, council Resolve, in accordance with council resolution on the 16th of May 2024, approve all remediation and subdivision works required to occur for the delivery of the revised subdivision layout contained in attachment 1 to the report. And D, support advancing the subdivision and remediation works subject to securing a loan facility whilst continuing to pursue grant funding opportunities. The Queensland state government state development infrastructure and planning announced a Residential Activation Fund. Round 1 focuses on projects that are ready to proceed now with $500 $2 million of the billion fund available. It provides funding to get infill and green-filled land ready for new housing developments through the delivery of trunk and essential infrastructure, including water supply, sewerage, stormwater, power, telecommunications, transport, for example. Roads. Addressing these infrastructure needs, the fund ensures residential housing developments can proceed without delay. Eligibility for local government or developers and developers and landowners there's one common criteria is projects must commence construction within 12 months and be completed in three years. Round 1 applications opened on the 7th of April 2025. Closed on the 23rd of May 2025, an announcement will be being made in July 2025. The Residential Activation Fund supports Queensland's plan to build 1 million new by 2044. By funding trunk and essential infrastructure, it helps developments proceed more quickly and efficiently. My question: has Noosa Council applied for a grant towards infrastructure costs through the Residential Activation Fund relation in to 64 Lake Macdonald Drive? You, Mr Spicer. Frank Wilkie 32:20.231
Thank Director Rawlings? Kim Rawlings 32:23.670
Have a hat. Great question. Thank you. Council has applied for a grant via the Residential Activation Fund for the enabling infrastructure. The Queensland government is making progressive announcements on the Residential Activation Fund funding and we look forward to an announcement on the outcome of Noosa application. Pat Spicer 32:48.476
Background information. Resolution 16th of May 2024, disposal of land for community housing. Negotiate, finalise and execute a contract for the remediation works for the sum generally outlined in the report. And five, enter to subdivision report. Council resolution on the 17th of July 2025, that council award contract number CN24802 for 62 Lake Macdonald Drive, remediation and subdivision works. Palm grove holdings pty ltd. Trading as Carruthers. Follows. A combined lump sum price of $3,091,486.08 $3,091,486.08 GST and schedule the rates to undertake separable portion 1 remediation and major earthworks. A lump sum price of $2,600,000. Of two million six hundred and eighty four thousand five hundred and forty two dollars and twenty seven cents excluding GST to undertake separable portion two subdivision works. As contract details have been released and remediation work has commenced did the tender price for the remediation work and subdivision work at sixty two 6264 Lake Macdonald Drive, match the estimates. Frank Wilkie 34:30.379
Director Rawlings. Kim Rawlings 34:33.299
Thanks again, Pat, for that question. Very brief response. The tender price came in slightly above estimates, but within budget. Frank Wilkie 34:44.179
Thank you, Director Rawlings. Councillors, now we have a 10 minute adjournment, and we'll be back at 10:45. Frank Wilkie 47:15.374
Okay, we're on. Welcome back everybody. Meeting's open again. There are no Mayoral minutes. We have one notified motion from Councillor Lorentson. Lorentson, enhancing public future notification and planning scheme provision changes. Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 47:30.850
I'd like to move a motion, notified motion, that council review its communication strategy for future planning scheme amendments and consider undertaking direct and tailored communication approach to public consultation to each landowner to make them aware of the changes and where to easily access information to understand what the changes mean for them and to request a report to a future council meeting outlining details on a possible communication strategy and expenditure, and expenditure required. Brian Stockwell 48:07.291
I notice there's a difference between what's on screen and what was in our agendas. Was that those additions added within 70 days before the meeting? The changes were made 48 hours ago. So by the Standing Orders upon the boarder, no changes could be made to a notified motion? Frank Wilkie 48:31.210
Imagine I'll just point out that we could move the original version of the notified motion and then amend it with the writing in red. So this gives a fair feel of so Councillor Lorentson, would you like to move? Amelia Lorentson 48:45.643
I'm happy to move the original motion. Yeah. Councillor Stockwell is quite right. Yeah, that's right. Yeah. That council review its communication strategy for future planning scheme amendments and consider undertaking direct and tailored communication approach to public consultation to each landowner to make them aware of the changes and where to easily access information to understand what the changes mean for them. Frank Wilkie 49:10.691
If you may have a second for that please. Second for debate. Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 49:17.587
I'm happy to just speak to it. This motion comes directly out of the recent planning scheme amendments. I'm going to start by saying that we all know how much time and effort went into that process. Extended council consultation. Council used multiple channels and they made sure that every legislative requirement was met. In many respects, council actually went above and beyond what was required. But what we also saw during those amendments is that despite our best efforts, something is still not working. Get we had petitions, we had submissions, and we had genuine concern from residents who felt that they'd only discovered key changes very late in the process. For example, the medium density amendments had a real impact on or what could be built in certain neighborhoods. Yet many residents told us they weren't aware of the changes until the consultation period was almost over. When I door knocked in affected areas, the overwhelming response I heard was simple: "We didn't know." When provision changes of that scale, changes that materially affect what landowners can do with their property, slip by unnoticed, it tells us something important: that the way that we're communicating isn't working as well as it needs to. Part of the problem is that the changes are buried in long, highly technical documents that most people simply can't be expected to interpret. Even when they're advertised, they can be very difficult to identify and the people most affected can miss them altogether. Under legislation direct notification which is letters, that are sent to the property owners are only required when zoning and overlay changes are made or proposed. Provision changes in zones like restrictions on what can be built or how land can be used aren't covered by that requirement. Council is not required to give property owners that are impacted by provision changes any letters. Yet provision changes can have as much if not more impact on property rights and value. That's why we need to look at going further. Our Corporate Plan commits us to excellence and continuous improvement. This motion is simply about putting those principles into practice. It's about taking lessons from the most recent amendments and making sure this doesn't happen again. For example by adopting a more direct and tailored approach to notifying landowners of provision changes to provide clarity, to strengthen trust and to make sure simply that our community genuinely understands how changes affect councillors them. So councils are just putting this on the table and I hope you will support this motion that recognises firstly that council already does a great deal to meet and exceed its obligations but that system is itself is not giving residents the clarity they deserve and that we do need to do more. So thank you councils for considering the motion and again I hope you support the motion in front of us so that we can continue improving how we communicate and to work with our community. Frank Wilkie 52:45.605
Thank you Councillor Lorentson. I'm happy to move the amendment that Councillor Lorentson had on the addition. Thank you Councillor Phillips. Jessica Phillips 52:56.533
And request that following words be added to the motion as follows. And request a report to a future council meeting outlining the details on a possible communication strategy and expenditure required. Thank you. I'll second. Councillor Wilson you've seconded that. We should speak to it at the time. Very quickly. Very quickly I would assume that Councillor Lorentson would have done some due diligence with the Director and the Acting CEO that gave why that was coming to us but understand the standing order so it's really just to make sure that the entire notified motion that she's listening to is seen today thanks and I'll speak to the I will speak to the notified motion when everyone else has spoken Frank Wilkie 53:43.589
Thank you thank all right look now I'll amendment our Standing Orders say the notified motion substantially affects the level of Councillor services it ought to be subject of a report so councillors can be apprised of the expenditure required and make a decision accordingly this would cut as we've read about a thousand letters were sent out it was a very extensive consultation process there was a very high level of submissions to the public interest this is a very engaged community and this would effectively if it involves tailored communications to possibly every household it would take the number of letters written from about a thousand to potentially 30,000 so there's an exponential potentially an exponential increase in expenditure required so this amendment is very appropriate. Brian Stockwell 54:41.354
I'll provide the opposite view I won't be supporting the amendment and same reason motion the amendment asked us to prioritise work as a result of something that happened a couple years ago that particular section of staff have a huge workload and they're working on incredibly important things that the community have been calling for us to get finished the time to consider a communication strategy and expenditure on a planning scheme review is when that is in draft stage there is no need to pass a motion because it will happen and regardless of whatever this motion says the councillors sitting around the table at the time of the next scheme amendment will make the decision nothing about what's in this amendment will change that. Jessica Phillips 55:34.206
Can I just ask a quick question which I think might be to the C- CEO is it is there a potential that we will I get the impression that the amendments I spoke actually it might be through to the Director Rawlings we potentially will see in our term another round of amendments come if they're being worked on now. Kim Rawlings 56:06.180
Through the Chair, thanks for the question. Yes it is very likely that this council will see another round of amendments. As advised last week the amendment processes are ongoing all the time so with this process wrap up. We'll Amendment No. 2 but we are already in train for amendment number three and given the time that they can take it is important when amendments are off with the State that we're still continually looking at you know what's coming down the line or what strategies or new information has come in to continually improve the planning scheme, so yes. Frank Wilkie 56:47.130
