Start of recording ¶
00:00:00 Mayor Wellington: Okay, welcome to this special meeting. We begin by acknowledging the traditional owners of the land on which we're gathered, the Kabi Kabi or Kabi Kabi people, and pay our respects to their elders, the past, present and emerging. We have one apology today, that's Councillor Frank Pardon, all other councillors are in attendance. Before we begin the meeting, I'm just going to make a few opening remarks. I welcome everyone who's come to hear this particular meeting. As you're aware, the meeting is being recorded as we always do with our special meetings and will be archived on the council's website for those who have insomnia later down the track. The major issue, of course, today that we're dealing with is a decision to go to the state for the second interest check on the planning scheme. And I'm aware, of course, as I'm sure everyone is. Everyone in the room is that we have a contentious issue in that regard in relation to short state properties.
00:01:00 There are strong views on this matter and obviously the councillors are going to be debating the issue. I please ask everyone, including councillors, to be respectful when councillors or staff are speaking. This is a formal council meeting, so the only people who may speak at this meeting are those directed by the Chair. I'm sorry to say that I will not be speaking. I will be tolerating interjections or attempts to influence the debate from the audience. So please, if you don't mind, be respectful to the debate and just listen. Given the complexities of the issue, I do want to allow plenty of time for councillors to be able to talk. So I won't be enforcing the five minute rule today. Now you tell us. I was going to tell you before I came in. Oh! Oh! Um councillors uh just to be uh just to remember that you are debating each other not the staff.
00:02:00 If questions are asked of the staff that is not in the form of debate and I will not tolerate uh an attempt to debate with staff you take whether you like the answers you get or not you use those answers in your own debate with other councillors not the staff. Um so uh on we go uh the one and only item that we're dealing with today is the Noosa Plan 2020 Request for Adoption to Minister for State Development, Manufacturing, Infrastructure and Planning. Councillor Stockwell you have something to tell us. Yes um I wish to declare a real Deputy Mayor Stockwell: conflict of interest in relation to the submission number 20866267 to the Noosa Planning Scheme. Uh I made that as group leader of Noosa Sea Scouts on their behalf uh the submission related to the historic uses of the site and the current nature of scouting activities and requested consideration of the proposed land use provisions rate relating to the site owned by Scouts Queensland in Noosaville. I will leave the room for the purpose of debate and decision on that particular
00:03:00 submission. Thank you councillor. Mayor Wellington: In light of what we've just heard I'll be moving the resolution on the motion on the board. I'll second it Mr Chair. Thank you I'll just read that out. That council note the report by the director of environment and sustainable development of the special meeting dated 11th December and adopt the strategic planning staff's recommendations in relation to submission number 20866267 relating to the Noosa Scout site at Noosaville within the consultation report noting that no change to that site is proposed. Councillors it's somewhat unfortunate that Councillor Stockwell assisted in a submission to the planning scheme however his conflict does relate solely to this one piece of land that's contained in the proposed motion. It's therefore appropriate
00:04:00 that we deal with that particular submission which Councillor Stockwell is involved with separately and without obviously Councillor Stockwell in the room. I'm sure that Councillor Stockwell's intention was simply to assist the Scouts however he should have known better. I have received assurances from staff that this block of land and the submission in question were dealt with impartially with no special treatment arising from Councillor Stockwell's involvement. Staff of course recommend no change to the zoning of the Councillor Wilkie: land. Question Mr Chairman. Certainly Councillor Wilkie. Is that contrary to what the submission Speaker 4: was requesting? Through the Chair, the Sea Scouts made a submission to the first draft of the planning scheme and Brian Stockwell signed that submission. The Scouts were seeking recognition of the definition of Tourist Park and Education uses to reflect the historical use of the site and are also seeking a reduced level of assessment for future development or expansion of that site.
00:05:00 And in assessing that submission despite there being some merit the key considerations were that the site has existing use rights and the development approval can continue to operate and the site's also surrounded primarily by residential so that any future development or expansion of that we consider should the level of assessment should remain impact assessment so that surrounding residents get a say. Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak to this motion? Mayor Wellington: I won't close. Then I'll put the motion all those in favour. Thank you that's carried. If you would invite Councillor Stockwell please. I'll just wait for Brian to return. Okay. You can stay standing please. I'll stay standing. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. Does that mean Brian is calling? Councillor Jackson. Councillor Jackson: Mr Chair I wish to put an alternate motion to the one that's on the agenda.
