Start of recording ¶
00:00:00 Mayor Wellington: Yeah, let's hit the button. We're about to record, everyone. And, John. John. I'm Brian. You've got Brian in shot. I think I'm 20 minutes. Yep. Yep. Okay. Well, it's been on 10.30, so I call the meeting to order. The meeting, this special meeting to consider the planning scheme is now open. We begin by acknowledging the traditional owners of the land that were gathered on, the Kabi Kabi or Kabi Kabi people and paying out as much as their elders past, present and emerging. There are no apologies. Everyone is present. Please note that Carl Billingham today is the acting CEO. Councillors, I only received in the last half hour the advice that the Premier is coming to Peregian today at 1pm-ish. So, if we're not concluding this meeting by around 12.30, I'm going to have to suspend it so I can rush down there. And do what I do. And then come back and we'll continue.
00:01:00 So, you might get a long lunch break if you're not finished in time. What exactly is it that you do? I don't know. Councillor Jurisevic: And make it up as I go on. Mayor Wellington: Now, Councillors, please note that some aspects of the material that we discussed today must be held in confidential session. This is normal procedure dealing with planning schemes before they're made public, of course. Particularly with regard to issues around zoning changes. One of the reasons for this, of course, is that individual property owners do not gain early understanding or opportunities to gain advantage before the material is made public. So, in that regard, all of the material except for the confidential material in item 3 will be made public on Monday when we go back out for further consultation. I remind Councillors, between today and Monday, anything dealt with in confidential session
00:02:00 remains in confidence. And in particular, all the matters relating to item 3 remain in confidence in perpetuity. Okay. The way I intend to deal with this today, because it's quite a messy process, unfortunately, but my suggestion is that we should deal with this today. Before the substantial recommendation is moved as a motion, particularly item 1, that we work our way through the report section, section by section, and you can ask relevant questions. Otherwise we'd have a situation where if someone moved it, they wouldn't be able to move an amendment later, and their need to move an amendment might arise as a result of the questions and answers. Fair point, Mr. Mayor. Councillor Jackson: May I clarify? Will that mean that the further report will somehow be moved? Will it be integrated in, or is that going to be done separately? Mayor Wellington: Yes. The further report will be included. It's a further report to item 1.
00:03:00 Councillor Jackson: Right. Mayor Wellington: So that will be integrated into it. Councillor Jackson: In there. Okay. Mayor Wellington: Yes. Councillor Jackson: Yeah. Thank you. Mayor Wellington: And once we've gone through the report section by section, we'll then come back. Someone can then move the staff recommendation or part of it, with or without any changes they wish to make, and then we'll work on any further changes by moving amendments in the usual process. So where necessary, of course, during this process, we may have to suddenly go into confidential session if someone wants to raise an issue with regard to zoning, and then we'll move out again and reopen the doors. So as I've said, thanks Ingrid, we'll deal with the further report as we work our way through this first report and before the motion is put, and that will be incorporated into the motion. Any questions on all of that? No. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Clear as light. To make it simple, should we suspend standing orders to allow that discussion to occur before a motion? Mayor Wellington: Well, I'd rather not end up in a debate while we're working our way through the report.
00:04:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That's what I was thinking. We suspend standing orders so that we allow the discussion, then we redo them once we go to the motion. Mayor Wellington: Let's see if we need to. I'm hoping that people can get the advice they need by way of questioning, and when we come back and work our way through the motions and amendments, the debate can happen there. But I'm open to the prospect of suspending standing orders if we need to as we go along. Is that all right with everyone? Yes. Speaker 3: Yeah. Mayor Wellington: All right. So we do start with item number one, and that is the proposed changes considered significant to the Noosa plan for further consultation. We'll work out... The beginning of this report is largely about the consultation process, so the changes don't begin until page seven of your agenda under 3.1, approach taken to short-term accommodation. Note, councillors, that short-term accommodation is also subject of report number two when we
00:05:00 deal with the local laws pertaining to this use. But let's deal with short-term accommodation now in terms of questions and information. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Question, Mr Chair? Councillor Wilkie. Could we have the Director of Sustainable Development and Environment just explain briefly what was discovered about existing use rights for people who are operating short-term accommodation? Speaker 3: Yes. Councillor Wilkie: Certainly. Speaker 3: Through the Mayor. Just to step back a little bit, if you'll let me, Councillor Wilkie, we, throughout the consultation process on the draft planning scheme... Yes. ...we received about 950 submissions. A substantial portion of those, over 500 were related to the approach Council had intended to take in the draft on short-term accommodation. So it was clearly the biggest issue. One of the issues that came to light through that process was that there was a number of
00:06:00 many hundreds of properties who've been undertaking short-term accommodation for some time. Noosa's had a long history of holiday houses and holiday homes. It's part of the fabric of Noosa. It's the trend of holiday homes, I guess, has changed over the last few years with the short-term letting platforms that have emerged. So there's been a proliferation of, which has resulted in the Planning Act and the Queensland Planning System responding to that and defining short-term accommodation as a use now. Whereas previously, it wasn't really defined as a planning use and fell under a range of other uses, including being able to occur in a home, in a dwelling house. So through the consultation process, we sought some clarity around existing use rights, which is a provision under the Planning Act that if you have approved existing use rights and
00:07:00 you've been consistently undertaking that use, that you enjoy what's called existing use rights. That legal advice confirmed for us that where there's a consistent pattern of short-term accommodation being undertaken in homes over a consistent period, that those houses will enjoy existing use rights. Now that's a substantial proportion, if not majority, of people already undertaking short-term letting in their homes across the Shire. So yes, we have had legal review, as we do, of all the Planning Scheme provisions, which have confirmed that dwelling houses, people's homes, if they've been undertaking short-term accommodation in a consistent way over a period of time, that they will enjoy existing use rights. Councillor Wilkie: And a further question, Mr Chair, if I may. Yeah. So that means that regardless of what changes are made here, they will not be required to
00:08:00 make an application to continue operating their homes. Giving over their homes to short-term accommodation uses. Speaker 3: Yeah, that's essentially correct with regard to the Planning Scheme. You'll note that there's another item on the agenda proposing a local law to help manage some of the operational kind of impacts of short-term accommodation. So no, they won't need a planning approval for the use under the Planning Scheme, but depending on where Council goes with the local law, they are likely to need to register through the local law process. Mayor Wellington: And perhaps, if you wouldn't mind remaining standing, as part of the answer to that, you might care to illustrate the difference between home-hosted and non-home-hosted properties. Speaker 3: Yeah, sure. So home, one of the proposals through the Planning Scheme is that home-hosted, where property is home-hosted, so someone's on the, lives on the side, and they share their house, they share a bedroom or a couple of bedrooms or a studio for short-term letting, that is
00:09:00 not caught up in the short-term use definition requiring approval, but in actual fact is considered what we call accepted development, and doesn't require planning approval. And that's essentially because what the Planning Scheme and the local law, draft local law, if it gets through, is intended to do is really about managing the impacts that can occur through these short-term properties. Which we've heard, through hundreds of submissions, that there are impacts on residential neighbourhoods. And we find that when there's someone on the property, if someone's living in the house, they're managing that. So the impacts aren't there. It's someone's home, and they're sharing it. So we don't feel that we need to be regulating those uses. So we've actually reduced the levels of assessment for those uses, and made that acceptable development. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Could I have a supplementary on that one?
00:10:00 Yeah, sure. Could you just explain the various definitions that might be triggered in terms of home-based business, depending on the extent of that home-based business in terms of short-stay accommodation? Speaker 3: I'm going to call on part of the ATEM. Speaker 2: Rowena? Home-based business is within the home of the resident operator. So it's within the home of the resident operator. It is not letting self-contained dwellings on their own, without a resident host. The home-based business will let out a bedroom, a part of a dwelling, if you like. So it'll let out, say, a bedroom and bathroom, and then they may enjoy common space as well. They're not going to have their own self-contained dwelling, and the host is always going to be on site.
00:11:00 Short-term accommodation. Short-term accommodation is where it is a self-contained dwelling or structure. So if you think about the Hinterland, for instance, if guests are staying in self-contained structures, such as cottages or cabins, those are short-term accommodation, they're not home-hosted. Even though the host is on the property, they're not in the same dwelling. They have separate self-contained dwellings. Back paddock or something. So it's not the same as a home-hosted. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And just to further clarify, there is a, I should ask, the table assessment, is that confidential or non-confidential report? Speaker 3: Not confidential. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. So we also have a reference in terms of accepted development for short-term accommodation in the applicant's principal place of residence occupied by short-term guests on one or more
00:12:00 occasions, four occurrences, occupied by short-term guests for a total of 60 days. Is that when the whole house is being let out when it's still a principal place of residence? Speaker 3: Correct. Yeah, that's correct. So that's just, that's anticipating the scenario where someone might go away for a few times a year and rent their property out, but they're coming back to it. Councillor Jackson: Councillor Jackson? I also have related questions. One is about the existing building. There are existing use rights. And that is, as I understand it, existing use rights go with the property, which means if one were to sell that property, the new owner will still have the existing use rights. What if a property is redeveloped in some way? They renovate, they extend, they knock down, build another house, you know, knock out the old house, build a new house. Does the existing use right continue? It's tricky. Speaker 3: Okay. Councillor Jackson: Thank you.
00:13:00 Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So your first statement is correct, that use rights under the Planning Act and the Planning Scheme go with the property. So if someone sells the property and that use has been established, the use is ongoing. That's correct. Councillor Jackson? It will depend. The answer to your second question, it really will depend on the scale and nature of the proposed change. And if it's deemed to be a material change, it will depend on the scale and nature of the proposed change. So that's a difficult question to answer categorically and probably needs to be dealt with on a case-by-case. Okay. Councillor Jackson: Yes, another one. You mentioned that if someone goes away, like for Christmas, and wants to let out their house for a period, that that is allowed. And as I understand it, up to 60 days is allowed. It says four occurrences. And I'm wondering, that four occurrences, I still don't know.
00:14:00 I'm trying to fully grasp, because let's say you go away for five weeks at Christmas and another time at Easter, does that mean that it has to be only four bookings? Or for example, you might have trouble getting someone for two weeks, and it would only be two days. And then you might have three days. So you could have two days, three days, four days, five days, and use it all up with four bookings. So I'm trying to understand that four. What that really means. And do you want to talk to that? Speaker 3: Yeah. Speaker 4: Okay. Through the Chair. There was a lot of submissions about the impacts, and part of the impact is the changeover of guests. So there was a lot of angst around, oh, which guest is going to be in the house this weekend or this week, and how their behaviour is going to be. So there was a lot of angst around the behaviour and what might happen.
15 minutes in ¶
00:15:00 To the property with who their guests would be next door or behind the property. So the impacts come when there's a changeover of guests. So we're proposing to limit the amount of changeovers. So that limits the impacts on surrounding residences. Speaker 2: Okay. Councillor Jackson: So that kind of thinking has not been applied. However, to the homes that have existing use rights or have perhaps a development application approved for use this short stay. Speaker 4: Through the Chair. That's correct. The existing use rights are just that. They're the rights of that property that they were approved under. The rules that the property was approved under. So the planning scheme at the time didn't limit the number of occurrences.
00:16:00 So therefore, those with existing use rights enjoy those rights. Councillor Jackson: So what about, okay, I'll stop that. So another question still related to the things you talked about, home-based business. I think we've had in the past something called a bed and breakfast home-based business. So I'm a little unclear whether this new concept that if someone has a short stay, one bedroom or two bedrooms that people use while they live there, whether that then becomes a bed and breakfast under the definition of bed and breakfast home-based business, or whether we're changing something in the way home-based businesses are defined. Speaker 2: All the land use definitions change effectively, given the new legislation we're working under.
00:17:00 So under the current NUSA plan, we have visitor accommodation, type one, home-hosted, which is what we consider the traditional bed and breakfast accommodation. Under the next planning scheme, because it reflects the new legislation, we're going to have home-based businesses include what we consider a traditional bed and breakfast. So it's a home-based business, and in terms of terminology, we might refer to it as bed and breakfast. So as I said, you are providing the guests with the use of part of your home, typically bedroom, bathroom type of thing. They don't have their own cooking facilities. You might provide them with food. You might provide them with breakfast or other meals. You don't have to. But it's not a self-contained line. So that is the use home-based business.