Follow-up question and that could potentially involve an amendment that derives from an aspect of this whole package of amendments that councillors may not be entirely happy with. Kim Rawlings 57:04.903
Yes, absolutely. That package could include Frank Wilkie 57:07.303
Elements of this scheme. Karen Finzel 57:13.843
It's not what the motion is about. Problems. OK. Yes. Through you, Chair, for clarity today, can you please raise your question? I'm struggling to understand what we're trying to achieve here. SPEAKER_14 57:25.939
I didn't understand your question. What information are you trying to get clarification on, Frank Wilkie 57:34.191
A follow-up question. From Councillor Phillips about the future planning scheme amendments that are already in change. Kim Rawlings 57:41.654
So just in just a general response, a future planning scheme amendment process can include any issues council would like to be considered in that package. Frank Wilkie 57:53.445
OK. Councillor Phillips. Amelia Lorentson 57:55.625
Councillor Lorentson. Just a question to the Director Development & Regulation, Richard MacGillivray. We had an open discussion about this, and I think this. I think six months I've been going to and fro from. Program advocacy pieces just stayed on public notification to what council can do internally. My question to you is that do you think the amendment poses onerous obligations in terms of resourcing. Me, Director Rawlings, excuse me. And are there software applications that can also provide better communications in terms of communicating changes made in provision? Provisions in zonings. Frank Wilkie 58:43.231
I'm only going to allow one aspect of that question. It's unfair to ask staff whether they think this change would be onerous or not. But your question about software that might assist is valid. Kim Rawlings 58:56.650
So that part is Richard, the first part was made. Richard MacGillivray 59:00.311
Yes, Through the Chair. In terms of the software, there are a range of software tools available. At the moment, and some councils have adopted tools like development eye, which is a software tool that people can search up property information. They can also register for alerts, so new applications lodged. There isn't a solution as such that directly notifies residents of planning scheme amendments to date that I'm aware of, but certainly from an awareness around development applications that are lodged and submitted and decided, community can register on a portal such as that, and that will give them automatic alerts around when those launched. Wouldn't necessarily address planning scheme submissions at this date, but that would require a new piece of software to be built to automatically notify all residents and would require a registration database that have to opt in to receive that notification because you need their email address or contacts. Amelia Lorentson 59:59.027
So it's possible? Richard MacGillivray 01:00:02.747
Through the Chair, it's possible to procure software to do that function. Kim Rawlings 01:00:08.031
I just need to add to that. The software that exists requires the community to opt in, so it doesn't address the issue of those who, in your background to this, don't know about it. So if they've already opted in to be made aware of changes or development applications, then they're engaged in the process. My understanding is your motion, what sat behind it, was for those who weren't aware of those sorts Amelia Lorentson 01:00:36.121
Of changes. Absolutely, and opportunities to, through direct notification, whether letters or otherwise, to make sure that they're notified of any changes. Senator leone? Councillor Finzel? Karen Finzel 01:00:50.600
Yes, I have a question then, just to clarify, given we're about excellence and continuous improvement. Looking at possible community. Strategies. No one here from comms, so it seems like outside of the planning, it's a comms strategy. So, is that correct? Councillor Lorentson, can you give a clarification about where strategy through the comms department that you're seeking? Amelia Lorentson 01:01:17.750
I think the expertise will actually come from the Director of strategy and environmental services, Kim Rawlings. She will direct comms. Conversations. Frank Wilkie 01:01:32.749
So we have. Karen Finzel 01:01:34.029
Well then I do have further clarification on capacity, given that we are fully aware of the impacts on the. Communications team, when we go back to what they've had to work on and how that's affected a lot of their decision making throughout this term. In your opinion then, or through the CEO, what is the capability of the staff of business to proceed forward with a comms strategy? How will that impact future decision-making, which is what we've seen in this term. It's pushed out the DMP. It had implicated. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 01:02:08.796
Mr Chair. I would just like to step in at this point and say that what's being requested is a report that will outline. The resources required for a possible communication strategy and the expenditure required. We need the report to understand that. I hope that helps. You're not asking me when to do it. You're not asking me to introduce a communication strategy and allocate resources. We're asking for a report so councillors can make an informed decision about the impact on the capacity of the scene. It's my understanding. That's correct. Karen Finzel 01:02:44.778
Can I seek clarification because I think even to bring the report before us take staff and time report, if not a strategy. Thank you, Mr Chair. Frank Wilkie 01:02:55.368
Thank Councillor Finzel. Kerri Contini 01:02:57.888
Thank you Through the Chair, Councillor Finzel. I'll do a partial answer to that, and Director rawlins Rawlings will complete it. Phillips' Councillor Phillips amendment is correct in line Lorentson and. No, Catherine. No, it was castle Phillips' amendment, that a report be requested given the what's sitting within the original motion. Does commit staff to a significant amount of work and potential cost, so therefore in line with the Standing Orders, this report enables staff to undertake that work so that councils can understand the extent of work and the cost, Director willmody might be able to comment on the amount of work that would be required to prepare the report. Kim Rawlings 01:03:47.510
There's two aspects to that. Preparing a communication strategy to support a planning scheme amendment process is a requirement and a standard process and it is something that we would do is reported to council to say this is the scope of the amendment package and therefore this is the aligned and complementary communication strategy. Do you agree with this council? So you see that as part of any process a standard part of the process and a requirement actually under the State government guidelines and rules. The preparation of a council report to provide an indication of resources and what it would be required. There is work in that obviously it's there'll need to be some scenarios potentially in that because it will depend on the scope of the amendments and how far and wide council would want to do direct tailored letters as the current wording of the amendment says you know that could be months of work and substantial cost so yeah it's a little hard to exactly this point but I anticipate this substantial working in the process Frank Wilkie 01:05:20.400
Anybody else wish to speak to the amendment yes. Councillor Finzel. Karen Finzel 01:05:24.080
Thank you. I want to commend Councillor Lorentson and Councillor Phillips for bringing this forward I do think it is you know it's very important it's a high priority when we're serving in a contemporary council that is really concerned boys our beneficiaries and supporting to protect our democracy I guess my reluctance is it is this the right forum to bring this matter before us today when it includes capabilities of staff where it also includes budget money impacts my concern is also around timelines to deliver because as we're all aware if things come up along the way that can push things down the track and we've got a community waiting for you know information and decisions to be made. Overall I support overall it because I think it ensures that we have we stick to our themes of environment, liveability, prosperity, future and excellence which is really important. I will vote for it today but do think this is not the best forum to do it. I do believe it is through larger discussions and preparations as we all know notice of motions and things like that push these the staff further to deliver things that we've read through this process which we are well able to do and we can do I do think that the reform would be better but I'm happy to support this today given the value that we need to give to our community to ensure their voice is these matters. Frank Wilkie 01:06:55.463
Thank you Councillor Finzel. Any other councillors wish to speak to the amendment? Councillor Lorentson do you wish to close? No. I'm going to close. Amelia Lorentson 01:07:05.603
That's an amendment. Councillor Phillips. Jessica Phillips 01:07:08.897
No, I won't close. I'll just wait for the full motion. Frank Wilkie 01:07:15.277
Yep, okay. I'll put Councillor Phillips' amendment to the vote. All those in favour? That's Councillor Wilson. Phillips, Lorentson, Finzel and Wilkie. Those against? Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Wegener. Councillor Wegener. Is against or for? Against. Amendment is carried. We now go back to the original motion. Brian Stockwell 01:07:36.165
I'd like to move an amendment. And if you can leave those words on the screen or capture them, I'll be changing that. Thanks, Cathy. Um. Okay, and so I just added to what the next one would be. Disappear again. The following words be added to the motion as follows. And it's after the word meeting. Comma. Okay. Once the substantive changes proposed in any future scheme amendment are known. So any. Future scheme or planning scheme amendment? Subtitles known. Comma. Taking out that outlining. Beg your pardon? No, just a comment. And outlining details of possible. Communication strategy and expenditure required. I'm happy to second. SPEAKER_02 01:09:45.693
You moved the original. Oh, excuse me, I can't move. Happy to second for the debate. Frank Wilkie 01:09:50.493
Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Brian Stockwell 01:09:53.753
So, councillors, we just heard from the Director that motion as it stands would be a substantive requirement on staff. We know that any communications strategy has to be focused on what we want to communicate. Until we know what we want it is totally a time and a waste of ratepayers' money to talk about a communications strategy. Until we know what those substantive changes are, how do we know who should be informed about it? Do we know what are the appropriate, are they people who live here and will see local media or are they people who are likely to be further afield? So the only sensible way to do this is know to change in the planning scheme. I've no problem with the concept that we will look with greater rigour at who we advise, but we do it at the right time. Amelia Lorentson 01:10:54.367
Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Stockwell. Happy to speak to it and I support the amendment. It achieves exactly the outcome that the motion was intended to achieve. So it's just a tweaking of words and I thank Councillor Stockwell for the addition. Frank Wilkie 01:11:11.725