00:06:00 Yep. And Cathy is now putting that up on the screen. I think it is best that I read the parts that are different from rather than the whole thing. I'll read the parts that are different from the original staff recommended motion. Okay. That is in A adopt the strategic staff's recommendations with the consultation report which includes consideration of all submissions as set out in attachment one with the exception of submission number 20866267 which has just been dealt with separately and with the following changes. Make short-term accommodation where in a dwelling house or in no more than one dwelling except to development consistent or self-assessable subject to requirements in low density, medium density and high density residential zones, tourist accommodation zone, rural residential zones and B provide a copy of the consultation report
00:07:00 reflecting changes as described in A above to each person etc. And then the other change is C endorse the planning scheme Noosa Plan 2020 and planning scheme policies as an attachment. This is a section that will be included in attachment two to 24 including all necessary changes to the planning scheme to make short-term accommodation where in a dwelling house or in no more than one dwelling excepted development except sorry one dwelling accepted development that is consistent and self-assessable subject to requirements in low density medium density high density zones tourist accommodation zone and rural and rural residential zones. And then the final change is to Eпарghuan and Farber we need to make sure that it's in our planning scheme. We authorise the CEO to make any necessary changes as required in A, B and C and above and any minor changes to the consultation report prior to making available to each person who made properly made submissions.
00:08:00 Councillor Glasgow: I'll second that. Mayor Wellington: Seconded Councillor Glazer. Can we just take a minute to... Yeah, yeah, can I... I've got a question about the wording of the Part E, wasn't it? Speaker 5: I need to second it, I need to speak to it. It's okay. Mayor Wellington: Yeah, no, no, it's just about the wording of it. Consultation report prior to making it available to each person. Should there be an it in there, that's all. Consultation report prior to making it available to each person. Councillor Jackson: Kim. Kim, help me. Mayor Wellington: Sure, yes. Thank you. Okay. Councillor Jackson: Okay. I shall speak to my proposed motion. Can you bring it down so we can just... Mm-hmm. You can see the rest, yeah. At the September special meeting, most councillors voted to make short-term accommodation inconsistent in low-density residential zones where they are unlikely to get council approval.
00:09:00 That's most houses. And all the other zones, of course, were consistent but code-assessable or impact-assessable, depending on which zone they were in. During both consultation periods, short-term letting was the topic which attracted the greatest number of submissions. With a large number being against the proposals. Yet, the staff recommendation is still the same, that short-term accommodation of whole houses and units must get development approvals in all zones and be inconsistent in low-density residential zones. So, on behalf of the large number of residents who are against this proposal, I propose instead that short-term accommodation be accepted development subject to requirements, that is, self-assessable and consistent in all zones. In all residential zones, and that short-stay letting be regulated instead by a local law. I am seeking a fair and balanced approach to addressing the issues. My five reasons are five E's, evidence, equity, economy, expense, and enforcement.
00:10:00 Starting with evidence, there's not enough evidence. We've been told there were complaints. We've been told there were complaints. But no statistics. How many complaints? How many were the same person complaining over and over again? I've asked for this information from staff a few weeks ago. I still haven't seen that. And for comparison, how many complaints does Council get about permanent residents' behavior? Our local laws are flooded with complaints. Local laws, people, sorry, are flooded with complaints. We've only heard anecdotal evidence about Barcelona, Venice, New York, and San Francisco. There's been no economic impact assessment in Noosa. Yet making short-term letting require council approval, whether it's consistent or inconsistent,
00:11:00 is likely to have significant impacts on people's incomes, small businesses, and property prices. So this proposal that had been put is an experiment over a 10-year period playing with people's livelihoods. Economy. Again, no economic impact assessment, and as existing use rights expire, wherever permanent residents move in, there will likely be a gradual reduction of hold dwellings available to let. The gradual reduction of tourist accommodations means fewer tourists staying and spending in Noosa, which will have a negative ripple effect throughout the economy, and less and less work for cleaners, gardeners, traders, etc. And there will be more vacant holiday homes, because owners are not able to holiday let their second house or dwelling, they'll just close it up except when they're visiting.