00:18:00 It's not short-term accommodation. It doesn't import up its definition of short-term accommodation. Councillor Jackson: So does that mean there's no change to the draft plan? That's already the way it's written? That's the way it's written. Okay. Thank you. Mayor Wellington: Councillor Jurisevic? Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. It's interesting point Councillor Jackson raised, and it wasn't one that I had anticipated until she raised it. So I'll just clarify. A property is rented out during Easter, September, Christmas, school holidays, and the triathlon week, because they don't like being here when all of that's in. They rent it out fully for those periods. So it's four times less than 60 days, and it's one occupant, or one rental. So it's four times less than 60 days, and it's one occupant, or one rental. So there's the two-week period, the two-week period, the six-week period, or whatever. And the week of the triathlon, that's only four occurrences. So that won't trigger any issues. But however, if they're on Airbnb or one of those online platforms, and there are multiple
00:19:00 occupations during that period, two days, three days out of a two-week period, that will trigger a different scenario because there will be more than four occurrences. Is that what we're... Is that my understanding from what you've said? Speaker 4: The Chair. Yes, that's correct. So as soon as that ceiling is encroached, so more than the four occurrences, then a planning approval would be required. Councillor Jurisevic: We've got a different definition to what four occurrences were from when we began, in my mind, sorry. Mayor Wellington: Anything else on this? Councillor Parton? Councillor Pardon: Yeah, go ahead. Yeah, Mr Chair, just regarding the B&B, I imagine the $100 registration fee that Council's looking to gather off the short-staff accommodation places, and that relates to the local law, of course.
00:20:00 But the question, I imagine the B&B does not have to pay an annual fee, are we just... The home tax business. Yeah, you would think not, but I'll just ask the question. Speaker 3: That's correct. That's right. Councillor Jackson: Councillor Jackson? Yeah, I do have some more. I've had a look at, I think it was Attachment 1 that had all the details of the tables with what changes to short-stay letting or accommodation. And I had a look at something called PO25, which is... I don't have the page number, though, sorry. Sorry about that. It's actually what appears to be the criteria for development assessment of short-term accommodation in a dwelling house. And it's got about A, B, C, D, E, F, G, it goes, and it's got a number of criteria.
00:21:00 The criteria are the privacy of residents, a likely increase of noise, scale of use, retention of primary residential function, impact on housing, and so on. Safety, impact on weight storage areas, impact on vehicular access. Reading the criteria, they seem vague, not exact. And I'm wondering to what extent they are really capable of objective decision-making when assessment is required. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you. As you know, the Queensland planning system is a performance based system. The left hand column that you refer to are performance outcomes. They are, let me use the word vague, I wouldn't call them vague, but they are to describe outcomes.
00:22:00 Outcomes. Okay. Outcome sort. And then there are various ways that people can seek to achieve outcomes in a performance based system. The right hand column provides some acceptable solutions to achieve those outcomes. Okay. So the left hand and the right hand column work together. Left hand, I think I may have got that wrong the first time, sorry. Left hand is performance. My apologies. Councillor Jackson: I think I said right hand. Left hand is the performance outcomes and the right hand provides a solution to achieving those. Okay. So those right hand are examples, not necessarily the only ways to achieve performance outcomes. That's correct. Well, thank you. Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: Just further on, that would be fair to say that each application is assessed on its merits and it's up to the applicant to put forward ways and means of dealing with those outcomes and what those outcomes are.
00:23:00 Speaker 3: Any conflicts. Yeah, that's correct. The scheme in many situations provides some guidance to say if you achieve the right hand column. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, it gives guidance but specifics can be put forward by the applicant in how they manage it. That's right. Thank you. There are alternatives. That's it. Cheers. Councillor Jackson: Councillor Jackson. I have one more question in relationship to the development assessment or development application for a short stay accommodation and that is cost. I understand there would be an application fee to pay to council. I'm not clear what other necessary documentation and therefore costs would be required as part of that application. Assumedly a town planner would have to be hired. What all is it that this application would have to consist of and therefore what sort of costing is it? Speaker 3: I don't know. Go ahead.
00:24:00 Speaker 4: Through the Chair. It will be the same application process. As we currently have, depending if it's code assessment or impact assessment. But generally speaking, they would need a set of plans showing, you know, the layout of the dwelling, some elevation, you know, just the general plans. A town planning consultant. I'm not privy to what the cost of that would be. And they would need some demonstrate how they meet those acceptable outcomes or performance outcomes. The planning application fee, I don't know if there's been one. Speaker 3: As councils have been advised previously, the new planning scheme and the new planning act sets up a range of new uses. Once the new planning scheme comes in, we'll need to revise our fees and establish fees for some of the new uses.
00:25:00 This short term accommodation is a new use. So a fee does need to be established for that. It hasn't yet happened. That needs to come to council for consideration. We have talked before that the dwelling house fee and the home based business fee is around $2,500 to $3,000. So I would anticipate. It would be something along those lines. However, that hasn't, they haven't been calculated. And it's still subject to council's consideration when the planning scheme comes in. Councillor Wilkie: And they last in perpetuity. It's one off cost. Speaker 3: Oh yeah, sorry. Glenn's just made the statement that a planning fee application happens once. Once. On your approval. It's not an ongoing fee. Yeah. That's just to get your approval. Councillor Jackson: Yeah. And just to clarify again, not, because I haven't put forward a development application
00:26:00 myself. So they need to hire a town planner. Speaker 3: No, they don't need to hire a town planner. Some people do. Many people don't. Councillor Jackson: They do it themselves. Yes. And they would need someone to draw up the plans. That's. Councillor Jurisevic: They would be available from development application to the house when it was built. That's right. Councillor Jackson: So they wouldn't need new plans. Speaker 3: No. Not unless they were changing something. Right. But most people would have house plans. I see. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, to clarify. And council from development applications from when the house was built would have plans online and plans available, would they not? Councillor Pardon: Most likely? Speaker 3: Most likely. Thank you. Depending on when it was built. Councillor Jurisevic: There are some gaps in the system. Speaker 3: Depending on when it was approved. Councillor Jurisevic: That's what I mean by gaps in the system. Mayor Wellington: Anything further on this issue? Can we move on? Moving on? All right. The next topic on item one are zone changes at 3.2.
00:27:00 Remembering that if we want to talk about specific zone changes, we need to go to confidential session. Does anyone indicate that they need to? So we'll go. We'll work our way through. There's some information here. The major centre zone, there are some notes of changes, but that's because ... Councillor Jurisevic: Yes. Sorry. Councillor Glasgow: Sorry, Mr. Chair. Councillor Jurisevic: Just before we go off that subject of short term accommodation, I just wanted to clarify something. Yes. Sure. So with regard to existing rights use of properties that have already been operating as short term accommodation, they won't need a planning application at any stage. So there'll be none of that. The only fee as far as those properties are concerned is the local law registration fee, which is waived for the first six months. Have I got that correct? Yes. Speaker 3: You've generally got that correct. That's correct. There's always a nuance within planning.
00:28:00 There needs to be a consistent pattern to establish existing use rights. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So there may be some scenarios. Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: But generally ... But generally, that's ... Absolutely. Thank you. I just want to clarify that in my mind that there was ... and for those that are watching online, that that's the understanding. That's right. Thank you. Mayor Wellington: All right. We go on to the major center zone. And specifically the Noosa Business Center. Now there are some noted changes here. They're on the public record and that's because this is not a site that's suddenly going to go on the market between now and Monday. So are there any questions about the proposed changes to the Noosa Business Center in the report? Councillor Jackson: Oh, sorry. Noosa Business Center being the ... yeah. Sorry. Mayor Wellington: Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The civic otherwise known as. Councillor Jackson: Yeah. I see. Councillor Jurisevic: The major center zone. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The center where a part of it is a shopping center called the civic and the rest is for business. That's right. The major business zone. There's a business there. I was using a colloquial. I know. Mayor Wellington: Okay. We'll move on to the proposed changes to Noosa Junction.
00:29:00 Any issues there, anyone? Proposed changes to industry zones. This is about changing the precinct. Councillor Jackson: Councillor Jackson. I think I have a question there. And just clarify whether it's something that's public. It's about caretakers. Yeah. That's public. Something I can ask about? Yes. I've read over the material about caretakers and it looks ... I probably would like to appreciate a comparison to how it has been in the current Noosa plan compared to what is proposed because I'm not really clear on that. Okay. That's in the industry zone. Speaker 4: Yeah. Through the chair. In the current ... In the Noosa plan, they're called ancillary dwelling units.
30 minutes in ¶
00:30:00 Their purpose is to caretake a non-residential development or use. They ... Okay. We're never envisaged to have multiple caretakers on one property in the current planning scheme. Councillor Jurisevic: That's my question. Thank you. Speaker 4: A caretaker is where you stay overnight, you provide security for that development. In the draft scheme, there's ... It's a separate use, particularly caretakers. And the draft scheme has been ... It's proposed that there is one caretaker in a development and I think there's 2,000 square metres or if it's within 100 metres of another. So its purpose is to caretake the property.
00:31:00 Its purpose is not to have a live and work in the same ... On the same premises. So it's not designed to have an industrial development. It's designed to have an industrial business downstairs and a dwelling upstairs and a number of those on the site. It's to caretake a property. Councillor ... Speaker 3: Sorry. Can I just add to that? Yeah. A further change that is proposed is in the draft scheme, caretakers were impact accessible. We had some submissions about that and we are proposing that ... To reduce the level of assessment to code assessment also in these chambers. Yeah. Mayor Wellington: So councillors, I'm going to turn it over to you. I'm aware that ... And you're all aware that we have a application before us we'll be considering next week relating to caretakers in the industrial area caretakers. Yes. And just remember that that will be assessed against the current scheme although the draft planning scheme can inform your decision.
00:32:00 It's being assessed against the current scheme. Councillor Drew. Councillor Jurisevic: So I just want to clarify for an example. It may be a use that operates 24 hours where somebody is required ... Yes. ... to call into that premises delivery that arrives at 3 o'clock in the morning perhaps and you need a caretaker on site to enable that and the knowledge of that delivery is arriving at some early hour of the morning. Is that ... Yes. Is that an example of where that might ... Speaker 3: Yes. That's a great example. Thank you. Its intention is to do exactly what Glenn said. Yes. To caretake for that property or the business based on its overnight needs. Councillor Jurisevic: So the ... Yes. Something else maybe would an example of that also be the brew house where they're brewing overnight and then if it's critical mass is that if alarms go off or something that there's someone on site to attend to some sort of a process that's ongoing on site. Speaker 3: Yes. Absolutely. Thank you. And our breweries do have caretakers.
00:33:00 Thank you. Councillor Glasgow: Councillor Jo. Could I just go? Oh, sorry. Yes. Just a quick one. Just to elaborate a little bit more on that going from impact to code, what were the parameters exactly about sort of enforcing that? Obviously, we're not trying to get a whole bunch of accommodation type things. Can you just elaborate where that kind of thinking came from, please? Speaker 4: First a little bit. Speaker 3: So the draft scheme proposed that caretakers be impact accessible, which as you know, councillor Glasgow is a very important part of that. So is a level of assessment in the planning scheme, which requires public advertising. We received a number of submissions to say you've got clear code provisions. If we meet those code provisions, it's a legitimate use in support of an industry or a property. You know, the proposition should be code accessible and we agree it should be. So it's, you know, we've responded to those submissions saying yes, great points.
