Noosa Council Watch

An independent, unofficial record of Noosa Shire Council — what council decided, what they closed the doors on, and why it matters. About this site

Running histories of the matters council comes back to, written by us from council's own record.

The Lanyana Way land exchange

Council voted 6–0 to pursue a swap of public car-park land with the owner of the former Noosa Heads Bowls Club site, thirteen days before a 208-apartment plan for that site was unveiled. What the public would receive in return has not been published. When a smaller housing project was proposed next door in 2024, the mayor fought it and it became an election issue. This one has barely been reported.

Last updated 2026-09-27

On 9 June council's General Committee considered a confidential report in closed session. When the doors reopened it voted 6–0 to pursue a land exchange: part of council's public car park in Noosa Junction for part of the 1.8-hectare former Noosa Heads Bowls Club site at 99 Noosa Drive. Nine days later the full council adopted it 7–0, in a block of committee recommendations.

Thirteen days after the committee vote, three developers unveiled a $300 million plan for 208 apartments on the bowls club site.

What council agreed

Lot 2 on RP889596 is 29 Lanyana Way, the car park and toilet block. The resolution sends "a 363m² portion of the existing driveway" to "the adjoining landowner" in "a market value land exchange", in return for "part of the adjoining land". It proceeds without tender, on the basis that "the consideration comprises land exchanged for land".

The chief executive officer is authorised to:

  • give landowner's consent for "any future development application" on the council land
  • finalise "Infrastructure Agreements" and "road dedications"
  • complete "the transfer of land interests"

Nothing in the resolution requires the exchange to come back to council before it is completed.

It does carry safeguards. The resolution "do[es] not commit Council to completing the land exchange" and authorises no transfer until "all required approvals, agreements and settlement conditions" are complete. It promises "no net loss of existing public parking". The proponent pays all costs, valuation included. The law requires council to receive at least the market value of the land it gives up.

What has not been published

The published agenda lists the confidential report's attachments as "None". The resolution does not say:

  • how much land council would receive, or where it is
  • what either parcel is worth, or who will value them
  • who "the proponent" is, or whether it is the landowner
  • how the parking promise will be secured
  • what the infrastructure agreements will contain

The site was always expected to give something back. In 2019 its then owner, Coles, told the State it "acknowledges its responsibility to deliver the road and public park (community) infrastructure on the site": a link road from Noosa Drive to Lanyana Way, and a public park. So the obvious question is whether the land council receives goes beyond what the developer was already expected to provide. The published documents do not say.

The development

Kilter Property, Frank Developments and Calile Malouf Investments announced their plan on about 22 June. It includes:

  • 208 apartments, 48 of them described as "Affordable by Design" and 48 co-living rooms for key workers
  • shops and a town square
  • a new road between Lanyana Way and Noosa Drive

No council document names them. The resolution does mention a "planned public road connection". No application had been lodged by 24 September. Coles bought the site in 2011 and described itself as owner in 2019. Who owns it now is not on the public record we could find.

Next door, a very different reception

In September 2024 the State used its new fast-track pathway, State Facilitated Development, on the block on the other side of the same car park: 2 to 12 Lanyana Way and 28 Sunshine Beach Road. That project was 195 build-to-rent units, "including at least 15 per cent 'affordable'", and the State, not council, would assess it.

It was a major local story. Noosa Today alone ran at least a dozen reports on it and a second State project in Tewantin between September 2024 and March 2025 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). Mayor Frank Wilkie said the State would not release the building height, storeys or parking, and asked how it would deliver housing that is "genuinely affordable".

It became an election issue. During the October 2024 campaign, according to the mayor, the LNP gave council "a written commitment … that Noosa SFDs would comply with Noosa's planning scheme under an LNP government". Its candidate for Noosa was former mayor Clare Stewart. Afterwards Mayor Wilkie credited opposition from, among others, "LNP candidate Clare Stewart" for the "welcome intervention". The new government made such applications cancellable and revoked the Tewantin one in March 2025. The Lanyana Way project has not gone ahead. No decision on it has been published that we could find, and in April 2026 three of its lots were listed for sale.

Council's objection was to process, not to housing: the project bypassed the Noosa Plan and residents' appeal rights. "We have said all along that we want to work with the state government and developers to reach a compromise that provides the housing needed, but in a way that respects our town plan," the mayor said. An application on the bowls club site would be assessed by council under the Noosa Plan, and a land exchange is a different kind of decision from a State approval.

Less than two years later, the picture is this:

  • The bowls club project is bigger: 208 apartments against 195.
  • It involves council's own land. Council has authorised landowner's consent for a future application, and the road connection it describes matches the developers' plan.
  • Affordable housing there is optional, not a built-in share.
  • The exchange passed 6–0 after a closed discussion, with no debate when the doors reopened.
  • It has barely been reported. We could find no Noosa Today report on the plan or the exchange. The launch coverage we found elsewhere did not mention the council land.

Council's own Housing Monitoring Report in August found that homes a moderate-income household could afford had fallen from 910 sales a year in 2021 to 31 by December 2025. Twenty of those were one-bedroom. The social housing waiting list grew from 61 to 95 over the same period.

Why affordable housing is optional here

Council's draft Noosa Plan 2020 would have required one in ten dwellings on the bowls club site to go to a social housing provider at no cost. In November 2019 Coles Group Property Developments asked the State planning department for its "oversight". Its submission asked the State to "Delete PO19 … to remove the requirement" and to "allow bonus height or plot ratio" instead. In February 2020 the minister's conditions meant, in council's words, that "Council would not be able to mandate a requirement for affordable housing" on the site. The records show that sequence. They do not show that one caused the other.

The site now carries an optional incentive: an extra storey for 20 per cent affordable rental housing, which must be income-linked and run by a registered provider for at least 20 years. The developers describe their "Affordable by Design" homes as "a more attainable housing option". No secured affordable-rental outcome has been shown publicly.

What residents can do

Whether an application is publicly notified depends on its design. Parts that are impact assessable must be notified, and submitters gain appeal rights. Apartments made up entirely of small dwellings in the site's High Density Residential zone can be code assessed, which means no notification and no appeal rights.

Staff decide most applications. One goes to a council vote if it draws more than 30 separate objecting submissions, or if any councillor asks.

The open questions

This piece is drawn from council's published record, State documents and the developers' announcements. Council was not approached for comment.

  1. What land would council receive, and where?
  2. Is any of it the road or park the developer was already expected to provide?
  3. Who values the land, and will the valuation be published?
  4. How is the parking promise secured?
  5. Who is the proponent, and does it own the site?
  6. Will the final terms be published before the transfer?

If you are involved, or can fill a gap, reach us through our contact page.

Sources

Council meetings. Each page below links to council's own agenda, minutes and recording; council's document links expire, so we link the meeting rather than the file.

Legislation:

Other:

Meetings where this came up

Elsewhere on this site

Every page here that links to this one, by section.

Meetings

Deputations

Development

Latest