00:12:00 Visitors who want to rent a whole house or unit will end up staying outside the Shire and become day trippers, adding to the traffic congestion and parking problems. Meanwhile, it won't help housing affordability. We've already seen maps showing that most of the houses being let short stay are in places like Noosa Heads, the Eastern Beaches, and around Gympie Terrace in Noosaville, and are far too expensive for low-income people to rent. And I'd like to add to that that I'm very pleased the Noosa plan has a lot of further innovations for housing affordability, which we'll come to later. Equity. The planning scheme should be written to be performance-based, with performance outcomes. People's rights to make applications should be recognized and intrinsic. Instead, there will be haves and have-nots. Requiring development approval will see houses with existing use rights attracting more buyers
00:13:00 than dwellings that cannot short-term let. This may cause a distortion in the housing market. For people who let their house when they go away on holidays, they will only be allowed four bookings, up to a total of 60 days. But if their bookings are short, say three days each, they can only let for 12 days. So to achieve 60 days, you need 15-day bookings. This will end up in inequitable. Council is complaint-based at the moment and does not know which dwellings are being short-stay-let. Only some are caught and pay the tourism levy. So the same thing would happen with the requiring of development approval. It's likely to encourage vexatious neighbor complaints, not a level playing field. Expense. Development approvals cost a lot of money. And only wealthier owners are likely to apply.
00:14:00 So many will be disadvantaged. The cost of development applications in a consistent zone might be between two and three thousand council fee, and three times that much in inconsistent zones, where they're not likely to get it anyway. Plus, there's thousands of dollars engaging planning specialists to prepare an application. And then, of course, owners would have to pay their local law permit and the tourism levy in the thousands, depending on the situation. I don't think this is how we should be treating our residents. Enforcement. Most complaints and submissions have been, and I quote from staff report, noise, car parking, traffic, use of outdoor areas, hours of operation, occupancy numbers, and lack of complaint resolution. These can be managed through a rational and enforceable local law. And the local law and code of conduct developed with the community.
15 minutes in ¶
00:15:00 There is no need to punish everyone for the wrongdoings of a minority of irresponsible owners, agents, and guests. So, councillors, I recommend that in the Noosa plan, short-term accommodation be accepted development that is self-assessable and consistent, subject to requirements in all relevant zones, and that a local law be used to address the issues. Any other type of assessment would, as far as I'm concerned, need to be decided on the basis of economic impact assessment study. So, my reasons, again, evidence, equity, economy, expense, and enforcement. Thank you. Thank you. Can I ask a question? Mayor Wellington: Yes, sure. Councillor Glasgow. Councillor Glasgow: As this came to us, what, a few months ago now, the original report, just exactly describe to me why this did a complete 180 and went from consistent low density residents to inconsistent
00:16:00 low density residents. What exactly, in very simple terms, what came to fruition that made this report come to this 180 that's done? Kim? Speaker 4: Through the Chair, Councillor Glasgow, you will, you're referring to the report that came to Council on the 11th of September for the second round of consultation, which had staff recommendation in it for short-stay accommodation to be consistent in the low density residential zone. That's exactly right. Yeah. And Council then decided that it would be inconsistent low density residential zone, and that's what we consulted on. So, yes, you are correct. Staff have changed their position on this issue, and are now recommending that what was advertised as part of the second round of consultation should be consistent in the low density residential zone. It's very clear that, from reviewing the submissions from the last round of consultation,
00:17:00 it has made staff far more aware of the increase in short-term accommodation where whole houses are being let in low density residential zone and used for short-term accommodation, which was essentially commercial use. That, at the scale and quantum that that is occurring, is inconsistent with the overall purpose and intent of the low density residential zone. The purpose of the residential zone, as described in the provisions of the zone, is that low density residential neighbourhoods are home to permanent residents with minimal impact of visitors. So, there's no doubt that this has been a challenging issue. As you know, communities all over Australia and all over the world are considering how to tackle this issue and manage this issue. And Noose is no different. It's been a challenge. Council's been considering this issue for a couple of years now, and have tested a range of approaches with the community.