00:34:00 It should be code accessible. If it meets the requirements. So that was really the thinking to say, well, if you, if you're meeting the code requirements in this situation and it's associated, it's legitimately a caretaker business, which is associated with needing to caretaker a property or a business, then the code provisions are strong and clear. Then it could be code accessible. Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor Elizabeth. Is it likely that if a development application comes before us, it requires a caretaker's cottage, that it may be an impact accessible activity anyway, that requires an impact accessible application? Speaker 3: Well, there could be a scenario, Joe, where if the use is impact accessible, then it could be caught up in that, but not necessarily. Councillor Jurisevic: Not necessarily. Okay. That's all right. Thank you. No. Councillor Jess. Councillor Jackson: Still on caretakers. The 2000 square metres and 100 metres or 100 metres from another caretaker.
00:35:00 That's correct. Is that, conceptually, I'm not clear whether that, is that for low, medium and high industry impact? And is it also, is that a normal size of the industrial properties, this 2000? Speaker 4: Through the Chair, the, the provisions are proposed to ensure that the caretaker, if you think about what a caretaker would traditionally look after in terms of a development, it's, it's designed so one caretaker is able to caretake a decent size property. It's not necessary to have two or three or four caretakers to look after or to provide
00:36:00 security. To a 1000 or a 2000 square metre size property. So the 2000 square metres is generally an average size of what we would find in our industrial areas. That was my question. Yeah. Councillor Jackson: And so I guess the other question I have, I, a long time ago when we first came to council and we began work on the new supply, I was approached by an artist who does industrial type artworks using, you know, I don't know, steel or something and he was saying, I can't afford to, you know, I'm a poor artist, I can't afford to have a house as well as a workshop. I would like to be able to live where my workshop is in like an industrial area. So is this still something that is feasible under this regulation? Through the chair. Speaker 4: Um, it would need to meet the definition of a caretaker.
00:37:00 Uh, there's, there's currently no opportunity to have a shop top house as such in the, in the draft scheme. It's called a dwelling unit. Uh, so that would need to meet the definition of a caretaker. So that person, there would need, need to only be the one caretaker on the site within the 2000 square meters, et cetera. Um, and then they, they would need to demonstrate that they needed to be on site, uh, to, um, for deliveries or so people for security purposes. Councillor Jackson: Sorry, I, I still need a little bit more explanation. So. So in these industrial sites, are we talking about, for example, there could be a place that has a number of, um, uses and tenancies on one large site, which are quite separate in activity, use, um, customers or whatever.
00:38:00 So are we saying that even though they're tenanted out to different tenants, there could only be one caretaker for the whole lot? Speaker 4: Sorry, did you have a question? I think we've got a question from the Minister, the Chair. Yes, that's correct. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Stockwell? Just a supplementary question in regard to the alternate definition of an accommodation unit being a shop top. They're encouraged or, or quite low levels of assessment across most of our business zones. Is that right? Business centers? That the factor could be doing, uh, the sort of business in one of our rural towns in the shop and having a shop front as well as the manufacturing area? Speaker 3: Yeah, that's correct. They are encouraged in most of our centres as a great form of housing, linked to businesses or not. So yes, that's correct. It's important that caretakers are seen, residents are seen as caretakers, residents, and not residential dwellings in industrial areas.
00:39:00 Our industrial areas are primarily for industrial uses, and we do find if there are a proliferation of residential type uses there, we have conflicts and reverse amenity type impacts. So yes, like Glenn said, those sorts of uses need to meet the definition of what a caretaker residence is, and there is, as you... outlined, there are plenty of opportunities for shop-top type housing in most of our centres. Councillor Wilkie: Just a little clarifying question, thanks Mr Chair. There seems to be a variety of... a range of gross floor areas allowed for the caretaker's accommodation, ranging between 65 square metres and no more than 100 square metres, depending on the zone. Could you just refresh us on the thinking behind that range of sizes? Yep. And GFA?
00:40:00 Yep. Speaker 1: So through the Chair, with the industrial states, with the caretaker, we thought 65 was an adequate size in terms of what they're there to do. In centres, it's a slightly different scenario where we're trying to encourage, I guess, smaller type dwellings and those types of things, where we have... That's one of the changes in the new scheme is to... We did have them at 90 square metres, and now they're 100. So we, I guess, to have a consistent approach, of the size of dwellings and centres, we've allowed a caretaker to be the same as a small dwelling unit. Simply because we do allow the shop-top housing and those types of things, so it was really just to have a consistent approach across the centre versus an industry zone. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. So, for example, in the low-impact industry zone, the caretaker's accommodation is proposed to have a gross floor area of no greater than 65 square metres? Speaker 1: That's correct, yes. So in the industrial areas, they'll be capped at 65 square metres. Okay. And in a centre, it's 100 square metres.
00:41:00 Mayor Wellington: Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Mayor Wellington: Anything further I'll miss? We move on to 3.4, which is overlays. Any questions with regard to overlays? So we're going to go to, first of all, the biodiversity, riparian, butters and agricultural land overlays. Any issues there? Okay. We move to coastal erosion. Now, we've got a bit of a chicken and egg situation here, folks, because this matter's being dealt with in the confidential report at item three, and we can't really deal with it in item one until we've heard the material in the confidential report in item three. If you like, we can continue to the end, we're almost at, and then we'll suspend standing orders and deal with item three, and then come back and conclude item one, if that's all right. Yes. Does that make sense? Yes. Okay. So we'll skip over coastal erosion now and look at 3.5. Any other significant changes? Anything there?
00:42:00 Anyone wants to raise? In that case, I move that we suspend standing orders and order deal with item three. I'll second that. Thanks. Seconded Councillor Glasgow. I'll put the motion. All those in favour? Thank you. I need a mover to move into confidential session. Move Councillor Jackson. Seconded Councillor Pardon. All those in favour? Thank you. Sorry, folks. We'll move into confidential session. Hopefully we won't be long, and then we'll go back into open session very shortly to continue with this first item.
45 minutes in ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
60 minutes in ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
75 minutes in ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
90 minutes in ¶
01:37:00 Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Mayor Wellington: Okay, folks, the doors are open. I'm going to move that standing orders be resumed. I'll make a second. A second of Councillor Jackson. All those in favour? Thank you, that's carried.
01:38:00 Another procedural motion which will be, when Cathy catches up, which will be that we deal with item 3 and leave item 1 on the table while we do so. So that item 1 lay on the table in order to deal with item 3. Can I have a seconder for that? Yes. A second of Councillor Pardon. All those in favour? Thank you. We now deal with item 3. The recommendation's on the screen. Anyone care to move it? I move it. Move Councillor Glasgow. Second of Councillor Jurisevic. There can be no debate on this. So I'll put the motion. All those in favour? That's carried unanimously. Thank you. I now move that item 1 be taken from the table in order that it be dealt with. Sorry, you haven't even written that one up.
01:39:00 Speaker 2: You mean item 2? Because we dealt with item 3. Councillor Jurisevic: Item 1. Haven't we dealt with item 1? No. I thought we'd finished it. Oh, I thought we'd finished it. Oh, that's right. I know. Okay. We didn't finish it. We did the questions. Yeah, we did finish it. Sorry. Sorry. Yeah, so I'm already on item 2, but we haven't finished item 1. Mayor Wellington: Someone care to second that? I'll second it. Seconded Councillor Jackson.
01:40:00 We've actually gone through all the items contained in item one. We have a staff recommendation. Does someone care to move the staff recommendation? We have a staff recommendation. Remembering that if they do, they won't be able to move any amendments. I move Councillor Pardon. Seconded Councillor Glasgow. Do you wish to speak to it at this point, Councillor Pardon? So that's to the whole motion? Yes. So if anyone wants to change anything that we discussed, they will now need to move an amendment. I'll give you a moment to collect your thoughts on that, if you like. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And just a question. Yes. If we are to, the tables of development are in public, so if we were suggesting changes to the table of development, that could occur in public as
01:41:00 Mayor Wellington: well? Correct. You were looking at the issue of short stay accommodation, whether you wanted to change anything there, Councillor Jackson, anyone else? Councillor Stockwell? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The only thought I have is in relation to short stay accommodation in low density residential zone. Staff have recommended that it be impact accessible and consistent. I suppose the question is, if councillors were of the view that there is adequate supply of that dealing with existing use rights, would the appropriate setting be to make it impact assessment and inconsistent? In the low density residential zone?
01:42:00 Mayor Wellington: Low density residential zone. Do you want to talk to the reasons as to why it is considered at the moment that you would be considering it? I think that it's not a good question. Speaker 3: I mentioned we got nearly 500 submissions on this issue through the public consultation. Councillors will recall in the draft planning scheme there was a proposal for what was being called a short stay overlay, which took a different approach in various locations to how we would regulate short stay. One of the more common issues in submissions was lots of submissions looking for a more consistent approach to how we treat short term accommodation across the Shire.
01:43:00 So amongst a range of things, officers have considered how we respond, proposing that the short term overlay is removed. From the planning scheme and that inconsistent locality based approach is no longer in the proposed changes. And that also was a consideration for us around the levels of assessment generally going forward that new short term accommodation should be impact accessible in the majority of the zones. Councillor Wilkie: Except for tourist accommodation zones. Speaker 3: Except for tourist accommodation zones where that type of use is expected. More expected than in the residential zones. Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor Jurisdict. Are there any other limiting factors within localities that may prevent an excessive number
01:44:00 of short term accommodation places in the low density residential zones from occurring? I.e. at one stage we did mention the thought of no more than so many in the street or so many in a... Speaker 3: No. No. There's no provisions that say you don't have this many. Each application will be assessed on its merits, case by case. And anyone will be able to apply for these. They'll need to meet the range of provisions. But there's none of those sorts of things. Councillor Jurisevic: Is that something that could be improved? I.e. one street has 20 houses and 15 of them are suddenly short term accommodation that could... A 16th one becomes a... The impact is considered in that regard or there's no... That wouldn't necessarily pay on the impact effect of assessment.
105 minutes in ¶
01:45:00 Speaker 3: No. That's not how things would work. However, the context of what's happening in that neighbourhood, in that environment, like when we were talking about... What's happening around the neighbourhood, what's happening on adjacent sites, would be considered through an impact-assessable development. Okay. Thank you. An impact-assessable development does allow for submissions. So the context of each environment, what's happening around the neighbourhood, what's happening on adjacent sites is considered in an impact-assessable development. But it's not... It wouldn't be that there's 15 here and the 16th's not considered appropriate. Councillor Jurisevic: No. But based on impact, I mean, again, all the... It has to be advertised for submissions and the like. And so from that, we could... A level of assessment could be considered... Or within the level of assessment, those impacts could be considered based on those inputs from the community. Councillor Jackson: Thanks. That's great. Thank you. May I ask in relationship to this, when I'm again looking at the performance
01:46:00 outcomes, it refers to D, retention of the primary residential units. It's the residential function of an area. So does that actually give some ability in the assessment to consider that the assessment needs to make sure there's a retention of the primary residential function? Speaker 2: I guess it does allow for assessment of a cumulative effect of, you know, how many of these are already in the street when you're doing an assessment like that. Okay. Thank you. Any submissions obviously have to be on planning grounds. So it would depend on what the issues raised by residents would be. They have to be on planning grounds at the same time potentially operating a local law that is managing some of those sort of amenity issues.
01:47:00 But yes, it does provide scope for consideration of a cumulative effect. Councillor Jurisevic: That's what I was looking for. Thank you. Mayor Wellington: Okay. The motion is before us. It's been moved and seconded. Councillor Pardon, you wish to speak? Councillor Pardon: Yes. Thanks, Mr Chairman. Yes, I do. Mr Chairman, the first thing I'd like to do is thank the staff with regards to the amount of work they've had to put in. And thank my councillors as well. We all know the number of workshops, I've almost counted them, over the time that we've attended. So to put this document together with regards to the staff's work, council's input, community's input, has been a massive job and they always are planning schemes. I mean, you're trying to, you're looking at the whole Shire of Noosa and all the uses across that 700 square miles of Noosa. It's a huge undertaking and task and the importance of it, especially some of the elements and
01:48:00 overlays. And if we look at some of those elements with regards to fire overlay, and I'll mention that one, that's pretty pertinent at the time, that council has to take in the risks with what's happened recently. So whether it's those overlays, whether it's biodiversity overlays, you know, massive job. And every time we do a planning scheme, I suppose, I've been here for a few of these days, we improve. Our information improves, the technology improves. So we get more handle on each block of land across the Shire and the uses of those blocks. And it's been no surprise, I suppose, almost a thousand submissions have come back from the community. And it's no surprise to me, and probably not some other councilors, well, Shortsay Accommodation
01:49:00 was quite a topic, I'll say. And I think when we go back out again to the public for the major changes or significant changes, when we go back out to the public, I think they'll find we've addressed many of their issues. And some of the submissions we've gone with completely. They made sense. And so we've taken them on board. I guess we'll see what happens now when we go out. And we might do some more research. We'll see if we can find them. Let's just see what submissions we get with regards to the document now, the plan now. But certainly, it's been a huge undertaking. I think in the main, do I support it all? Every bit of it? No, I don't. Do I think every councillor here supports everything that's within the plan? No, I don't. But they can speak for themselves. I have some sympathy or empathy, I suppose.