Thank other councillors wish to speak to Councillor stockwell's amendment? Councillor Finzel? Yeah, I think, thank you Councillor Stockwell. I think this is a critical and excellent addition. Karen Finzel 01:11:23.855
I think it gives clear direction to the staff and speaks to the matters that we talked about around, or I spoke about, around. Is this the right forum to do this? I think the addition to this amendment put forward by Councillor Phillips probably brings us that balance. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 01:11:41.005
Thank you, Councillor Finzel. I hope the councillors will to the amendment. Speak put the amendment those in favour. That's Councillors aye. That's unanimous. The amendment is carried. Go back to the original notice of motion to which only Councillor Lorentson has spoken. Any other councillors wish to speak Councillor Wilson. Nicola Wilson 01:12:06.394
Thank you Councillor Lorentson for bringing this motion to us. Perfect timing given the items on the agenda today with the consideration of the scheme amendments and reflection on that recent consultation motion process. I support the as we have recent examples of residents not being aware of proposed planning scheme amendments that significantly impact their land despite council following a compliant and very thorough process. A response from council to feedback on the planning scheme amendments in December 2024 reads in preparing Noosa Plan 2020 council sought to make the use of a dwelling house an inconsistent use in the medium and high density residential zones as well as the Tourism Accommodation Zone this was not possible because of legislative provisions council continued to lobby for this to be changed since amendments to the Planning Regulation 2017 in December 2022 local planning instruments can make the use of a dwelling house accessible development and in the medium and high density residential zones the general public would not have been aware that Noosa Council was seeking this change as part of the Noosa Plan 2020 property owners subject to a zone were identified and notified by letter there's for many the zone change didn't affect the allowed land use because the rates hadn't yet changed and therefore that meant little resistance however amendment 2 to the scheme changed the provisions within the high-density zones following the amendments to the Planning Regulation 2017 being enacted in December 22 the council had lobbied for so not the zone change but a change to what is consistent or inconsistent use in that zone for future development as there was effect no change in zoning affected residents were not specifically notified but this change was potentially more significant than a zone change as it can restrict the ability to build a house residents only found out through general consultation on the amendments and some still don't know they didn't have a chance to submit their feedback but over 50 people did object with individual submissions and 960 signed a petition how many more could there have been if property owners individually notified. Once the change to the planning scheme is implemented property owners have one year to make an application for development under the previous scheme this is a short timeframe for residents who didn't know change they need it within that year to find out about the change and then have the money and the experts available to make such an application under the superseded scheme. When Noosa Council is using new regulations to make a change that no other council in Queensland has implemented and has potential to significantly impact an owner's rights on their land, individual owners must be consulted and notified. A general consultation process is not enough. Residents should not be caught unawares on such significant matters. They should be part of the decision process. Sunshine Coast Council is currently undergoing community consultation on its planning scheme and memberships. Amendments, and I know it's a much bigger council with more resources, but their interactive website helps owners to identify whether their property is affected by the changes. With an interactive tool that has information specific to each address, the technology is there to support user-friendly information for those who want to find out which changes affect them, and noting again that would mean they would need to be aware that the process has happened. But to be equitable for individual notification must be provided where significant changes are proposed, there's a budget for community consultation and it must be directed to inform those affected. If we can find a budget to send out 40,000 postcards on the DMP, then surely we can write to every ratepayer about changes affecting. Property, zone by zone. Frank Wilkie 01:15:52.896
Thank you, Councillor Wilson. Can the councillors speak to the notice of motion? Councillor Phillips. I'm going to speak, Jessica Phillips 01:15:58.676
Thanks. I'm going to start by saying I'm really glad the community elected you into council, Councillor Wilson. And then I want to say thank you to Councillor Lorentson for bringing the notified motion and I'm going to speak to it. Firstly, I'm going to start with section four of the Local Government Act, transparent and effective processes and decisions made in the public interest. So the reality is not everyone reads council websites, follows social media, or can interpret lengthy planning documents. Other residents who are less digitally connected were left in the dark. And when people asked what did this mean for me, the fact they needed to rely on neighbours or petitions to understand shows that we fell short in the communication model used. Residents should never feel blindsided by changes that affect their property rights or neighbourhood character. Consultation must be genuine, easy to understand and accessible to everyone. In public commentary, residents from medium density suburbs like Noosa Heads and beach expressed surprise and frustration that rules for their properties could change. And it led to a stronger sense that consultation can be a tick-the-box exercise rather than genuine dialogue. And this is the gap where people in unaffected map areas showed awareness. Pointed out as a shortcoming in the amendment 2 process. And the true test of effectiveness is whether the average informed resident understood what the amendment would do. So given the evident confusion, last-minute awareness, petitions and the need for extension, it appears that the communication. Did not fully succeed in making the practical implications clear for everyone. We need to be committed, if we are a council that changes rules and touches people's homes and communities, that they are told clearly, directly and in plain language. That's how we respect our community members who pay their rates and deserve that level of service. Frank Wilkie 01:18:09.750
Thank you, Councillor Phillips. Just a technical error on my part, councillors. Steeped up. On my part, councillors. I permitted Councillor Finzel to second Councillor stockwell's amendment and Councillor Finzel was the seconder second of the original motion. So with your permission, I'll second Councillor stockwell's amendment. Mr Chair, I think it would be wise to re-vote on that. Okay, well, thank you so much. Well, we'll bring it up. We'll just pause this particular item and correct this technically. Brian Stockwell 01:18:52.456
Yeah, just technically it would make that vote ineligible. Yeah. Karen Finzel 01:19:06.453
I just want to acknowledge then that the CEO, thank you for picking up that technicality that keeps us all within our Standing Orders. Frank Wilkie 01:19:14.353
Thank you. So I put the amendment, which was unanimously endorsed before, again to the floor. Those in favour? Tom? Aye. That's unanimous. Thank you. We now go back to the original notice of motion. To which Councillor Lorentson, Councillor Wilson and Councillor Phillips have spoken. Anybody else wish to speak motion? Brian Stockwell 01:19:49.339
Since I said I wasn't going to vote for the standard of motion and now that I've made that change I'm quite happy with it. I understand the driver, what brought this forward and I agree that we do put a sharper focus on what the changes within any amendment that are likely to be important to individuals as being a driver for our future decisions so I'm happy to let it go through as is currently. Is in the motion. Frank Wilkie 01:20:17.670
Thank you Councillor Stockwell, any others wish to speak to the notice of motion? Councillor Lorentson you wish to close. Amelia Lorentson 01:20:26.055
I will I'll keep it brief there's a lot of discussion about whether this is the right forum and I just want to express a notified motion. Allows councillors, it gives us the right to bring what's considered an emergent issue to council. Emergent, what does emergent issue mean? An emergent issue is a problem or threat that arises and requires immediate action and attention. Consultation, when we're diluting or taking away property rights voluntarily from our residents, that requires immediate action. We have an opportunity to do better and this is, in my opinion, the correct forum. It's timely. We have the adoption of the amendments in front of us and we can't disregard the petitions, the submissions, the growing community concerning the people here in the gallery today. Their voices matter. I respect and commend the councillors on good conversation here today. This was not a motion to criticise council, it was simply a motion to allow us to do a little bit better and also pay respect those who. Have come to us and told us that they simply didn't know. Frank Wilkie 01:21:56.878
Thank you, Councillor Wilson. Those in favour? Yes, sorry, no, Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Wilson is now put to the vote. All in favour? That's unanimous. It's carried. The next item comes to consideration are committee reports and the there's a plan, amendment. I'm in number two is being brought to directly to ordinary. And as Chair, I'm aware that there's been a request for this to be dealt with separately, so I will move it. Seconded. I'm seconded. Councillor Stockwell. I just want to get our technology. I've got an internet connection. Brian Stockwell 01:23:08.640
While we're waiting, Mr Chair, would it be appropriate to read out the first item that comes before the planning? Scheme that's being dealt with. Frank Wilkie 01:23:19.831
Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. The first item was referred to the general committee, that was planning applications decided by delegated authority, and that Thank we're just waiting to get the motion up on the screen. It's very, very slow, I'm sorry. I don't know if you can hear me. Noosa amendment #2 sorry. It's very slow. Long. Okay. So, I'll move that and Councillor Stockwell has seconded it. Thank you, councillors. In 2021, Noosa Council updated its 2017 housing needs assessment study to address the local housing crisis. The review confirmed demand for residential dwellings in Noosa was very high. Those who didn't already own property may never be able to do so and that there was a mismatch between small households, one or two people in large homes with three to four bedrooms. The availability of Noosa homes for permanent rentals had decreased and rents had increased exponentially. Incomes and wages for many within Noosa were not keeping up with the rising cost of housing and living. Around 80% of homes in Noosa were large separate houses, often with only one to two people in them, with units and retirement living comprising the minority. Businesses and other organisations were struggling to attract and retain staff who couldn't afford to live in the area, causing some businesses to downscale or even close. COVID-19 and the royal commission into aged impacted the retirement sector, leaving operators with reduced capacity to invest in capital works, including construction of new developments for which they already had council approvals. The opportunity for additional social housing was found to be limited and action by council was deemed necessary before it could be delivered. The 2021 study recommended council adopt a Housing Strategy with actions to improve housing. Choice and affordability, including amendments to the Noosa planning scheme, those before us, advocacy to other levels of government, partnership with the State and community housing providers to deliver social and affordable housing, and with state and Federal governments to provide extra funding commitments. In November 2022, after Shire-wide public consultation, the Minister — Noosa Council endorsed this Housing Strategy to set actions to advance this towards delivering greater housing choice, diversity and affordability. State and housing providers are already in the process of delivering social housing, thanks to partnerships with them, and the State and Federal government are unlocking funds for this purpose. Former Mayor Clare Stewart. Rightly ended up councillors at the time, rightly described Noosa was facing as a housing emergency. It was unanimously agreed we would work with all levels of government, community and industry to do all we can to address the crisis. That's what these amendments seek to do. These amendments have more than seven weeks of community consultation and two state interest checks over three years. Changes are key to delivering council's Housing Strategy goals and the short stay accommodation monitoring reports recommendations. They provide for a greater range and supply of housing including more smaller and more affordable dwellings including tiny homes. The changes make short-term visitor accommodation an inconsistent use in our medium density, high density, rural, residential and business centre zones. This helps ensure more housing is kept for permanent residents and prevent further conversion of homes to short-stay accommodation businesses. In response to demand from churches and crisis service providers, the changes mean tiny homes and other relocated affordable housing can now be placed on community facilities and church owned land to provide temporary and affordable accommodation for families, women and children in crisis and need. The amendments will see part of the Tourism Accommodation Zone resumed to residential and centre zones so new development delivers housing for residents and key workers. The changes bring greater rigour to Noosa Business Centre zone development to create an integrated village, offering more homes and job opportunities. The amendments allow for a health and wellbeing precinct and Noosa District Sports Complex to support sports medicine, expansion of the Noosa Junction restaurant trading hours and they improve resident amenity by reducing the height of large sheds, close to property boundaries and urban areas like Tewantin. Tewantin, from nearly 8 metres high down to 3.6 metres. The deputy premier approved the amendments, subject to several conditions, to drive delivery of the variety and size of new dwellings. These included change, limiting duplexes and medium density residential zones to sites under 600 square metres. This means lots of 600 square metres or more in the medium density zone must house three or more dwellings, rather than a duplex. In response to community feedback, we had sought to make duplexes consistent on medium density lots up to 1,000 metres in size. The minister's conditions however will drive an increase in the variety and size of dwellings and ensure better use of medium density zone land, which meets the Housing Strategy objectives and ensures more dwellings in the appropriate zones. Houses will be in consistent use on land intended for units on medium density residential lots. Of megawatts over 500 square metres in size. Just on that, there are existing rights protections that means homes in these zones can be renovated and rebuilt to the same footprint. Rights to rebuild larger homes can be exercised by the superseded planning scheme. I understand this is a point. Sticking in this vast raft of amendments and I urge councillors not to throw out the whole package because of objections to one. We can address them through future planning scheme amendments if you so wish. The State changed planning legislation to late 2022 in response to housing shortages. The other Queensland council is currently changing its planning scheme Sunshine Coast Council is proposing single dwellings be an inconsistent use in mediums and density residential zones regardless of the size of lots. Amendments evidence our commitment to ensure enough land for housing plus greater diversity and affordability to meet Noosa shire's housing needs and state and post growing targets and lastly these change will us to follow through on our promise to provide housing to those who don't have a voice in this very public debate. The least advantage to people in our community. Those that don't have the basic human right of a roof over their heads. Thank you. Can the councillors wish to speak to the motion or move an amendment? I understand there's someone there. Councillor Phillips? Jessica Phillips 01:31:40.820
Thanks Cathy. That item F be added to read. As part of regular monthly delegated reporting on development applications, numbers and decisions. Include additional metrics on numbers of superseded planning scheme applications. May we have a seconder? A seconder. Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Phillips? Phillips. Thank you. So I want to thank Director Rawlings for helping me with understanding the intention behind this and one of the ways I try to get to an amendment is to explain why I'm asking for it in the first place and then we work backwards. One of the things that I was asking Director Rawlings about the amendment to was how I can easily explain to community where they can see the outcomes from the Noosa Plan 2020 and she brightly outlined how the Housing Strategy, housing wanted to report lots of different ways and I know it's there but one of the lenses that I tried to put through this amendment was how reports facing outwards to our community not inwards because I think the general consensus is council know exactly what's going on but it's back to what we've been talking about today which is that clearer communication and so the report already comes to us I understand with the planning applications but this is really to be a little bit clearer in seeing whether the intention behind amendment 2 is delivering the outcomes community so have been asking for so long. Frank Wilkie 01:33:28.573
Thank you Councillor Phillips. Other councillors wish to speak to the amendment I think this is a great addition Karen Finzel 01:33:39.473
Thank you Councillor Phillips for bringing that to the table today. I think that the more outward information for support of transparency and excellence in council I think I'll support anything that gives us further opportunities to engender trust in our enable them to access information easily. So thank you for coming back today and having the support. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 01:34:02.698
Councillor Finzel. Any further discussion? Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 01:34:08.418
Just to highlight that I think it's really important because sort of information does get lost in workshops and in internal council conversations. Having an idea of how many superseded planning scheme applications are made would actually just give us an insight into the effectiveness of the amendments. Also give us sort of a deep dive into how many people in the community want to retain their existing use rights and have the ability. You to actually make an application given how restrictive it is. So that insight is valuable to me as a Councillor and I think again highlights to the community that there is an opportunity to retain existing race rights through an application under a superseded planning application. So I'm happy to support and Frank Wilkie 01:35:13.088
Thank Councillor Phillips, you wish to close? No, thank you. Okay, put the amendment. Those in favour? Aye. That's unanimous. Thank you, Councillor Phillips. Any other amendments? Any other councillors wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Lorentson, do you have an amendment? Amelia Lorentson 01:35:32.705
Um, no, amendments. Brian Stockwell 01:35:35.865
Councillor Stockwell? Yeah, I'll speak to the amendment. Councillors, we're at the end of a very long process that has involved many thousands of hours of staff time. Community input and the expenditure of many hundreds of thousands of dollars. We're at the end of the process and I'm just going to set the context of our decision. Our decision is to make our determination whether the suite of planning scheme amendments the public interest. It's not whether we agree with one part or another. That time has passed. Those arguments have been had. Those positions were put to the minister and the minister has made his final ruling with conditions. We don't have any ability to appeal the decision of the minister. So it's a fairly easy decision for me because there is no doubt that the planning scheme amendments are in the overwhelming community benefit. No doubt whatsoever. Amendments will put in place planning centres planning settings and incentives to address the most pressing social and economic problem this Shire faces and that's the housing crisis. Passed that this scheme will facilitate opportunities for genuine affordable and community housing. There is no doubt that adopting these amendments would be seen to be a breach of our commitment to the public and to the State government. Not approving them is really an invitation to the State to come and interfere with planning in Noosa Shire more to achieve what we're meant to achieve through the South East Queensland Regional Plan. There's no doubt that not approving the amendments would be seen to be a deliberate breach of the ministerial conditions that were placed on us when we adopted the Noosa Plan 2020 and the reputational damage with that is unknown. There is no doubt that not approving the scheme amendments would lead to the potential for more significant legal appeals on key sites that are subject to those ministerial conditions and just one thing the passing of the amendments would actually free up the land transfer at the Noosa Shire business centre such that the council gets a transit hub and we have a million dollars worth of investment into revegetation to offset the clearing on that site land of our choosing. Cancel this. Councillors our job as we swore to do is to make decisions in the public interest it's not to represent big that on big issues is the we have to consider overall benefit to the community outweighing any disbenefits, and in my view, it is clearly the case. So I urge all councillors to support the adoption. Amelia Lorentson 01:39:10.020
The states in the middle of reviewing housing and employment targets. Can you explain what the State government's review of the South East Queensland Regional Plan involves and where that process is currently at? Brian Stockwell 01:39:25.560
