Enhancing Future Public Notification for Planning Scheme Provision Changes

Frank Wilkie47:16

Okay welcome back everybody. The meeting is open again. There are no Mayoral minutes. We have one notified motion from Councillor Lorentson enhancing public future notification and Planning Scheme provision changes. Councillor Lorentson.

Nicola Wilson120:31

I may need to request a little bit of leniency on the five minutes, please. Amendment No. 2 seeks 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. 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 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 version of 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 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 be undevelopable, individually. It's now recommended that dual occupancy be inconsistent on sites occupancy be inconsistent on sites of 1,000 square metres or more. How can the minister ignore how can the minister ignore community feedback and officer recommendations? What is the point of community consultation if it can't change the outcome? How can a minister condition a provision that staff determine can't now feasibly be 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 metre block, is it viable to build two homes on a 500 square metre block? Restricting single dwelling houses on smaller blocks could mean that no development occurs and older homes won't be replaced. It. Community feedback was clear 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 and 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? 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 all 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. 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. Feedback raised doubts whether these provisions were 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 I've raised doubts whether 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 junction the 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 the 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.