01:50:00 Councillor Jackson, I suppose. Councillor Jackson mentioned some of the artisans up there and some of the precinct approach we've done up there. I guess I was an advocate for that. We were looking at non-conforming issues when this council was amalgamated with Sunshine Coast. And we had a lot of creep through our industrial areas, non-conforming uses. And there was some proposals to go and kick them all out. And I was never going to support that. And I thought, in the new scheme, we could do that. In the new scheme, which we put together, there were some options to change a few things, because industrial centres have changed across the landscape, but certainly in Noosa, where we don't see so much big construction these days. We see more of the artisans and those type of people moving into those centres. So I think, in the plan, obviously, we've addressed a lot of that. And some of that live on top. I have a bit of sympathy for that. And it's arguable that one caretaker per couple of years is not going to be able to
01:51:00 take care of a couple of thousand square metres. But I know what staff are saying. The conflicts that could be set up if you fill it up with people and then someone is panel-beating next door, it could cause some issues. So I think there's been an intent to try and help and solve that. And I think the few people living in the industrial estate under those conditions, a few caretakers across, I think that's a good thing for security, et cetera. So I think that's a good thing. I think that's a plus. I think some of the measures we've addressed, I always talk about fairness and equity with regards to Airbnb, I think that it's sort of the first in best dressed to so to speak with regards to the existing uses and have some empathy for people in different circumstances now that might in the future want to do this, where they have to pay a fee and go through
01:52:00 an MCV. But I suppose you have to draw a line somewhere. You know, there's a social issue where we've lost a lot of our affordable, arguably, a lot of our affordable housing to short stay accommodation, push people back into the hinterland, other shires trying to look for cheaper accommodation. I think some of the stuff that we're trying to do, smaller units, et cetera, and set up in the plan, more opportunities for people to come in. I think there's a lot of opportunities for that type of housing, call it affordable, call it social housing, whatever. And I think as a council going forward, we'll endeavour to do more with our land with regards to those issues. But I think in the main, although a few things I guess I don't agree with, but in the main, I think it's pretty good what we've attempted to do. The outcomes we've got here, I think, will be in the main accepted.
01:53:00 Please all the people all the time. You've got to be kidding. It'll never happen. But I think we've got the guts of it here. Thank you. Mayor Wellington: Thank you, Councillor. Just for the record, I do want to make clear for anyone watching this being streamed or else in our archive, that the changes that we're dealing with here are significant changes. There are some other minor changes which are not being considered at this meeting, because they're not significant enough to call up a council meeting. So we're only dealing with a review in terms of further consultation. So we're only dealing with the significant changes that trigger that further consultation. Now, I do also want to remind councillors that in five minutes, I'm going to have to adjourn the meeting, I'm afraid. So I can go and meet with the Premier. Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm going to move an amendment. Councillor Jackson: Oh, okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I believe it is to item A. I think that the tables of development changes are in those attachments. And to include the words other than with respect to impact-accessible short-term accommodation
01:54:00 in the low-density residential zone, so if I can, it's attachment two, it doesn't have an attachment number. My screen just died as I was looking at it. Councillor Jackson: It's attachment three. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Attachment three. It says, where it says outlined in attachment three, other than in, include the words, other than. In here. Sorry. Yeah. So attachment three. One, two, maybe the, to endorse proposed changes to the draft new town, new plan considered significant, outlining confidential attachments. One and two, and.
01:55:00 Attachment four. The last two are going to be the most accessible short term accommodation, inconsistent in the low density residential zone. Mayor Wellington: Do I have a seconder for that? I'll second it. I'll second it, Councillor Wilkie. Councillors, rather than begin this debate, I think we might hold the debate over if you don't mind. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes. Mayor Wellington: I'm going to, I am able, understanding orders, to adjourn the meeting for good purpose. So I'll hope to be back here at 2.30 if we can reconvene at 2.30, please. Thank you very much, everyone.
120 minutes in ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
135 minutes in ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
150 minutes in ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
165 minutes in ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
180 minutes in ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
195 minutes in ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
210 minutes in ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
225 minutes in ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
240 minutes in ¶
04:10:00 Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. To consider changes to the draft planning scheme resumes when we get the screens up.
04:11:00 So we have an amendment, which we'll see in a moment, I hope, that's been moved by Councillor Stockwell. The invisible amendment. Speaker 2: I'm sorry, I don't know why it's going on. Mayor Wellington: Uh-oh, technical hitch. Get away from the warm-up. Councillor Wilkie: We can't see it, it doesn't exist. It's got a warm-up. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Riding his cat. Councillor Jackson: Oh, they're coming. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, get away from the warm-up. You'll have to explain that. Councillor Jackson: Yeah. Mayor Wellington: You've had lots of time to consider the wording. Are you happy with the wording, Councillor Stockwell? Oh, I can't even think of a review of the wording. I think it's... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: He's had plenty of time. He hasn't done anything about it. If you had an I before inconsistent, after accommodation, yeah, that one. I think that's what it is. All right, we'll remind ourselves of what it says. As far as the question is to start, does that read... That shouldn't say, and attachments...
04:12:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Can you implement that? Speaker 2: You could implement that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: All right, care to speak to it, Councillor Stockwell? Councillor Jurisevic: I shall. Sorry, can I just clarify that? No, sorry, point of order. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Point of order. Understanding orders, you may not interrupt between a motion being seconded and the person having the right to speak. Mayor Wellington: We changed it, actually, so that he could ask a question before you spoke, if you recall. Councillor Jurisevic: Just clarifying the wording of the motion, because it mentions attachment four twice there, I just wanted to see if the wording of the motion was actually correct, because it says confidential attachments one and two and attachment four, but with a change to attachment three, then following that, it then says, and attachments three and four. So I don't think you want the wording incorrect before you start speaking on the matter. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor? I think Joe's quite right. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh, sorry, Councillor, but I was going to... Leave it there. Good try. And I'll get the CEO to check whether the Mayor's understanding of new standing orders is correct or not, but I won't make a point of the fact that I am. Do you want to? I'll check it. Good luck. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll accept your apology right now.
04:13:00 Thank you, Councillor. Mayor Wellington: Thank you for your correction. So are you happy with the wording now, Councillor? Yes. Okay. Would you care to speak to it? I will. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, Councillors, there's two different potential impacts to our community. Resulting from a growth that we've seen through the disruptive technology associated with short-term accommodation. One is the amenity impact of the effect of having tourist uses within residential neighbourhoods, and I believe that the settings in the planning scheme, together with the proposed local law, can go a long way to addressing those impacts. But there is another impact that's been reported, both within common media, but also in the academic literature around the world, and that is when houses have the ability to act both as a house and as short-term tourist accommodation, that it has the overall impact of raising the cost of a family home.
04:14:00 And that, to me, is a significant issue and a significant one that we have to consider in this planning scheme. If that occurs or continues to occur in Noosa, what we will see... is that overall the market will reflect the fact that you're not just buying a home where your family can live, you're buying a home which can also be used by investors to create short-term accommodation, which generally has a premium in the market, which gradually increases the costs. It also has the impact of reducing the stock of affordable rental, permanent rental accommodation. Noosa's planning system for a long time has been based on the concept of setting realistic limits, a carrying capacity approach. The feedback I get from those in the community is they think that this modern disruptive technology
255 minutes in ¶
04:15:00 of internet-based platforms renting out tourist accommodation is at or exceeding the carrying capacity of our suburbs from a social perspective, particularly in our highly attractive tourist suburbs. I actually supported a location-specific approach in the draft for that reason. I don't want to see those impacts spreading across the whole Shire. I do support what is currently before us in terms of how we treat the home-based business for tourist accommodation, the people who live at home, and the people who live in the area. And let it out, either while they're home, as a traditional B&B, or while they're on holidays, I think is a very good balance to achieve between residential amenity and providing householders with another little stream of income to offset the costs of buying and managing a household.
04:16:00 In my view, however, we need to put the interests of our residents first, and we need to think about the first home buyers in our community, whether they should be competing against investors buying their sixth investment home for short-term tourist accommodation, and whether that's a level playing field. So to me, what we need to make sure is that we create, in this planning scheme, the sort of residential neighbourhoods that we want to see going into the future. Mayor Wellington: So I believe that the low density residential zone's primary purpose is domiciliary, it's not tourist accommodation. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And I believe that while we have probably thousands of existing houses that are used for tourist accommodation that will supply that market, that that is a limit that I'm willing to live with. I haven't got a choice, but that is where we should set the limit.
04:17:00 We should set the limit as well. What we've got now, and not let that creep into suburbs more and more to our west, to our south, such that the most ideal places to live become unaffordable to most people. So, councillors, this motion to make an inconsistence doesn't say they can't apply. It doesn't say they won't be approved if they're in exceptional circumstances, or if they can prove that there may be some grounds. But what it says is, on the whole, a residential house in a residential suburb is for people to live in, and to have some minor ancillary home-based business going on with it. So, I believe that making it inconsistent in a low density residential zone is really about putting our residents first, and keeping the investment environment such that we don't put upward pressure on them.
04:18:00 Both on the price of a home, but also reducing the stock of residential tenancies available. Thank you, councillor. Question, councillor Jackson. Councillor Jackson: Yes, I have a question that I'd like to ask the planning staff, and particularly because we have people watching and we're talking planning jargon here. Can you please explain the difference between what's been proposed currently for this change, which is to do with impact accessible but consistent, and this amendment, which is impact accessible but inconsistent in the detached housing zone? Can you give us, what does that really mean, and the outcomes for people who might apply? Speaker 3: Sure. Impact consistent essentially means that the use is considered consistent in that zone. However, it needs to go through what's called an impact assessment. So, it's an impact assessment process, which includes assessment, again, all aspects of the scheme, and public notification.
04:19:00 Impact inconsistent means that the use is considered inconsistent in that zone. However, as councillor Stockwell said, people can still make application, and it would still go through an impact accessible process and publicly advertised. But as a basis, it's saying that that use is considered inconsistent in that zone. Councillor Jackson: And does that have implications for the likelihood of having the opportunity to stay led under that development approval process? Speaker 3: It definitely provides a signal that the planning scheme would consider that use not to be appropriate in that zone. It doesn't prohibit the use, and it doesn't stop people applying for the use. And there are situations where people can provide grounds and information to demonstrate overriding benefit and reasons for uses that are considered inconsistent in some zones to be approved.
04:20:00 That would need to be assessed on merits and case by case. But essentially, when you say something's inconsistent in the planning scheme in the zone, that's its intention. Mayor Wellington: Councillor Pardon? Councillor Pardon: Yeah, I guess just to add on to that Councillor Jackson's question. If I reach the front counter, I apply, and the question for me is, if it's inconsistent, what am I going to get at the front counter of council? What answer am I going to get when I hit the front counter and pose a question that I want to put application in? Inconsistent use in an area?
04:21:00 That's the question. Speaker 3: Generally, the response that you would get is clear advice that the use is considered inconsistent in this zone. You would also be advised, however, that you are able to make application and build a case. You'd be advised that there is a fee. And for an inconsistent impact accessible use, we have a multiplier to the fee. So your fee would be three times what a normal fee would be if it was considered a consistent use. So the planning staff would be providing clear advice for people about what the intent of an inconsistent use means in a zone. However, also stating that people can make application. And it's their decision and right to do that, considering the information that's been given.