Point of order has no relevance to the matter in front of us. Frank Wilkie 01:39:31.785
Can you rephrase your question, Mr. Lawrence, to make it relevant to the to this? Amelia Lorentson 01:39:36.745
In terms of future amendments, once the State finalises the new SEQ, regional plan, how quickly would council meet you and enter the Noosa Plan to bring it into alignment? Kim Rawlings 01:39:56.337
State have just announced a review of the South East Queensland Regional Plan that was only reviewed a year ago, 80 months ago. That process is just kicking off and likely to kick off with more early 2026. It's not clear exactly yet how long that review process will take. There's a commitment to collaborate with local governments on that review. Its focus is on housing, supply and employment. We have been advised of that and invited to be part of various very involved in the process, which is good. So once that is completed, then there is a process that requires local governments to ensure they're planning schemes comply standards. With regional plans. That can take the form in different ways. It depends on where local governments are at. If there are, you know, if you could start a new amendment process, if there are existing amendment processes underway, you can align it so. Really depends on where we're at in the next round of amendments about, you know, how quickly, when we would have to comply with regional plan changes and, yeah, it'll depend on the scope, scale. It's a little bit hard to really accurately answer thank you. Finzel: Karen Finzel 01:41:23.093
Yeah, just a question following on for that. What do you foresee is, you know, a risk if we do not Finzel: move forward today with these amendments, with the risk of states stepping over us and, you know, SPEAKER_14 01:41:41.712
Taking into their own hands to ensure we arrive at that South East Queensland plan. Is that financial risk, social risk? What risks are we looking at? Kim Rawlings 01:41:57.492
Through the Chair, Councillor Finzel, I think there are a number of risks that council should think about, and they cross a raft of matters. Both in terms of strategy and policy outcomes that the council have been wanting to achieve for many years around its Housing Strategy, around short-term accommodation. These amendments were not to be adopted at this point, those strategies remain not implemented. So there's a risk there about not achieving the outcomes that our there's a risk at that around you know potentially reputational risk around three years of work and more than three years of work to be honest three years in the process and the significant amount of resources and funding that council have invested in that in that work that you know be put aside there's a risk of unintended consequences there's a whole lot of nuance in this package of amendments and has been developed over many years around many things so not adopting on the basis of one provision or a couple some provisions has risks that debt we probably don't fully understand yet in terms of the potential developers landowners investors community who are one waiting to act on some of these new provisions there are some red type reduction elements of these provisions so they would not be implemented so there yeah there's a raft of risks there is a we have been able to and you will recall add to have our position to the State government that these amendments there are seek help achieve the dwelling targets in the current regional plan you know let us get these amendments in before requiring council to do any further amendments to its scheme because we you know we've made changes to increase potential so that's been accepted so far at the State if these amendments were not put in then I think there is you know there is a risk that the State will be more directive with us and you know I'm what exactly that could look like but we were definitely advised in the last regional plan process that it's okay for now but you will be required Noosa to look harder at how you accommodate growth and dwelling targets going forward if we weren't to you know if we weren't to put these amendments in place I think the risk of state intervention is it will increase Frank Wilkie 01:45:05.172
Ms. Pinzel. Karen Finzel 01:45:06.352
You Through the Chair then just in line with that we do a lot of benchmarking against other councillors it's common in our workshops in our processes that's critical information to decision making um can you uh remind me of other councils where the State has stepped in and said we don't think you're doing enough remember I think we did have that Kim Rawlings 01:45:29.993
I know it's a push but yeah so it does happen I'm just gonna have a little look on to the staff but I think it might have been redlands thank you redlands council put forward their housings approach and their amendments and were yet the State intervened and said no not enough not no yeah we'll take that and do that process for you so there was state intervention there specifically around housing. Amelia Lorentson 01:46:01.869
Just for clarity, are these changes being forced on us by stage. State? Kim Rawlings 01:46:09.805
No, these changes are not being forced on us by state but what we are required to do the planning schemes operate within the context of state legislation so the Queensland Planning Act 2016 sets up the framework process to for local planning schemes but ultimately a local planning scheme is it is a council local government responsibility but guided by state legislation both of the Planning Act 2016 the minister's rules and regulations and that outline the process. As part of that process any local planning scheme is to comply with state planning policies and to comply and align with regional plans so the South East Queensland Regional Plan. So no we're not being forced it's council's a local government's responsibility to maintain and amend its planning scheme and to keep it contemporary and responsive but in doing that we are required by legislation to ensure it aligns with state policy and that it aligns with regional planning. Karen Finzel 01:47:25.480
Just to refresh my memory and I know it was raised at the p.m. Home that may have missed that. What is the process for residents and landowners to help mitigate risk of where they feel that they haven't been heard or their future planted? What is the process around the application to make under the pre-existing planning scheme? Richard MacGillivray 01:47:59.791
Through the Chair, happy to answer that question, yes, so there is a process called superseded planning scheme request that can be lodged. There's a 12-month window from the date the amendments are adopted for a person to make a request. Council 30 business days to assess that request and that request essentially is to be lodged an application under the former superseded planning scheme. So there's a 12-month window from the date of the decision of that superseded planning scheme request there is a further six-month period for the supported if approved there's a further six months for that person to then launch their development application for that particular development type. Does that answer the question give you so there's essentially a an extra 12 month window to be to launch an application under this what's the superseded application so you can keep yeah you can apply under the former scheme does that assist that's question please Karen Finzel 01:49:04.045
Just to clarify then say for example there's individuals that have like a plan a legacy plan for their family that they feel that this process mitigates their opportunity to actually do that like what is the threat or perceived threat of being able to achieve outcomes that may or may not be quite in the process or that it's the time frame is not applicable to achieve long-term dreams and outcomes that we all have with long-term residents that live here look at home and our land as something that's you know we want to see that thank you Mr Chair after putting me back into line Richard MacGillivray 01:49:52.018
And I will try and give you a short answer to that essentially properties that are already established and developments established has what's called existing use rights so the amendments don't have any impact on existing development that's established so there's no impact there it's really about if a person that's wanted to utilise provisions in the current scheme the superseded scheme have a 12-month window to a lodger request to be considered under that so they have an ability to exercise those rights if they feel like it's in their interest to lock in a framework or future development rights under a former scheme they can do that through a superseded planning scheme request and they'll be assessed on its merits and then there's a period of time for that development application to be lodged but I'll probably leave Director Rawlings to talk more so around the I guess the purpose of the scheme changes are designed to meet obviously the future scheme requirements so does that give you enough clarity Councillor Frank Wilkie 01:50:54.656
Yes just a follow-up question on that there's you mentioned someone probably only could use the superseded planning scheme application process if they wanted to increase the size and scale their property but there's also other rights that they have if they want to use the existing footprint could you expand on that please Richard MacGillivray 01:51:16.692
Yes Through the Chair yes so as I mentioned earlier around existing use rights so once a dwelling house is established essentially if for example there's a minor want to make to the existing dwelling house or for example in the event of a fire for example the house is burned to the ground and you need to rebuild like for like you can do that under existing use right so the dwelling house is established as a as its guess if you look to change the material scale of that property significantly it may need a development application and will be assist under the new provisions at that time Frank Wilkie 01:51:54.156
Thank you Amelia Lorentson 01:51:59.597
A follow-up question so under a superseded planning scheme application we've got 12 month to watch council says yes or no you can or can't but there's also another requirement and can you clarify the currency period my understanding is you've got two years to actually build or substantially the property Richard MacGillivray 01:52:22.057
Through the Chair yes so there are current what we call currency periods so once a decision is made and let's say in the example a superseded planning scheme request is approved there's a further six month period to lodge that development application once that development application is approved and for example if it relates to a dwelling house there's a two-year currency period generally attached which a person to substantially commence the works in that period and for other types of development where a Material Change of Use is approved it can be up to six years so but for dwellings generally it's a two-year period Frank Wilkie 01:53:02.002
Speak to the motions Amelia Lorentson 01:53:02.922
Just a just a question, I'm going to go back to the review of the South East Queensland Regional Plan. So if the state's in the middle of and employment targets, my question is should we be waiting for that direction given that what we're approving today is potentially positional amendments? Kim Rawlings 01:53:27.952