00:18:00 Ultimately, we're now assessing the last proposal and the consideration of submissions on the last proposal. And staff have weighed up and considered issues and submissions, the nature of the submissions and the issues raised. And through this process, as I mentioned, it's become clearly evident that, from a land use perspective, there's a lot of concern about whether or not we're going to be able to manage this issue. That this use is inconsistent with the purpose of the low density residential zone. Also considering the amount of properties with existing use rights, which will remain. The significant amount of the Shire that's available for tourist and visitor accommodation. The provisions that are in the new scheme that make it easier for everyone to home host. The provisions in the scheme that allow everyone to let their property out for up to 60 days, four times a year. And the wide range of other tourist and visitor accommodation throughout the whole Shire and the hinterland.
00:19:00 Those issues were considered, and staff come into this recommendation. And importantly, it's important for us as planners to come back to the plan making process. The requirements of the Act, the drafting principles of a planning scheme, and the purpose of a planning scheme. The purpose of a planning scheme is to guide land use and development. It's to manage land uses, and it's to manage land use impacts. It's to maintain integrity of zones. And it's to determine which uses are considered consistent and inconsistent in those zones. This is a fundamental requirement to a planning scheme. And as planners, we have to come back to these approaches. And determine if a use is consistent with the outcomes sought for the zones. And in this case, weighing up all the issues that I've outlined. It's staff recommendation that in this case, short term accommodation of whole houses in low density residential zone is not consistent with that zone. Councillor Wilkie: Mr Chairman? Yeah.
00:20:00 May I ask? Councillor Wilkie, yes. I won't be supporting this motion. I support the staff recommendation as provided in the report. This whole planning scheme, like those before it, is about balancing different land uses. It seeks to balance environmental, social, and commercial interests. Noosa's points of difference have resulted by seeing our environment and resident amenity as having at least equal value to commercial interests. Not just in words and planning schemes, but in action. And over time, Noosa has become living proof that strong environmental protection and regard for resident amenity underpins a prosperous economy. Indeed, it's central to the reality. It's the reason why Noosa has become a biosphere, an example of how humans can live prosperously in, not necessarily at the expense of their environment or residential amenity. Although tourism is undeniably a significant part of Noosa's economy, as recognised by
00:21:00 the local economic plan, statements in Council's current and draft new plan, and by the survey recently done by local business groups, Noosa has been, and always should be, a community first. Since the 1980s, the Council's successful philosophy has been, make Noosa an attractive and liveable place for residents first, then visitors are bound to enjoy their time here as well. Indeed, many of us who live here now came here first as visitors, loved it, and returned. We returned because of Noosa's points of difference, made possible because of town planning choices that over time, over decades, have made Noosa unlike other popular beachside destinations. Noosa is a place where you can enjoy your time here. The low key blend of built and natural environment, the value placed on open spaces built, buildings that generally don't tower over the landscape, the amenity it provides residents and visitors alike. Would we have chosen to live here if this was different? If there were high rises everywhere, and with high rises, the greater population that would
00:22:00 be housed within them, and within the greater population, the bigger and more expensive road networks to cope with the increased population? Probably not. The decision made 30 to 40 years ago, this is an example of forward planning that we're facing here today. The decision made 30 or 40 years ago, for example, to limit high rise is similar to the one we're faced today because it's about what sort of community we want Noosa to be in the future. Will it still be a great place to live, and therefore a fantastic place where visitors can also enjoy what we do? In order for any community to shape its future, planning schemes are used to determine land uses permitted on every block of land. Yes, they interfere in the free market, and the totally understandable right some feel that they should be able to do what they want with their property. Thanks to a brave decision made in the face of tremendous commercial pressure decades ago, no property owners were permitted to build and enjoy the tremendous commercial yields from high rises, like the ones that were permitted in other coastal communities.
00:23:00 Yes, there were howls of outrage at the time that still echo today. Even now, not every property owner has the right to build and enjoy the returns from units on their lot. Planning schemes do not treat all properties equally. They aim for equitable outcomes. For example, in this new planning scheme, we've deliberately chosen to upzone some low density residential properties into the medium density zone. We haven't treated all low density residential property owners equally, but the outcome is one that can be considered equitable. We did it to provide a greater range of dwelling choices close to transport hubs for sound planning reasons, including the need to help address the complicated and vexed affordable housing issue. Those opposed to the planning schemes that have limited high rise can rightly say they haven't been fair, but most would agree these schemes have delivered benefits such as liveability for the community at large, not just commercial returns to the individual property owner.