04:22:00 Mayor Wellington: Anyone else wish to speak? Councillor Jackson. Councillor Jackson: Well, I guess I, along with other councillors and certain staff, received a large amount of submissions and comments and feedback about the concept of short stay legging. Of course, some of those were specific to short stay areas. But I also received a lot of feedback in general about short stays. And I've actually appreciated the efforts made by staff and also the work that's been done through council and workshops to find a compromised position that is a win-win. Now, I'm going to start with actually reading some of the things that people have said to me in writing. Because I think these are things that I've been hearing from people. The benefits of short stays. Quote. The short stay economy is an environmentally responsible phenomenon. Vacant houses and cars, for example, are a waste of resources.
04:23:00 Building more than there are, with so many unused, is not responsible use of the world's limited resources. Another element. People's rights. Too much interference by council. Quote. What the Noosa Council are suggesting removes a fundamental property right that we had when we purchased our property, and that is to holiday-let. Quote. Many people do short-term rental prior to moving to the coast. Contemplating moving to the coast or investing in the coast. They don't want to stay in hotels. What's the real issue? Quote. The real issue is, without doubt, the minority of irresponsible owners and some lending agents, who allow properties to be used by equally irresponsible guests. Council has the responsibility to look at the real problem of irresponsible owners and managers and guests, and not look at their political gain by punishing responsible people who create an enormous benefit to the community.
04:24:00 Quote. I have had more unpleasant experiences with permanent residents than I have with the short-term renters that are on my street every week of the year. Property prices. Quote. It will affect potential buyers and future investment opportunities when you want to sell. Quote. I'm not an expert, but when properties undergo zone changes, it can have a material impact on the value of the properties. So these are the sort of comments I've received. And I, you know, Facebook and emails and, of course, some of the, well, I've read some of the submissions that have gone to staff. And I want to tell all the people that have asked me questions about property prices, because they've written to me that I am listening. And I'd add a few comments of my own here, in addition to these ones which I've just read out, which are quite clear. And that is that there's an issue of equity.
04:25:00 And we've got some who would have existing use rights and others who wouldn't. And there's an element of inequity there. Costs to individuals. And that is trying to make an, you know, I don't know how to put it. There's a bit of a myth here about housing affordability. A lot of the houses that are rented whole are too expensive for people who are in low incomes to be able to afford. So the concept that somehow we will solve the housing affordability problem, I don't buy. Economy. There's a reduction proposed of tourist accommodation, which really will lead to less tourism instead of improved tourism. And that is for all of us. So that affects a negative ripple effect throughout the economy. Because all of our economy, whether we like it or not, we're not highly diversified in tourism as a driver.
04:26:00 And I know that there has been no economic impact study completed to see what would happen if this proposed amendment went through. It appears to be policy on the run. So I won't be supporting this amendment. Mayor Wellington: Thank you, Councillor. Anyone else wish to speak? Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Pardon: I'm sorry. Mayor Wellington: I was waiting for you to get to your feet. Councillor Pardon: I'll just put my hand up. I didn't see your marker move. I'm sorry. Yeah. Councillor Pardon: Look. Yeah. With regards to affordability. I won't support the amendment. With regards to affordability in Noosa, if you look at the big picture, we've had two valuations in the last two years. We started doing annual ones because of the value of the land. The values of property in Noosa are rising so rapidly. And if we look at the, you know, if you can believe some of the papers, real estate agents,
04:27:00 you know, across the land, et cetera, they're looking at another 20% rise, not only in Noosa, but across the state of Queensland, Brisbane, et cetera, because apparently the big wave from Sydney, Melbourne, has not hit us up here yet. So we've had many rises. So affordable housing, as I said previously, we've had many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, big numbers in the last two years. I, I think that something council needs to look at it in the future, and I believe we will. We own land and we have opportunities for that. And I think we're going to have to drive it. So rents between 550 and 650 a week for a house in Noosa, affordable? I don't think so. You know, that's over half the wages. They don't reach wage here for rents. I think that's a big shock. Fairness and equity. Well, fairness and equity, I can't support this motion anyway. And look, I know people can apply, but I really don't like that when they're advised properly by our staff. Our staff do a great job and say it's an inconsistent use, but you can apply anyway. Well, I hate them burning their good, their hard earned by actually doing that. I think that's not a good look for us.
04:28:00 We don't want their money. Really, if it's inconsistent use, that's really a hard caper to get up. They want a real good case to, you know, get an approval. So I don't think that's good. So, and valuations, as I say. Noosa, well, as Councillor Stockwell said, by having its own planning scheme that's, you know, to capacity, carrying capacity of people and building. And to keep our villages, that was always going to happen. The affordability and the value of Noosa was always going to give them drive up. It's a beautiful place. And when you restrict through a planning scheme, not that you're trying to restrict it, it's just the fact is if you're saying that's your carrying capacity, that's your water, your sewage, your infrastructure, your roads, that's what it can carry.
04:29:00 Man, it's going to go up in any other place across the world that has. Try this. Suffers the same fate as we do. So for all those reasons, I can't support this. Mayor Wellington: Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Jurisevic. Councillor Jurisevic: Look, I commend my fellow Councillor for his efforts here. I can see what he's trying to achieve, but I'm not willing to support the efforts in this case. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Jackson said one of the main reason, or the only reason, or somebody had written it, one of the only reasons we were trying to deal with this was to deal with troublesome properties. I mean, that is one element of it, but of course, the loss of long-term accommodation that this disruptive technology has brought in is one of the most significant reasons, and it does have an impact on housing affordability and all the other aspects that are there.
270 minutes in ¶
04:30:00 But with regard to this amendment, I take Councillor Jackson's point, a level playing field for those that already have existing rights use. It should be consistent across the region. It would be unfair for some people to have existing rights use and others not to have that opportunity to also pursue that. I think in saying that, we have put a number of other restrictions in place or other requirements in place that may offer sufficient deterrent from going down this path, like the need for impact assessment, the need for local laws registration and ongoing management. I think some of the other limiting factors that we need to take into account are, first of all, the fact that we're not going to be able to do this on a daily basis. The other limiting factors will be locality and proximity to tourism features. I think that's the majority of these type of short-term rental accommodation places will be closer to where the amenity is and that people can access the tourism facilities that they come here to enjoy.
04:31:00 I don't believe there's a need to invoke a limit because if there's no need, it won't facilitate a market to support the growth of the market. So I think it will be self-limiting. This has probably saturated the market to some degree now and only time will tell if that's correct. But if there's other accommodation facilities provided and there's one to be built in Peregian, there's others that are potentially on the agenda in the future with changes in the planning scheme, well then that may facilitate that short-term market as well for people to want to be there. But it also gives those operators of short-term accommodation that already exist an incentive to turn around and produce a product that drives people to their product, as well. So there's some other options there. Being able to rent out the property, sorry, yeah, given that this has been the case up until now, the proposed change to the planning schemes, I don't agree that this will have any significant impact on property prices and I don't believe that's a consideration for the planning scheme either.
04:32:00 So, I won't be supporting the amendment. Mayor Wellington: Councillor Wilkie. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. If I've understood correctly, what we're trying to do with short-term accommodation here, these changes, it involves a recognition of existing use rights, which means that every single whole house or whole unit that has, can show, demonstrate that it's been operating as a short-term accommodation property will be permitted to continue to do so under the new planning scheme. They will not need to make any application through the planning scheme to continue that use. And the advice we've received is that there are literally thousands of whole homes and units that are operating as short-term accommodation properties, and they will be permitted to continue to do so.
04:33:00 I also understand correctly the purpose of this exercise has been to manage successfully the impacts of short-term accommodation on neighbours who may be long-term residents or long-term residents. Councillor Wilkie. Thank you. Thank you. And the impact that this short-term accommodation use is having on residential neighbourhoods, changing the character. I know that through the local law and through these changes proposed that no matter where the short-term accommodation occurs, there will be measures put in place to manage the impacts, ensure that there's adequate parking, that noise impacts will be managed, that waste is adequately covered for. So I think that's all good. This will also not apply to property owners who are letting out one or two rooms within their home. They're not considered short-term accommodation, they're home-based businesses.
04:34:00 So this will not apply for them. But what I like about this amendment is that it does send a message to residents in traditional residential neighbourhoods that we are seeking, even though we're acknowledging that, yes, before this planning scheme has come in, and with this new disruptive technology through the online booking platforms, yes, some property owners have taken advantage of that and exercised a right to use their properties, if they're absentee landlords, to rent out their whole properties for short-term accommodation. But if this amendment is passed, it will also send the message that we would like to preserve traditional residential neighbourhoods, will encourage traditional residential neighbourhoods to remain specifically for that purpose, as a preference. That if absentee landlords want to turn their whole properties over to the short-term accommodation in traditional residential neighbourhoods,
04:35:00 that they will have to go through perhaps a more stringent process, it will be impact-assessable, it will be considered inconsistent, it will be a higher bar that they'll have to meet, but it gives the residents in those neighbourhoods some reassurance that we are responding to their submissions, that they are concerned about the character of their neighbourhoods changing because of this new use. So for that reason, I'm in favour of this amendment, because I think it will send a message that the Council has listened to the residents, They're worried about the changing nature of their neighbourhoods and in conjunction with all the other changes that we're proposing, it shows that we're listening to property owners as well. We're recognising existing use rights. They'll be able to continue using their properties for short-term accommodation, that'll be on it, in whole homes and units.
04:36:00 Those who are operating home-based businesses or letting out a room, they'll be able to continue doing that. This is not about banning short-term accommodation. It is about responding comprehensively and in a more balanced way to what we have heard from all sectors of the community, whether they're property owners or residents in residential neighbourhoods. And I think this amendment offers a more comprehensive and proactive response to what we've heard. I'll be supporting it. Mayor Wellington: Thank you. Councillor Glasgow. Councillor Glasgow: Trusted colleagues got it right to my direct left. We are managing this in the future. Obviously short-term accommodation has come to our fruition very quickly. I just love the word declunkifying. I love the word clunky.
04:37:00 Okay. Especially in local government. This just makes it too much more clunky. I think with our new management policies out there, what we're doing to get this under control, Councillor Pardon got it right. You know, a guy can come here and it can be inconsistent pay and you can still apply. Let's just go flush that money down the toilet, you might as well say. I think the planners got it right and I fully support going against it. Thank you. Mayor Wellington: I'm going to speak in favour of the amendment. Can I have that map up from inside Airbnb? And I'd like Councillors to cogitate on it. This shows you where our current online rental properties are. Have a look at what it's doing in terms of the population here. Not just in the high tourist areas but also well away from them. Look at what's happening at Sunshine Beach, for example. This notion that, you know, it's playing big brother to interfere in people renting out their houses in this fashion, I simply don't buy.
04:38:00 Local government's role has always been managing land use. There is not a block of land in this Shire that isn't being managed through our planning scheme. And traditionally, we used to manage this sort of activity through traditional B&Bs, which had to receive approval in terms of home-based businesses through the planning schemes. There is nothing new about regulating this sort of land use. Indeed, we regulate through the planning scheme population densities, urban sprawl. We try to influence housing affordability. We try and prevent conflicts between neighbouring land uses. That's what we do. That's our job. It's no different if we're regulating this sort of land use. It's what we've always done. There is nothing new in it. I do want to go to this issue, though, of the proof that this new form of land use, and it is a disruptive use and it's exploiting the lack of legislation, which is why we're discussing it today, trying to play catch up.