So just to be clear there is an existing southeast regional South East Queensland regional plan that we are required to align with and new dwelling targets that came in last year so these given the lag time of these amendments we're still adjusting to that to the current regional plan. State are not in the middle of a regional plan review they've just announced a regional plan review just announced so we're just getting we've just had two meetings about it to understand the process and the timing there's a lot to happen before that process you know kicks off and is in train so there's an existing southeast regional plan that we have to comply with these planning scheme amendments do that. Frank Wilkie 01:54:16.328
Thank you for that Karen. If the councillors wish to offer an opinion on the amendments. Councillor Phillips. Thank you. Jessica Phillips 01:54:31.209
Okay, so like many of you, or actually all of you at this table, I want to see more housing options that are affordable, diverse and suitable for our residents. I agree the Mayor about the fundamental right of having a roof over your head. I also for our workers and our families. And it's years of holding a very respected hard planning line from this council that has contributed both positively and potentially negatively exactly where we are today. So my concern is not with the aims of the amendment package, but with its substance and process. So let me outline why today I can't conscious support Amendment No. 2. And the issues that led to oppose this amendment initially have not been addressed enough for me to support it today. We heard loud and from residents that they were worried clear about certain changes. They feared for their property rights, their neighbourhood character, and whether these measures might actually make things worse. In response, where it's substantial modifications made to assure those worries, I don't feel they were. The core components of the amendment package remain as they are. And yes, there were some tweaks during December deliberations but since then, no further refinements as Councillor Stockwell suggested from the State. The package fundamentally is unchanged from the one that I voted against last year and my position was not arbitrary. It was based on the principle and evidence. Year or like they're all nothing in the interim has provided me with new clarity about the solutions that would justify a different outcome today. For decades this council has kept the dial in the environmental corner conservation that has defined Noosa as we see it today. If we keep it fixed there, we can also risk the very thing that we set out to protect. The truth is we can't afford to do this without community support. And right now locals are being priced out, families are leaving and the people replacing them actually have no lived history of decades of work that actually built this place. That is the unintended consequence unless we restore a balance between the environment and keeping Noosa livable, we will actually fail at both. I've voiced it before and I'll voice it again that I do feel this amendment package could create more problems than it solves because we see capital works roll over year after rollover year and I've yet to see the infrastructure plan that genuinely addresses what the potential new residents moving into new homes and I just can't put the cart before the horse. Council's already approved two new hotels in Noosa Junction, yet where is our commitment to fix the traffic network in and out of that precinct? Where is the plan? For waste and roads because the community have already told tell me in residential streets that they've been used for rat racing there are no projects to slow and calm traffic until those basic that until those basics are addressed alongside these by these plannings, amendments, I can't feel comfortable that the unintended consequence could be more obvious more cars more people and fewer core council services delivered to community Councillor Stockwell talked about reputational damage and I couldn't agree more maintaining and finally that's my most important part because it comes down to my integrity both mine and council's because last time I cast no to these amendments and I articulated those reasons and the reasons haven't been remedied so if I simply switch to yes then what would that say it would imply that my prior objections were hollow or merely political and they weren't so I meant what I said my foremost duty of Noosa Shire to ensure changes of this magnitude. Right by them. Consistency in service of good, of public good, is a virtue, not a vice. Councillors around this table, this position holds responsibility because we warm the seat. I urge you to consider this above everything else, the long-term trust in this council. We vote this through today I fear my biggest my biggest fear is that we may win a short-term housing victory on paper but we will lose more of an eroding public's faith in us and that to me is more costly. So therefore I'm going to absolutely respect the work that has gone in and that is why it is more challenging than I was expecting to stand up today. I oppose amendment 2 as it stands and let's go back as a group of leaders here at the table with our staff and our community. Industry experts and craft a legacy plan that we can all be proud of. One that delivers real outcomes without compromising the principles that makes Noosa so special. Frank Wilkie 02:00:13.115
Very close to five you did a good job, thanks. I hope all the minutes from last time I go under up my sleeve. Okay, any other councillors wish to speak to the motion before us? I'll speak. Councillor Wilson? Nicola Wilson 02:00:30.503
I may need to request a little bit of leniency on the five minutes, please. Number two. Amendment to facilitate improved housing security, choice, diversity and affordability, and establish a pathway for affordable housing. Unfortunately, I don't believe the amendments can deliver on that promise, as key provisions can't be implemented due to financial viability. Therefore, if the housing outcomes can't viably be achieved I don't think this package is in the public interest. I have three major concerns: dual occupancy on 600 square metre blocks, dwelling houses being inconsistent on 500 square metre blocks, and the bonus provisions for affordable housing. My first concern is the minister's condition that dual occupancy be inconsistent on lots greater than 600 square metres. This was originally proposed in the of a amendments advertised for public consultation and resulted in strong opposition. Council officers responded as follows in December 2024. The scheme amendments were drafted nearly two years ago and were based on a 600 square metre site relatively free of constraints. However construction costs have increased exponentially since 2021 as have land costs. Also making dual occupancies inconsistent requires a minimum of three dwellings. This would now most likely not be feasible, possibly rendering those sites undevelopable individually. It is now recommended that dual occupancy be inconsistent on sites of 1,000 m2 or more. How can community feedback and officer recommendations? What is the point of community consultation if they can't change the outcome? How can a minister condition a provision that staff determine can't now be feasibly implemented and where no other council has this rule? My second concern, if it is not financially viable to build three units on a 600 square to build two homes on a 500 square metre 500 square metre block? Restricting single dwelling houses on smaller blocks could mean that no development occurs and older homes won't be replaced. Community feedback on this issue also with over 50 submissions and a petition of 960 signatures and that's just the people who knew about it. Noosa is known for its low density coastal laid-back lifestyle, our fierce protection of our two three storey limits and resisting over development. Yet today we could be the first Queensland council to make a dwelling house inconsistent on blocks as small as 500 square metres in favour of units. How is that Different by Nature? Sunshine Coast council's current planning scheme amendments propose a dwelling house is inconsistent in the medium density zone. Agreed. But their medium density zone is characterised by buildings of three to six storeys, which we don't allow in Noosa. They have also introduced a new zone called low to medium density which is more akin to our medium density zone. Characterised with low-rise buildings mainly one to two stories up to three in some locations. Diversity of lot sizes including small lots. Dwelling houses and dual occupancy are expected land uses in this zone. Not inconsistent, expected. Gold Coast, Logan and ipswich allow houses in their medium density zone and we know they're very different from Noosa. Logan has had recent plan changes. Noosa Council sought changes in the Planning Regulation 2017 to make houses inconsistent in certain zones and this came to fruition in December 22, would not have been aware this process was happening. In these amendments residents were not specifically notified because there was no rezoning, just a significant change to the land use allowed in the zone. I can't support Noosa being the pioneers of a provision that I consider unfair to residents. My third concern is the bonus provisions offered for development of affordable housing. In the amendments advertised last year, there were mandatory provisions around small dwellings and a proposed redefinition to 75 square metres. Raised out whether these provisions were financially feasible or acceptable to the market and officers recommended retaining the current small dwelling definition at 100 square metres and making the small dwelling bonus provisions opt-in rather than mandatory with the following justification. The circumstances around providing affordable rental accommodation are no longer as favourable as they were when amendments were drafted. Therefore, to ensure the supply of small dwellings continues where it's financially and physically viable, it's now recommended that the provision of small dwellings remain optional. Essentially, the path to affordable housing became less clear. The bonus allows a potential fourth storey where the residential component is entirely small dwellings and a minimum of 20% of residential gross floor area is affordable rental premises. As another year has now rolled by, these proposed bonus conditions can be met in this market, particularly using the gross floor area as the denominator rather than the number of units as the State does in the SFD process. I believe this needs to be reviewed and tested before adopting such a provision. Otherwise, goal of providing affordable housing in the junctionless civic can't be met under the scheme. If these provisions don't actually allow the intended housing supply outcomes to be achieved, I can't support adopting the package even though I support most of the other amendments. If the only answer is to make further changes through a new process in the future, why adopt now if we know that it's going to need to change. Frank Wilkie 02:06:35.560
Thank you, Councillor Wilson. May the Councillor wish to speak. Larson? Amelia Lorentson 02:06:44.393