00:24:00 It's a similar principle of balance that underpins the approach to the new phenomena we're trying to take to short-stay letting. Some are demanding and will continue to demand that all dwellings in all zones of Noosa Shire become available for short-term letting, and are critical of the desire to moderate this pressure by limiting short-term accommodation in low density residential neighbourhoods. It's not the sole purpose of the planning scheme to maximise investment returns for a second, third or fourth properties. Helping ensure residents, and especially Noosa's tourism industry workers, can afford one roof over their head must also be among first priorities, and up there also would be the need to ensure whole residential neighbourhoods are provided with affordable housing. The new Noosa plan aims for a balance between supporting the needs of the resident population and supporting and enabling economic development, tourist development and visitor accommodation. It makes considerable provision for a significant number of short-term visitor accommodation
00:25:00 options. These usures should not, however, occur at the expense of other community needs. Contrary to some arguments circulating in the community, the new Noosa plan aims to provide an opportunity to reduce short-term accommodation in the Shire. The opposite is true, as the scheme provides plenty of opportunity for it to increase. It's proposed that all existing lawful short-term accommodation operating within the low-density residential zone can continue with existing use rights, and this is estimated at between 2,000 to 3,000 properties, not to mention those that exist in other zones. All home-based businesses offering short stays will be permitted to continue to operate within all residential zones. All new applications for short-term accommodation in the tourist accommodation zones, medium-density residential zones, high-density residential zones, rural residential zones and rural zones will be assessed as consistent and likely to be approved. But it is agreed that to allow a continued increase in short-term accommodation, which
00:26:00 is essentially a commercially operated use within the low-density residential zone, would be contrary to the intent of the new Noosa plan and the purpose and outcomes of the new plan. There is no evidence that no further increase in short-term accommodation dwellings in the low-density residential zone used for short-term accommodation will impact negatively on the existing tourism economy, as the new plan does not propose any losses in existing tourist accommodation. But the contrary. As it says in the report, it makes provision for more of these opportunities, and for that economy to grow. Extensive designated tourist accommodation zones within the low-density residential zones with an increased number of existing sites in Noosaville and Noosaheads now included in the zone from the current attached housing zone and two large sites earmarked for new high-end or five-star visitor accommodation are included in this planning scheme.
00:27:00 It permits short-term accommodation opportunities in all other residential and tourism zones, allows home-hosted short-stay opportunities in all residential zones, and short-term accommodation up to 60 nights per year in your principal place of residence anywhere in the shopping area. The medium and high-density residential zones and the tourist accommodation zones, approximately 5,500 properties currently have the capacity to operate short-term accommodation, if the owner chooses to short-term let the property. A further 600 existing properties also have the option to apply for short-term accommodation use within the medium and high-density residential zones, and this is all in the report. Claims that short-term accommodation will be reduced under this planning scheme are absolutely false. Also, we know. From the Noosa Housing Needs Assessment of the challenges our key workers in Noosashire's key industries who are crucial to the economy, we know the challenges they face in finding affordable accommodation. The recommendations include smaller lot sizes or increased density requirements for units,
00:28:00 dwellings that reduce the costs through a smaller land component or a smaller dwelling. We have made short-term accommodation consistent in these unit dwelling zones, which tend to be near tourist and other popular precincts, so unless we preserve low-density residential for permanent rentals or residents over and above the existing use rights for the short-term accommodation in the low-density residential zones, all could potentially become short-term accommodation over time, and this is about what Noosa will look like over time. Years ago, a former council had the courage to make a difficult town planning decision regarding high-rise that assured, over time, the livability of Noosa as a highly desirable residential community and a vibrant and prosperous community. This decision today about managing the continued growth of visitor accommodation in a way that safeguards our residential heartlands is another pivotal moment, and I like to think this council
00:29:00 has the courage to make the right call. Thank you. Councillor Jackson: I just have a question of you, Mr Chair. It would appear that some councillors perhaps were told ahead of time they could speak more than five minutes, and others of us were just told this morning when we arrived. Mayor Wellington: No, I didn't have that conversation. I had a conversation, discussion with anyone, and you can check with my fellow councillor if you like. I'm sure that many people wanted to talk at length about this, but I did not speak to any councillor about expanding beyond the five minute in the standing orders. As you would know, at no stage, in fact, has this council, whilst I've been a chair, actually kept someone to five minutes anyway. When they go over their five minutes, we usually ask the councillors if they're happy for them to continue when they do. Councillor Jurisevic: I beg to differ, Mr Chair. Question of staff, if I may. Yes, sir. Home-based businesses subject to development applications, as I understand it. Is that correct?