04:39:00 But what's happening is that in the process, they are exploiting the void that we've got in being able to handle this problem. Research for the Australian Coastal Councils Association was carried out by four academics from the University of Sydney found that Airbnb was having an impact on both affordability and housing and housing supply right across Australia where it occurred, most particularly in places like Byron Bay and Mornington Peninsula. They noted that there was a tightening of rental markets and renters were struggling to find accommodation in towns where they worked. What's more, some long-term renters were being forced out immediately before holidays because people knew that they could get better income from their house during the holidays and they're having to completely leave the area during holiday periods. Councillor Jurisevic talked about self-limiting. Okay, Byron Bay Shire, a year ago, 48.3%, that's exactly half of the rental properties available in the Shire,
04:40:00 were unavailable for purchase. That's a permanent rental. Is that what we want to see here where half of our rental stock is lost to permanent rental? I know that I have received complaints by Noosa businesses that they can't get employees particularly working over those peak holiday periods. They're struggling to find them. In Busselton, research showed that 33% of all rental stock is taken up by Airbnb. The other thing I've discovered just in the last couple of days, early in the morning driving back and forth to Peregian Springs as a result of what's going on with the fires, is that we have a traffic congestion coming into this town every morning. So what's happening is the more we're forcing people out of town because they can't find rental stock, the more they're driving in and that's adding to the town's congestion. And I give to you Exhibit A, which I passed only this morning. This is a sign on the Cooroy Noosa Road. Rental needed urgent with a phone number and that's been there for a week because someone can't find rental property in this town.
04:41:00 So, just to prove the point a little more, AHURI, the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, held a conference last year, which I attended in Tasmania, where the Tasmanian Minister for Housing made a direct link between the massive increase in Airbnb there and the housing crisis in the state with regard to rental. There are people sleeping in parks in Hobart in midwinter because there isn't enough rent. There's no rental stock and they're struggling to try and contain the number of properties being lost to the permanent rental market. Research again for the Australian Coastal Councils Association found that first home buyers have been priced out of the market wherever there's Airbnb and other type issues going on. They noted that in places like Kiama and Sunshine Coast, even aggressive marketing by real estate agents of properties noted the potential for short-term holiday returns and that's actually exacerbating the problem,
04:42:00 increasing the number of investment properties that are being purchased for this use. And again, we're losing stock for our permanent employees. And when you consider, as reports to Council have noted, that our primary service industries here are in tourism and hospitality, they are not high-pay industries. We need that rental stock. We need to be able to find somewhere for our residents to be. Just so you know, this isn't just here. I quote one of many studies around the world, which is the University of Sheffield, produced an academic study where they looked at all regional UK cities and they found that in every one where Airbnb was proliferating, there was an increase in rental prices and reduced long-term rental availability. What we're doing is we're forcing people out of our tourist areas into far-reaching areas and they're having to drive, which is increasing the problems on our roads. And we can't list this. Continue. I agree with my fellow Councillor Wilkie
04:43:00 that we are being appropriately tolerant, if you like, acknowledging that existing properties that are currently being used for Airbnb can continue, but we know there are almost 3,000, if not more, rental properties just in the main part of Noosa alone. Do we want that to increase and do we want the impacts? That's going to occur into the future on the possibilities for us being able to have people in our Shire who can actually work here. I don't think we do, so I support the amendment. Thank you. Do you care to close, Councillor Stockwell? I would. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And I think the best way to close is to tell Councillors that while you may have indicated where you intended to vote, take a moment and think what the Mayor just said. Take a moment. You're making the decision. That will affect future generations of Noosa people
04:44:00 and whether they can afford to live in our Shire. You're making a decision about what the community will be like in years to come. The real issue is housing affordability and the impact on rental stock in Noosa. It is one of the most critical social issues of this Shire. And to think we can have the best of both worlds is an argument against rationality. The rational approach is as the Mayor has just outlined. Every academic study that I've read from across the world says what we're going to have is reduced availability of permanent rentals and increased costs that will force out young families from these areas where the Airbnbs are approached. Is that the future that you as a Council will stand up next March and bang your drum on? It's not the one that I'm going to stand up on. It was foolishly suggested this is policy on the run.
285 minutes in ¶
04:45:00 We've been working on this for two years. So perhaps cast your mind back to the combined meeting of the Noosa Residents and Ratepayers Association and the Cooroy Area Residents Association where about 200 people joined to express their outrage and their concerns. And clearly what came out of that meeting was one thing. That no one's got a problem if you're living in the house and you're using Airbnb. And that's exactly what the rest of this document in the draft planning scheme says. If it's home hosted, it's well managed, we're happy with it. We're not excluding that. So it comes down to this difference in opinion about what's fair and what's equitable. To me, the primary judge is, is it equitable to the people who want to enter the housing market? And I suggest that the amendment is. The amendment about putting our residents first and about future home buyers first.
04:46:00 It is about taking out that fear that when you go to an auction in Noosa that your first home buyer is not being outbid by someone who's an investor who's gumming on and they're buying up whole houses over and over again because the return from a short term privately led through an online platform is significantly more than a permanent rental situation or a living situation. This is real. This is happening across the world. Any thought that Noosa will be immune from what's happening in places like Byron Bay that's already happened from what we've seen on the screen is really a forlorn hope. Now is a difficult decision. I urge you to make it thinking about the generations to come because you'll be held responsible if we have to import far more of our workforce in the future. Thank you. Mayor Wellington: I'll put the amendment. All those in favour? That's Councillor Stockwell, Wilkie, Glasgow and Wellington. Those against?
04:47:00 Councillors Pardon, Glasgow, sorry. Jackson and Jurisevic. The amendment becomes the motion. The only person that's spoken to the motion is the mover, Councillor Pardon. Does anyone else wish to speak to the substantive motion? Councillor Wilkie: Oh, sorry. Mayor Wellington: Absolutely. Councillor Jackson: Sure. Mayor Wellington: Go ahead. May I? Yes, of course. Thank you. That's why I asked. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. I also would like to echo Councillor Pardon's comments earlier which to thank the staff for the enormous amount of work that they've done sifting through 900 plus submissions. And what this process has really been about is listening to the community. The draft planning scheme was really the start of a conversation with the community and there's been some excellent ideas received and assessed and implemented especially in relation to the way
04:48:00 short-term accommodation is managed. It's been great ideas which has caused a radical shift in the thinking and if I can borrow a phrase from a previous Prime Minister we certainly are not the suppository of all wisdom. Our community is a resource of knowledge and they've given us their ideas which the staff have responded to and the councillors have responded to and what we're putting out in this draft reflects their ideas and we're grateful to them for feeding back so enthusiastically and knowledgeably on such a great range of issues. And also I can genuinely say I commend the councillors
04:49:00 and everyone around this table, councillors and staff included, genuinely want the best outcomes for this community and we are all genuinely listening to what our community has told us. Thank you. Mayor Wellington: Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Jackson: Councillor Jackson. Sure, I will. I think we're all echoing each other but I think our staff deserve a great applause for their huge amount of work and not only work but analysis, thinking and real thoughtfulness about the work we've been doing and coming up with such a terrific proposal for our next round of public consultation. There are many things that today are confidential. One is the zoning, which we can't show until after this meeting, but I've been very positively impressed by the staff's recommendations being so responsive to many of the submissions that were written about issues with zoning.
04:50:00 And that includes for individual homes, for generic areas and also even for the town centres. I was also very impressed by the work done towards short-term lending because I thought we had found a compromise. I wasn't totally satisfied with it, of course, but at the same time, I had the intention of supporting and endorsing this iteration for the purpose of public consultation. However, I've been surprised and what's just happened with the shift to amend the staff proposal to make houses in detached housing zones impact accessible but inconsistent with short stays, I believe has gone a bridge too far. I don't believe it reflects
04:51:00 what our community has been telling us and I therefore can't support this for a long time. I am looking forward to community feedback. I think that is the most important thing and I will be listening. I think there's been some disappointments in that there's talk here about housing affordability and yet very recently there have been a couple of council workshops where proposals have been put forward by staff about areas where housing affordability could be made built with small housing and yet that's been knocked out and the councillors didn't seem to want that and yet housing affordability apparently is so important. But I don't believe this... Mayor Wellington: Just be careful about what you say about other councillors because I think making sweeping statements such as that
04:52:00 about councillors' opinions is just jumping over the line. Councillor Jackson: I'm simply saying that other opportunities... You're making aspersions about the other councillors. I'm saying other opportunities for housing affordability have been ignored. Mayor Wellington: Well, again, I would caution you. There have been many discussions about affordability. No decisions have been made because we cannot make decisions in discussions and I don't think it's fair for you to categorise all councillors in any way whatsoever in terms of their opinions. Sure, I'm happy Councillor Jackson: to categorise just a few of you. Mayor Wellington: That's not funny. Sorry. Councillor Jackson: It is funny. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, please sit down, Councillor Jackson. The point of order is she has caused aspersions and I'd like an apology. Councillor Jackson: Okay. I apologise in general to whoever's offended. Now, I would like to say also that there is another issue to me that we haven't talked about in relationship to short stays and that is just the distortion of the property market.