Um. I will and I think everyone already understands my position. I made that clear at the Planning & Environment Committee and also during our first discussions when the draft first came to council. I want to just talk a little bit about risk. I understand the risk if council doesn't adopt this. The Amendment No. 2. We all know and respect the use of work, resources and consultation that's gone into this process. We understand there could be reputational impacts and even the possibility of state intervention. Those risks are real, but the bigger risk to me is what happens if we adopt the provisions. Amendment No. 2 uses in my opinion a blunt instrument that strips away property rights, reshapes neighbourhoods and risks undermining community trust. That's a far greater cost than having to reset the process. At the heart of this is the rigid 600 square metre threshold in the medium density residential zone. Those lots, on lots under 600 square metres in those zones, dwelling houses can be built on lots less than 500 square metres. Where a dwelling house is allowed a secondary dwelling. May be included as part of the dwelling house. Geolock occupancy can only 600 square metres. And they can't be built on lots that are greater than 600 square metres. Only multiple dwellings can be built lots on what 600 square metres or greater meaning three or more or more dwellings. To me this approach wipes out choice. Families on small lots lose the ability to do what they want on their properties. And families on larger lots are pushed towards bulky, high density developments that change the character of entire streets. In both cases, the flexibility and rights people value today is gone. The problem isn't the intent. The intent is good and we all support the intent. The problem, as I see it, is just the lack of flexibility. Already use incentives elsewhere in the planning scheme like bonus floor space for smaller dwellings. That's a balanced approach because it encourages outcomes without removing choice. This amendment does the opposite. It forces everyone into one model whether they want it or not and it's important to note as we heard around the table today that this isn't being forced on us by state yet here we to be the only council in Queensland to remove this right. That is not necessary and it is not in the best interests of our community. Our residents have told us loud and clear they don't want this. They signed petitions, they made submissions and they spoke up at every opportunity. If we push ahead regardless, we don't just poor planning outcomes, we risk losing their trust. I support many elements of the amendment package but this provision is too blunt, too restrictive and too costly for our community. The risk of saying no are real, but the risk of saying yes, the permanent loss of property rights, the loss of flexibility for families and the erosion of neighbourhood character are far greater. My responsibility as a Councillor is to protect those rights, not give them away. And for that reason, I cannot support the recommendation in front of us. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 02:11:10.320
All right. Any other councillors wish to speak to the amendments? I'd like to speak. Councillor Finzel? I don't know what to say. Yeah, Councillor Finzel? Karen Finzel 02:11:21.440
Uh, yeah, this is, um. I think the all or is nothing approach has been a big challenge for all of us. Doesn't give us the opportunity to. Excise something out and look at that, and, um. So the decision before us today is all or nothing. Um, so I don't feel comfortable with that, and I'm sure I can only speak for myself. As leaders in our community that we are elected here to facilitate change, to listen to our communities, and sometimes make difficult decisions about our future. We need to have confidence in our abilities to respond through adaptive leadership and the challenge with it and I think lays before us today is finding that balance with judiciary requirements listening to our community. We've heard around the table today some of the process around comms, how we reached out. Yes there's always room for improvement. Every time we have a decision before us I look at the lens to go how can how can we make that better? In my opinion that's not fixed. It's flexible, it's moving, it's changing. I as a leader wish to promote purpose driven governance for the greater good. Around the table today I'm also representing those people that don't have a voice. Those vulnerable people in our community for whatever reason are left without home. Don't the financial means nor capacity to have a shelter over our head. That don't have shelter over our head. To represent those people that are living in their cars, living in our streets. A key takeaway for me as a leader is to commitment foster trust and empathy. To focus on asking the right questions and stretching your body. And stretching for the greater good. Leader that stretch for me personally comes to this table every time we have a major decision before us. They're not easy, each of us around the table can contest to the challenges when we commit to leadership, commit voice to our community, commit to change, it costs us. Personally, it costs our community and sometimes we don't always have the right answer to tick the box and go it's easy because it's not. We need to identify barriers for growth. As an organisation, as individuals. Develop new capabilities and sometimes, there's not a Roadmap for that. And that's where I believe we are here today. Yes, we can debate the technical issues which we have. We can take into consideration what lies before us. But for me as a leader, I'm called to advance the quality of life for all. Seek balance. And resources to find. A shift. Post COVID, we're sitting at an intersection of shift. Fundamentally here, across the globe, everywhere, as leaders, we are called to respond to that shift in a given place or time. I believe we stand here today. It is a time to take action. We've heard around the table the cost, the heart, what sits at the heart, how do we facilitate change, how do we find balance and that is our role as leaders. We talk about it conscious folk. How do I sleep at night? Because I have to make decisions based on the heart and take into consideration all the technical issues. Organisation and their expertise, the voice of my community and the impact for each individual on the decisions we make today. An easy decision before us. But my community voted me here to help create positive change, to elicit deeper thinking from those around the table, especially in an effort to challenge the status quo alongside organisational capacity to also assist in identifying systems that resist forward action. We all know how challenging it is in all of our roles, somewhere along the way we've had to deal with a system that does not always give what we ask for. I'd like to also talk about our beneficiaries which does sit at the heart of my decision-making. Giving voice to our beneficiaries and is from that the whole of the Shire, our entire community SPEAKER_14_b 02:17:09.031
To try and find balance and commitment to our community to the greater good. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 02:17:18.611
Councillor Finzel. Please stand. Councillors, I've done it again. Oh. Councillor Phillips' amendment was seconded by Councillor Stockwell. Who seconded it? Who seconded the initial. So can we go back to Councillor Phillips'. I'd like to apologise. We were dealing with system issues. No, that's not your fault. That's my failing entirely. I'm happy to second, Councillor, thank you. And Councillor Lorentson will second that. Nicola Wilson 02:17:53.958
So can we--- Can she? Frank Wilkie 02:17:55.958
Yeah, 'cause we're talking about the motion moved by myself and Councillor Stockwell. Delegated authority. Not the notice of motion. It's consistency in the--- Yes, I'm really sorry about that, councillors. So, can we put that to the vote again? Those in favour? Tom? Aye. It's passed. Thank you. Now, the only Councillor who's not spoken to the motion is Councillor Wegener. Councillor Wegener, do you wish to speak to the motion? No, well, thank you. I spoke at the T and E. Okay. All right, I'll close. Councillors, this is a pivotal decision and I appreciate that every Councillor is voting according to their conscience. I would just encourage dissenting councillors to consider the breadth of this package of amendments. I respect that the focus very much. Some of you, is on one aspect of it, which particularly pertains to changes affecting the medium density residential area zones and the rights of property owners there who may have houses there or wish to build houses there. Those rights are protected. They have existing rights, say they have a house on site. Is already 50% site cover. If they want to make some changes, they can rebuild to the same size without too much of an effort. If they want to build substantially larger than that. They will not be a superseded planning scheme application. They have to make application within 12 months. If they lodge the application by 11 months, they've got another six months Grace there. Then they get a two year approval process. The currency period may be extended. Their rights are protected. An argument about why adopt if there are changes coming. My question is why reject a whole package of objection through a change later on. There are so many people depending on these changes. Principally it follows through on our commitment to do our part in enabling a housing, greater supply of smaller dwellings. To further limit the spread of short-term accommodation businesses through our residential neighbourhoods. To enable positive changes at the Noosa District Sports Complex. To limit the appearance of 8 metre high sheds on residential boundaries in Tewantin. Councillors, the talk about, there was a lot of talk about trust. And if we don't approve these amendments, that's when trust in this council, not only in its promises, but also its capacity to deliver, will be severely damaged. If not adopted, any strategic aim behind these amendments about the short-term monitoring report and our Housing Strategy will be lost. The capacity to build tiny homes on church and community land will be affected. Shall our business centre objectives? The State government as we heard may view failure to adopt as a lack of commitment to regional plans or housing supply targets. It could state intervention or use of a ministerial direction to impose amendments relating to housing such as increased densities or height limits. There is the risk of wasting the considerable investment of rate payer funded staff time, consultancy fees, community engagement resources over three years. Would have been wasted. We need to consider the impact of rejection of this work will have on staff wellbeing, commitment and effort over many years, confidence in this group of representatives. There may be reputational impacts that the community perceives at the process and our commitment as a wasted effort and a waste of ratepayer funds. Some of the amendments were about reducing red tape on dwelling houses and the opportunities to streamline these processes will be lost. Non-adoption could generate backlash from those in the community and industry who supported the amendments or are waiting to act on the development of investment decisions. Councillors this package of amendments has been long awaited. It's broader than what we're proposing to do in the medium density residential zones where the changes, people affected by the changes do have existing use rights and their rights are protected by a process. There is, we are all humans, we're dealing in human systems, there is nothing that's perfect. Please don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good or a narrow focus and a narrow focus make us lose sight of the bigger objective that we're trying to achieve here it is difficult. And I respect the individual perspectives around the table. I ask those that are considering dissenting to consider supporting this amendment package of amendments and then having the discussion later on through future planning amendments scheme amendment processes to address any issues that they see as still outstanding. Thank you. I put the motion to the vote. Those in favour? Councillor Stockwell, Councillor Finzel, Wilkie, the motion's is carried. Councillors, we've been going for a few hours. We'll finish the Planning & Environment Committee recommendations. 11.1, right? Oh, those against? Sorry, Councillor Wilson, Councillor Phillips, Councillor Lorentson. The motion's carried. Thank you. I need a coffee. We'll go to 11.1.3, en bloc. We have a mover and seconder for the to be adopted, except we're dealt with separately. Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. I second. Seconder, Councillor Phillips. All in favour? That's carried unanimously. Councillors, we will have a 15-minute adjournment for a comfort break and we'll be back. Frank Wilkie 02:44:55.500