04:53:00 We're going to have haves and have nots with this amendment and I would consider that an unfair and unfair unbalanced, uneven playing field which is not fair to our residents. So, basically, unfortunately, I will not be supporting this motion to endorse this, to go to people but I will be extremely interested in hearing what people have to say and I do hope that the council and we'll be listening to what people have to say. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic. I'll reiterate the thanks of council staff for all their efforts which has yet got a long way to go. We're nowhere near the end of this process yet. I'll remind everybody that what went out to the community was a draft. A lot of angst in that but a draft is a draft after all for public comment and public comment did come back and I believe
04:54:00 we have addressed a number of the concerns as has been alluded to and the significant changes goes out again for public comment. So there is still an opportunity for the public to come back and tell us if they're not happy with what's been proposed and what changes have been made from their first round of comments but given that the significant number of comments about the first or the responses about the original draft going out were around short term accommodation I think we've done a remarkable job to turn around our thinking listen to the community and put their views into the second iteration that's going out. The main people I'd like to thank in this process so far is our community for their passionate feedback. Without that sort of passion without that sort of drive in our community we don't get the sort of changes that we have here. We've listening we're actually hearing we're hearing and understanding the concerns of those people that are out there
04:55:00 telling us that what we put out originally doesn't work or isn't right for them. So it's good to see that we're actually listening and putting out a significantly different version of many areas of the first draft for second draft considerations. We've also gone down I said I will congratulate the staff on the level of consultation that was undertaken in particular with regard to individual property concerns with regard to overlays. The information coming back that was or the information that was presented was was the concerns were brought by individual property owners and we did actually go out to those properties and ground proof and truth those concerns to make sure that what we were putting out there for individual property owners was correct so that their concerns were addressed down to that level. And some of those things probably don't come through in some of these major changes but they're some of the smaller changes that have been undertaken and won't be
04:56:00 re-advertised for consideration but I hope all those minor changes have addressed the concerns of those other people in the community that made submissions with regard to their properties. So again I'd like to thank not only our staff not only the councillors but also our community for their feedback and their input and again I await the community's feedback on this second second iteration of our draft planning scheme. Mayor Wellington: Thank you councillor. Anyone else wish to speak? Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I do so and I think it's good to highlight that while this motion deals with what's going out to the public implicitly within it is that the vast majority of what went out was accepted. Speaker 3: But what I think Deputy Mayor Stockwell: everyone's been talking about is actually when we thank staff what we're saying is we thank you for showing leadership and it's from across the board whether it be in the way that they brought new ideas to the table. Some people might have just joined the organisation and had a a veteran director before our current director there
04:57:00 who had 30 or 40 years experience here and came up with solutions in the centre that did create the flexibility of the business we're looking at and did create the housing affordable options with small housing. I think it's one of the innovative areas that we have done a lot with outside of the short term accommodation debate. I think also leadership has come from our director in that it has been a fresh look at how we plan in Noosa and I think the ability for that leadership to be shown through in the discussions then with councillors and the open and honest way in which they've dealt with all the submissions and the ideas whether they're good, bad or different coming from the political angle. I think that is what this community needs. We do need a very strong strategic planning capacity and a level of professionalism that will be willing to paint the picture and stand by professional opinion sometimes against political opinion. So I'm very happy with how
04:58:00 we've responded to the submissions. I'm very happy with some of the innovative approach that have been embedded within the draft scheme which will prepare us well going into the future. Councillor Glasgow: I'll keep it briefly and once again I'll really applaud the staff obviously you guys it's been well said and the leadership you showed was second to none. The new ideas you came to the tables with was also second to none. You know some of the strategic thinking that you did like in the long term future of Noosa like talking 10, 20 year sort of time frames it was inspiring to hear it. You deserve every bit of accolades you can get and I'll support this wholeheartedly because you know hopefully in 50 years when I'm still around on the planet I'll be able to see this come to fruition and it's exciting to see it written it was a really exciting time to be on council and Joe put it really correctly it's a draft it's coming back
04:59:00 there's a lot of backing and throwing and it's just the beginning of an exciting is it true that we do another plan in eight years or we start in nine years? It's going to be an exciting you know eight years you could say but really the accolades goes you if anyone's watching out anyone it's you guys are the brains behind the action you deserve wholeheartedly everything so thank you Councillor Jurisevic: can't wait to do it again Mayor Wellington: of course I echo my fellow council sentiments with regard to the exceptional effort that's gone on and this has been a long effort we're talking a number of years this is not something that's just happened recently this has been going on for years I do want to acknowledge Raoul Weikart's efforts too for a long period establishing the the process of developing the new planning scheme with regard to the motion before us this motion deals with a great many aspects of the planning scheme not just Airbnb short term stay it deals with a whole lot of things all of us have made compromises I know that every one of us has compromised
300 minutes in ¶
05:00:00 in getting to this point we've all had to make compromises in order to come to a majority view I therefore would find it very unfortunate if a councillor were not to vote in favour of this because of one small aspect of it what normally happens is that when an amendment is moved and whether you vote for it or not it becomes part of a substantive motion Councillor Jackson: this is a point of order yes sir you are not speaking on the topic of the motion you are now how they might vote Mayor Wellington: I'm encouraging councillors to vote and that's my job in speaking to the motion Councillor Jackson: that's alright but you are you are going beyond that you are going towards pointing to people who may or may not vote a certain way and that is a different topic altogether well Mayor Wellington: what I'm trying to explain councillor is that there are a great many issues that this motion deals with not just one and that we
05:01:00 and even though as often happens amendments make changes and we may or may not agree with them we then have to make a determination on the basis of a substantive motion and all I'm saying is that we've all had to make compromises at times but we're all obviously trying to reach a final point because we will never have in the complexities of a planning scheme a total universal agreement on any issue so I urge you all to vote in favour Councillor Wilkie: just a clarifying question yep sure question the changes that this motion referred to include all the changes in this quite weighty document so are we looking at the realm of about 70 70 changes is that did you count an accurate estimate that we're consenting to the bill yeah Speaker 3: that is correct the changes that you are considering are in all the attachments and that being financial so not having counted them
05:02:00 there are there are a significant number of changes that you are considering today thank you Councillor Jackson: could I also ask a question and that is you have mentioned I think in the document but I've now forgotten in your staff report what number of percentage of the submissions you received were about short stay areas Speaker 3: um the of the 943 submissions properly made submissions we received um up to about half or just over half of those submissions made either comment or were wholly about short stay Mayor Wellington: do you care to close Councillor Pardon: councillor yeah I will thank you Mr Chairman yeah there's been a lot of reference made in the debate and I think I made it in the my original speech about the new planning scheme about affordable housing and the opportunities that this council has going forward
05:03:00 and look I know councillor Jackson's been absent and in the interim we've talked about policy with regards to going forward with regards to affordable housing and I know staff have been a tad busy with a planning scheme to say the least but certainly um that's front of mind this council this councillor and I know many councillors here will be looking forward to opportunities once we get a policy with regards to affordable housing and I think we have opportunity with the land that we own and in the planning scheme that has that particular zoning um some of the blocks we might be able to address some of that because with regards to affordable housing it comes up all the time and obviously it came up in the debate today um for me that it's it's all over with regards to affordable housing the cost of housing here now as we've said
05:04:00 650 a week 500 650 a week for a house it's it's way out of kilter with the especially under employed in Noosa so I think um sometimes governments have to step forward um big governments and local governments like us and lead on some of this stuff um with regards to the policy so I think um you know people who say we're not interested or we're not going to uh advance with regards to affordable housing absolutely I believe we will um I can't speak for all councillors but I know there's an intent um through the various uh speeches that I hear so um that's that part of it um in the main I've already uh thanked council um councillors staff tremendous job and as I said originally please everybody uh we can't um and the debates have been good um close close calls either way
05:05:00 um you know but they're subjective debates um I noted in the debate uh where the mayor put all those uh docs we didn't put them there but staff did and the map and they tend to be heavily heavy coastal and and why not I mean that's on the beach and where a lot of people want to be and not so many in the hinterland um and I guess uh for me I was talking about opportunity maybe for those people and that's the fairness and equity part but certainly the debate um that uh Council Stockwell put up was um a good debate and others that debated the point um and it could have went either way um because um I don't think either party's just either party's right or wrong here I think there's a certain right with um giving people the opportunity and there's a certain right about the affordability so
05:06:00 it was one of those and that that's why I'm so close but I mean that's just uh an amendment within the whole scheme here so I think um overall big picture we've landed in a pretty good spot let's see what the people say out there thank you Mayor Wellington: thank you put the motion all those in favour in favour we have Councillor Stockwell Councillor Wilkie Councillor Park and Councillor Jurisevic Councillor Glasgow and Councillor Wellington and those against we have uh Councillor Jackson uh the motion is carried uh we now have one more item to deal with and that's the local laws issue which is item two in your agenda any questions folks if not I'm looking for someone to move uh the I have a question actually yeah sure Councillor Jackson Glenn Councillor Jackson: um I've got out of the local law what looks like two pages of um requirements
05:07:00 that people have to fulfill um in order to obtain one of the permits um it ranges from plans to scale um body corporate permission written confirmation about existing use rights or not tourism economic levy paid statutory declaration written confirmation premises are structurally sound pool safety certificates and certificate smoke alarm certification public insurance uh I'm wondering I know that it's been recommended that the permit itself cost a hundred dollars but looking at all these other things that looks like a fair bit of expense have you done any work to see what people will in fact have to pay in order to cover all these things in order to get a permit Speaker 4: um through the
05:08:00 check um how much it would cost um it was difficult to get an idea of exactly how much but again there's um people could access their plans through their building approval which um there may be a small search fee involved um um a lot of it is just a written confirmation that they have obtained certain uh documents uh who who does it but that was just a uh a desktop um a survey the uh I did speak with prominent electrical contractor about the the cost of the um certifying that the the smoke alarm is in good working order and complies with the relevant um standards and that ranged again but that would that could be anywhere to $150
05:09:00 depending on um if it was in a There is another requirement here about a sign. Those signs, again, there was a broad scope of the cost of that, but that was anything from $40 up to $100 for their sign. Other than that, I think that that just about covers... Councillor Jackson: Structurally sound certificate. Speaker 4: Yes, we're just saying, we're not saying who needs to do that. It's just that it's a written confirmation saying that the premises are structurally sound and in good repair. We're not saying that a carpenter needs to do that or, you know, someone that's... We're just asking them to say that it is structurally sound. Councillor Jackson: So it's that deck or not even that? Speaker 4: Just written confirmation. Councillor Jackson: Oh, OK. Yes. Oh, OK. Mayor Wellington: So the obverse of that,
05:10:00 Elaine, have you done a calculation as to the actual costs to council to manage this process, to do inspections, et cetera, and will a $100 fee, do you believe, actually cover council's costs? Speaker 4: Thank you. Yes, the $100 fee, it's an annual approval fee, so it's the opposite to a planning approval. The planning approval, you get it once and then it lasts for the life of that development. The local law is... It's an approval annually. And, yes, I have done those figures. There is, for the first year, I've estimated there's two full-time officers and some admin and a vehicle because I estimate there's probably around approximately 2,000, conservatively, that would be subject to the local law. Yes, so for the first year, there'd be two officers and an admin
05:11:00 from the local law. From the second year onwards, just the one officer, plus some admin in support, and I've got the figures in the report, but it does, over, on an average, averaged over a period of five years, $100 per approval covers council's costs. Thank you. Speaker 3: Can I just add to the, a response to the question that Councillor Jackson asked about the costs of those requirements? Yes, sure. It is just worth noting. If a property was to be sold for $100 per year, that would cover council's costs. If a property was to be put on, up for private rental market, that the same requirements would need to be undertaken. So, we've, we've, Councillor Jurisevic: That was my question, thank you, I was, I was hedging it. Speaker 3: Yes, so we've, we've been, you know, fairly consistent and looked at current standards about how properties are used, whether for short-term or permanent, and similar requirements are required for permanent rental. Councillor Jackson: Can I just check whether, I understand that, but once one is a landlord, one doesn't have to go through it every year, except for smoke alarms, so there are a number
05:12:00 of requirements here, and it seems you have to apply every year to get a permit for $100, but I assume, therefore, you have to go through and get all these things year after year. Speaker 3: So there will be an application form with a checklist, which you'll need to tick to say that you've got them, and sign, and sign that on an annual basis. Councillor Jackson: So, something like a pool certificate doesn't have to be gotten on an annual basis? Yes, it does. Councillor Jurisevic: Yes, it does. For a rental property, absolutely. Councillor Jackson: No, I don't. I've gone for a rental property. Councillor Jurisevic: But you don't, you should have one every year. I'm sorry? Every two years. Speaker 3: Every two years. Every two years. Every two years. Mayor Wellington: It should be ongoing as well. Right, Joe, you had a question? Councillor Jurisevic: That was, that was the question around that, but there's an element of that, something like a current electrical safety certificate for smoke alarms. I'm not sure, it's been a little while since I've been in the maintenance side of things, but I'm not sure if rental properties are required to have 240 volt wide smoke alarms. If that's the case, I can see an electrical safety certificate could be applied, but if
05:13:00 they're still allowed to have battery operated smoke alarms, they do have to have 240 volt smoke alarms. All right, that clarifies that, because that's obviously something that would have been brought in the last seven years. Speaker 2: It was brought in the last year. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. So, if that's the case, an electrical safety certificate would be appropriate, and of course, that would be mandated for any rental property. So, thank you. Councillor Pardon, you're about to get to your feet. Mayor Wellington: I can tell, I'm ahead of you now. Councillor Pardon: Yep. Well, I was going to move, but it's not now. Sure. Councillor Jackson: I'll second it. Thank you. Mayor Wellington: Okay. Moved, Councillor Pardon, seconded, Councillor Jackson. Note that little change there from what was in your agenda at the bottom. That's normal procedure. Can I just ask a question, seeing as you haven't spoken yet? And that is if staff could just, for the sake of anyone watching this, really, just outline what you've done in the way of consultation in order to develop this, because I know this hasn't just been created by council in isolation.
05:14:00 So, can someone speak to that, please? Yeah. Speaker 3: Thank you. Sure. As outlined in the report, we had hundreds of submissions through the planning scheme in response to short stay, and with a number of those, it makes a range of suggestions about different approaches to how council might look to manage short-term accommodation. Majority of those, whether they supported more regulation or less regulation, did acknowledge that there were some issues, and that short-term letting creates some issues. That requires some management. So, through that process, we had a forum, actually, in this room with around 80 or so short-term letting agents, and had an open conversation about the range of issues that they experience, how they manage properties, and some suggestions around how council might look to go forward. And from that forum, many of the suggestions and the approaches that we, that obviously
315 minutes in ¶
05:15:00 our officers are taking forward, came from that forum. That forum also then nominated a number of representatives to work more closely with council. So, there was four or five key representatives from the short-term letting agent industry that have been working alongside officers, helping, providing advice, and testing options around how we might go forward. So, those representatives have been very helpful, and we've been engaging with them. We've been working with them on a number of occasions over the last few months to come forward, to help inform the proposal on the table today. Mayor Wellington: Thank you. Care to speak to it, Councillor Pardon? Councillor Pardon: Yes. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Look, we know a great number of submissions from the public with regards to issues, short-term letting, BNB, et cetera.
05:16:00 So, council looking at ways where we could administer this and actually help our people out. We hear about party houses and problems, et cetera. So, it was proposed by council, the local law seemed to be the best way to go, rather than try to handle it under the planning scheme. And I think it is, too. I think this is a better way to do it. And I would hope that it will be a better way to do it. But we're looking at our own administration here. We have a cost, obviously, thus a charge of $100 annually. I think that's quite fair, given the return that some of the people get, most of the people get, with regards to short-term letting. It's a cost that I believe they should pay, because a lot of people don't benefit here, the general public here. So, I think that's it.
05:17:00 I think that's good. I think that's pretty fair, really. It's not a lot of money. But it costs us a lot of money combined to actually administer this law. I would be trotting out my guerrilla pensioner again to send around to these houses. And anyone having a party, you know, should be dealt with in the appropriate manner. So, we need, we need a law, I believe. Our people, you know, we need a law. I think we've got it. We'll see what people say. Thank you, councillor. Councillor Jackson: Yeah, I'd like to speak as well. Yeah, councillor Jackson. And I guess, in a sense, echo what councillor Pardon has said. I think, certainly, on the negative side, the feedback we have from people is about noise, too many people in the house being noisy, especially evenings, at night.
05:18:00 Rubbish being, you know, thrown out poorly, and they can be a mess, parking issues, and this local law is really about addressing the things that are to do with our immunity, and making sure that we have the enforcement power to make a difference. Because many of us, certainly I have been dealing with, here and there, and not a lot, but I've certainly had some complaints about what they call party houses, where people think we're partying all the time, and ultimately, we just have to say, go see the police, because not much council can do. So, this actually will improve. It will give council the power to enforce something that is council's own law, and also, I think it's important that there is something called a code of conduct, and I do know that the group of people that have been consulted with have been keen on something along those
05:19:00 lines, so that the people who come to stay also are aware of what is their expectation of them, as well as the landlord. The other thing that's important, and I think this is an interesting addition to the local law, is that there has to be somebody who is assigned as the contact person for that particular property, when there are people staying there, so that there will be a contact that people can ring up and say there's a problem, and that person will be immediately available to do something about it. So, I think this is a really good step, and I do believe this is the way council should be moving forward. I think we've got to continue to be able to do something in order to manage the problem that we are facing, and I'd like to give credit to Glen and no doubt other team members who have worked with you because I think you've done a really meticulous job on the local law, which covers a lot of key points in a very readable way, and I look forward to hearing
05:20:00 feedback from our community. Mayor Wellington: Thank you, Councillor. Anyone else wish to speak? No, thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think this is a very useful tool in the approach we have towards short stay accommodation I think it's separating largely the behaviour issues the issues that aren't about land use budgeting that are about how we make our land use that already exists be more compatible with different land uses that may be right beside I think the local law makes a whole lot of sense it does address the key issues I think in this whole debate one of the most you know it only takes me one good submission to follow it and that one good submission I've read and I heard it verbally as well was from a local doctor and he's saying you know I have an obligation to turn up to my work and operate people in the hospital after having a good night's rest and I can't get this at the moment because I've got a airbnb beside me or a short-term accommodation beside me that isn't well
05:21:00 managed this will take that issue out of their hands so if they do it three times the proposal is they're gone and I think this is really good saying a really clear message the other really good thing is and I like the checklist approach the really good thing is people will be able to have the confidence when booking on online platforms that they're going into a safe place it's really important to understand we have had deaths in people's homes as a result of online booking of young children and this goes towards that it makes sure that the people who are taking this step from going from a residential use to commercial use that they've taken the responsibility to make sure they've got the safety requirements for fire are they sure they've got their structural adequacy there that they're that all these things in the pool safety certificate that the people who stay at their place can be just as assured as the people who stay at a resort where these things have been happening for years so to me it actually
05:22:00 Councillor Jackson: increases the likely quality of accommodation in Noosa as well as making it better for the neighboring residents it's one to help people understand it's relating to who this applies to and who it doesn't apply to who is short-stay ready and I know we've mentioned it earlier but I think because we're talking about the local law now I believe there are some types of short-stay where this doesn't apply Speaker 4: the local law will apply to all short-term accommodation except for those managed on-site managed resorts there may be some different iterations of how an on-site managed resort it happens these days there's a few different models but generally speaking if it's been on-site managed then those resorts
05:23:00 will not require the local law will not apply and that's because that on-site management system is users that their own internal management system to deal with or address the any impacts to other to the neighbors etc Councillor Jackson: I understand that people who are renting a room or two in their own house won't be covered by the short stays but maybe you could say a bit about that Speaker 4: okay yes the short-term accommodation is when it's an unhosted situation so if you're living in your property and you're renting a room or two like a
05:24:00 traditional type of bed-and-breakfast then you won't need to apply for the local law at all so those ones that just rent a couple of rooms it's a home-based Councillor Jackson: business and they will not the local law will not apply yes those ones they will Speaker 4: not need a planning approval as such if they meet that criteria about the four times per year and 60 nights etc that they will still need to apply for the local law we have found in the past that there have been impacts from that type of short-term accommodation just to add to that so essentially what's at the heart Speaker 3: of this is where the property is managed on-site the local law doesn't apply and then Glen's just gone through a number of scenarios but when we find a situation whether it's where someone's gone away for a long period of time the property is unmanaged or there isn't any on-site manager that the local law
05:25:00 Councillor Wilkie: applies. Thank you Mr Chen, what I like about what staff have come up with here is that it does respond to the advice from letting agents who are in this working group this is the field that they work in all the time they understand what type of letting where the problems arise from and what type of letting does not generate problems this seeks to address the type of letting the problems can arise that is the unhosted situation and the regulations go to the heart of ensuring the health and safety of those occupants and one thing that they've spoke to me about that they want is a level playing field for those who letting properties that are unhosted.
05:26:00 I think, and I commend staff for listening to the leading agents and people who work in this field at the time as they are. They do have some valuable expertise to offer and we've listened. Mayor Wellington: Kerry Coyle, our manager of planning assessment, has previously noted that the most significant number of complaints received in her department is as a result of short stay accommodation, more than any other issue. That's the issue that keeps coming up. I, of course, receive a great many emails and I'm going to restrict my comments to this just to reinforce why we're doing it by reading a couple of them. Just little segments.
05:27:00 The numbers seem to be large. When I search for the property, it allows nine guests. Infants don't count within that nine. It's a one level three bedroom house. They just turn up and the key is left in a lockable box for them. There is no control or monitoring of who is staying except from the website's feedback about the previous bookings, if any. The Airbnb plague is ruining our paradise. We have five Airbnb places within 300 metres of our house. The worst to house next door. They give the order to us and they give the address. It has been split in half and both sides rented out through Airbnb and similar sites and is constantly tenanted by short term holiday makers with barking dogs and screaming kids. I don't understand how the council can permit this use of property, essentially allowing the owners to open a small hotel in the middle of a quiet residential area. They also have cars parked along the street because one side of their hotel has no off street parking. Surely council can set restrictions on such ventures. Another one. This is our home address over 30 years ago because of its tranquility.
05:28:00 This proposed short term accommodation code does not restrict continuous holiday maker noise on a weekly basis five metres from our bedroom window. The main reason for noise is simply excited holiday makers. But as each family departs, so the next excited family arrives. We're exhausted with the constant frustration of this noisy business disturbing our sleep. It goes beyond just tiredness. I live with that concern. The concern that I might, as an anaesthetist, make an error due to fatigue. Caused by someone else's inappropriately sighted noisy business. Another one. Further to our angst, my partner was intimidated again this week. This occurred when the short stay home owner became aggressive after learning of our complaint to the real estate agent. I was away at work when after the holiday makers had departed, the owner returned to their house and played full volume music for four hours late into the night. From a loud speaker position on the lawn facing our bedroom, our neighbours were also disturbed and police were required to attend twice. To shut it down.
05:29:00 That's the sort of conflict we're trying to avoid. I mean, that's a rare instance, obviously, that last one. But nevertheless, I am still getting people ringing me up in tears at night because of the impacts of Airbnb nearby. And I think that the proposed local law amendments go some way at least towards allowing us to be able to address these sort of problems. Councillor Jurisdict. Councillor Jurisevic: Look, I'll reiterate those comments, I think. But it's not just short term ecology. We do have accommodation where that can occur. We do have neighbourhood disputes where properties are owned by individuals or long term renters are in there. That sort of thing does go on. But of course, it's been exacerbated by the proliferation of short term accommodation. The disruptive technology of online booking platforms has created this phenomenon that we now have to deal with. And that's the primary reason for having to introduce a set of local laws. To manage these problems.
330 minutes in ¶
05:30:00 Otherwise becomes the problem of the police. And the police don't have the resources at all times. So it's good to see that Council now have the powers to act when and if required. What this does is given that there are a large number of short term accommodations existed in the Noosa region for a long, long time. And I dare say that the Mayor's diagram earlier incorporated a number of management plans. To manage properties and short term accommodations that have been existing for some time. But again, there's probably larger numbers there than they have been for some time. What this does though is it provides a local platform. An equitable process for all short term property letters. So that everybody has a responsibility to undertake. Councillor Jackson alluded to the checklist. But the checklist is not only for Council's benefit. It's primarily for the benefit of the property owner. To ensure that they have done their due diligence before renting out their property. So it's something that they should be undertaking anyway.
05:31:00 And most of those items on that checklist as a responsible property renter should be undertaken on an ongoing periodic basis anyway. So I don't believe there's any additional costing there apart from maybe some signage plus the $100 fee each year. Which I think is a fairly minor thing to ensure that they're all doing the right thing. And on an equitable playing field. I don't think it's particularly onerous. So I'm very supportive of this process going forward. There are reasons for short term lending as well that may drive people to this. Apart from the investment potential. Sometimes people are driven to it by circumstance. So at least this gives people in certain circumstances. Like you know, flying suddenly they get a different job. And they've got to move in the short term. Or they've got to deal with a loss of a loved one. Or whatever. At least they've got the option here to be able to do it.
05:32:00 But to do it responsibly. To do it in a managed fashion. And again, not only did we get submissions from disgruntled residents like that. But we also got submissions from the managers of short term accommodation. To try to ensure that the integrity of the industry as a whole is maintained. As well as the reputation of Noosa. So I think it's important for a place to come and stay. Enjoy. And have a wonderful stay when you're here. Thank you. Mayor Wellington: Councillor Pardon, do you wish to close? Councillor Pardon: Yes, Mr Chair. Once again, thank the staff for the work. And the job done here. Councils, we really have an obligation here. If on the one hand we're saying, well, they're existing use. And that's all right. And that's what we're saying under the planning scheme. There you are. And I'm not sure how many homes are empty or are let out for a couple of rooms. I don't know those exact figures.
05:33:00 But we know there's quite a few empty homes that are let out. Unsupervised if you like. So I think we have, I don't think. I know we have an obligation then to have some law in place to be able to address these problems. And I'm not saying be aggressive. But you know. I'm not saying be aggressive. But please, they're short. There's not many policemen. You know, they can't be everywhere. And, you know, this premise that someone could ring the police and they'll turn up. Well, you know, they're busy all the time. So here we have an opportunity to manage this. It'll be interesting to see how it goes over time. And like it's been said, if you're going to continually not do the right thing, there's
05:34:00 I've read with regards to threats, speakers on the lawns and that. I know my attitude to that, I've got to destroy speakers immediately, but that's, there's no aggression, but, sorry. With a hose. Oh, I missed the garden. Yeah, or some 3B2, but anyway, look, yeah, I think this is the way to go. We need the law, obviously, and hopefully that will address some of the issues. Is it a panacea? Can I promise the people that by having this law and people in place to regulate? No, I can't. There will always be rebels and problems, but the police have to deal with them, domestic violence, et cetera.
05:35:00 But at least. We have some resources to have a crack at it. We'll see how it goes over the wall, so I think it's great. Thank you. Mayor Wellington: Thank you. I'll put the motion. All those in favour? Thank you. That's carried unanimously. Ladies and gentlemen, that concludes the special meeting. Thank you very much, one and all. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Councillor Pardon: Good job.