Okay, welcome back everybody. We're live again. We're up to item 11.2, Services & Organisation Committee Recommendations. First one is 11.2.1. Was the 2025 annual disaster management report. 11.2. The Noosa Botanic Gardens master plan. 11.2.3 is the Noosa cultural plan adoption. 11.2.4 is a review of the Audit and Risk Committee Charter and review of the Internal Audit Policy. 11.2.5 is the Services & Organisation services committee recommendations. I have a move and a second. I'll move. Whoa. And that was Councillor Finzel first. Ding, and Councillor Wilson behind by a whisker. All in favour? That's the adrenaline storm going on. That's carried. Now we come to the general committee recommendations. The first was the planning applications decided by delegated authority in July 2025.11.3.2 is the Financial Performance Report for August. 11.3. The proposed amendment to the Subordinate Local Law No. 5 (Parking) 2015 public consultation outcomes. 11.3.4 workplace health and safety annual report. 11.3.5 is the General Committee recommendations en bloc. I have a mover and a seconder. Councillor Wilson moves that and Councillor Phillips is the seconder. All in favour? That's carried. We have one report direct to the Ordinary Meeting which is the Tourism Noosa 12 month funding deed agreement and Roadmap status report. We have Director Strategy & Environment Kim Rawlings here to give us a summary of this report. Thank you. Director Rawlings. Kim Rawlings 02:46:45.091
Thank you. Through the Chair, standing. Yes. Councillors, is a report for noting. Um, in response to the decision that you made in May 2025 to authorise and therefore delegate to the CEO to prepare and execute a 12-month funding period of 1 July 2025 to 30 June 2026, um, the resolution also required, uh, the development of a Roadmap with Tourism Noosa, um, to outline future council expectations and tourism Noosa role, structure and future focus, considering governance models, benchmarking then a short status update on the road map. Frank Wilkie 02:47:50.008
Thank you. Questions, councillors? Councillor Stockwell? I'm happy to move the recommendation. Thank you. Moved by Councillor Stockwell. I have a seconder please. Second. Seconder Councillor Phillips, Councillor Stockwell. Brian Stockwell 02:48:04.157
Yeah so this is a, the forming and agreeing to the funding for this financial year was something we delegated to staff. I know there was negotiations and a number of meetings to get to a document that both parties were happy with and so I thank the staff for that. The key issue for going forward is that finalisation of the Roadmap and the feedback we get and our decisions on the DMP is running side by side with that Roadmap process so that we get a feeling from the community about the future direction and therefore what may be. The way forward for tourism marketing and destination marketing in Noosa. Frank Wilkie 02:48:49.718
Thank you Councillor Stockwell, Councillor Phillips, Councillor Wilson. Nicola Wilson 02:48:57.599
That this report is for noting and fulfils the resolution in May 2025 to authorise the CEO to prepare a funding agreement and this has just been recently executed in September. I raised a few concerns about the details in the deed and whether some of the priorities and KPIs are clear and measurable. As written I did seek clarification from the Director which satisfied my questions so there's more detail than was actually being presented in the deed but I just wanted to raise a couple of inconsistencies in our strategic direction. This deed briefly mentions his regenerative tourism and taking direction from the DMP where there was much more focus there but that is still in progress so not a council position as yet. The key purpose of Tourism Noosa is to maintain Noosa brand and the main marketing activity referred to is to develop an annual destination marketing plan to attract high-value travellers from intrastate, interstate and international markets which are all reliant on air travel to get here it just doesn't quite sit right with me when we talk about our goals for net zero emissions, sustainable and regenerative tourism and at the same time having such a focus on air travel. Especially this week when ZEN Inc. ZEN Inc. Is asking residents place to pledge to make one less local car trip walk to a local restaurant instead of driving a few kilometers and that's a project council supported with a grant meanwhile we have no way to really manage the daytrippers driving at say 100 kilometers to get here and we're asking TN to target high value low-value low-volume consumers that travel here by plane. In the DMP we're moving away from terms like high value which is based on the dollar spend and replacing with more values aligned. So I just want us to consider as we as we progress with the Roadmap that we really need to be consistent with the brand messaging strategic direction and our agreements that we have different partner partners. Organisations if we expect to change behaviour we just really need everyone to be clear what it is that we're trying to achieve and have all of our documents. Amelia Lorentson 02:51:17.181
Councillor Phillips. I don't want to speak. Just a quick question. In terms of the Roadmap, and I know that it was answered through questions that were asked by Councillor Phillips, can I ask in terms of the road maps, will we be considering an independent facilitator or consultant to lead the Roadmap process to ensure neutrality in transparency? Kim Rawlings 02:51:43.806
The Roadmap process is underway, and the report outlines the members of that of that group that are working through the Roadmap collaboratively, which include the council CEO, myself, the Chair of Tourism Noosa, a board member of Tourism Noosa and the Tourism Noosa CEO. We have appointed a senior and experienced project manager, and part of their brief has to is to bring a level of neutrality and independence. We also have mapped out in the process and we have at a point, the option to get the Roadmap peer reviewed by independent, you know, both in terms of governance or in the tourism industry or in destination management or in you know whatever it we may need to bet to at the time so we've just we have got that option if required. Amelia Lorentson 02:52:44.116
Question internally in terms of the Roadmap the KPI only requires completion of the Roadmap by November 2025. Should we be also including a recommendation that the Roadmap is implemented? Not just completed? Or is that expected? I think that's implied. Okay. Yeah. Great. And that the Roadmap is completed and endorsed. Frank Wilkie 02:53:19.444
Councillor Finzel? Just to clarify that, I can't find it in my notes, but there was Karen Finzel 02:53:26.284
Something that came before us that didn't have to be like what is it? Sorry. Endorsed? Scattered. Yes. So I forget which item that was. I just can't find it in my notes at the moment. That there was a mutual understanding that they felt it was far enough along that would proceed forward. Can you tell us a bit about that because personally I am really want to see KPIs given that through the campaign community made it loud and clear that you know about this money and for transparency and good governance you know our aim the for road map in my opinion is around providing that so I am a little bit concerned about the wording so I'm asking in seeking clarification Mr Chair from the staff to please clarify. Kim Rawlings 02:54:14.410
Council Finzel I think I know the clause you're talking about and it was in response to Councillor Wilson's I've got it yeah so it relates to clause 2.10 in the funding agreement which is attached to your report and that clause talks about that in the event the Roadmap is mutually agreed by parties so the collaborative team working team but not yet endorsed by the council by the 31st of December so there's two steps in the process we have to agree as a as a as a group and then recommend it to council and council need to endorse it but in the event that doesn't happen by the 31st of December this clause relates to the second payment the second funding payment now if in the scenario that the roadmaps reported to council and council say we would like some further information benchmarking peer review therefore that completion of the Roadmap is going to take a little bit more time the funding agreement allows for council still to make the second payment to Tourism Noosa to allow that organisation to continue to function so that clause specifically relates to the funding and provides a little bit of flexibility around if in this scenario that council doesn't endorse it at the first meeting there's still discretion for the second payment to be made to enable Tourism Noosa to continue to operate. Karen Finzel 02:55:49.556
So then I guess my question is how do we mitigate risk moving forward because from my opinion I feel the intent of the Roadmap was to have an alignment so that not in a position we're talking about ratifying funds when the Roadmap and the KPIs and all that. You know I thought the intent for my opinion was about that alignment. I think this is a risk and how do we address that. Kim Rawlings 02:56:19.856
That's absolutely the intention, but the risk and this is trying to provide some flexibility, that if you, if the council, and there's been circumstances where the council have said no we can't make this decision, we need more information, so it's just to mitigate that risk. But the intention is, my hope is, plan A, is that we meet that time frame and the roadmap's endorsed and both organisations are brought along the journey and, you know, that endorsement happens. We will be having workshops with councillors as we get closer to having draft Roadmap and as you know there's you know, the council is also talking to the Tourism Noosa board, so there are a raft of ongoing conversations and processes happening alongside this to make sure everyone's on the journey. No, Frank Wilkie 02:57:30.858
Thank you. We'll put it to the vote. Those in favour? Except we don't have time. Time's up. Item 13 is there is no confidential session. Item 14 is the next Ordinary Meeting will be at council chambers, 9 Pelican Street, Tewantin at 10:00 the 16th of October 2025 and I declare the meeting closed at 12:58pm. And thank you councillors for your attendance and your contributions today and your discipline and thank you to our friends in the gallery. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