30 minutes in ¶
00:30:00 Speaker 3: Do you want to answer that? Mayor Wellington: Rowena? Speaker 3: It depends on what type of home-based business, councillor. You can do a traditional style bed and breakfast in urban zones, or you can do a home-based bed as well. They're all self-sensible. They're not self-assessable. I would not say that a home-based is a self-assessable business. I won't. I'm not. Councillor Jurisevic: I wasn't necessarily referring only to home-hosted stays. I was referring to businesses in general, home-based businesses in general. Speaker 3: Again, it depends on the style of the business. So if there are parameters in the table of assessment that talk about hours of operation, nature of business. But if it meets those, then there's no planning requirement.
00:31:00 Mayor Wellington: I've got a question for Kim Rawlings. If this motion were to pass, it would make a significant change, would it not, to the planning scheme, and would that trigger us going back out to community consultation and thus delaying the scheme further? Councillor Wilkie: Please, no. Speaker 4: Through the Chair. As councillors know, there is provisions in the Minister's guidelines and rules for making planning schemes that require councils to assess changes that they make in response to submissions, whether or not those changes are considered significant from the previous version. There's a range of guidance provided around what's considered significant.
00:32:00 And councils are responsible for that. And they are required to use those guides to test scenarios. Ultimately, it's a judgement call around what is significant change or not based on the guidelines. I would suggest, in my opinion, that changing short term accommodation from inconsistent impact to self-assessable in this circumstance would be a significant change. And I say that because it removes third party rights. It removes public submission process. And that would probably be, there's a range of things that need to be considered, but that would probably be why, in my opinion, in my judgement, I would say it would likely be considered a significant change. Mayor Wellington: Which would then trigger further community consultation, et cetera.
00:33:00 Speaker 4: That's correct. Mayor Wellington: Councillor Glasgow. Councillor Glasgow: There's been this talk about, as Councillor Jackson alluded to, complaint-based systems coming in. But is it true that the actual complaints that come into Council, A, there's no legislation at the moment to action them. B, there's no one here at midnight answering their phones anyway. And C, it just gets forwarded to the police. Is that how the system works on complaints in terms of these short stay residents? I know this. Mayor Wellington: You're referring to noise, I mean. Councillor Glasgow: Noise and these kind of things. And people, you know, because people complain about people partying in their own residence too late, then people complain about, obviously, people short term letting. I know this is a bit of a more of a local laws or a front desk question, but there's actually no legislation at the moment. Because there's all these arbitrary kind of figures out there online and on social media and so forth, about 100 complaints, 200 complaints, 2 complaints, 3 complaints.
00:34:00 But really, there's no legislation coming in at all to even have this data down about how many complaints there are in terms of the short term residences, short term residences use. And exactly who's just complaining about having a barking dog and some annoying kids in the backyard. So, is that true? Speaker 4: Council does receive complaints. It really depends on the nature of the complaint. We've had people, you know, advise us that they've complained to the police because of noise. They're now coming to council. You're right. No one was available after hours. And it does really depend on the circumstance about what's going on on the site, whether there's any approvals on the site, whether there's any approvals adjacent to the site. So, any formal complaints that we get through our development assessment team or through local laws. Are investigated to consider what's going on on the site and what's going on around it.
00:35:00 And we're constrained generally with what we can do, depending on the nature of the complaint. If there's a development improvement in place that requires limiting noise or within hours, then we can act. But if that doesn't exist, then we are definitely constrained with how we can deal with those complaints. Mayor Wellington: I think inherent in that question, Kim, was also a question about the way we deal with complaints. The way we log complaints. My understanding is that significant number of complaints about amenity in relation to Airbnb weren't logged because they weren't within our jurisdiction to act. Is that correct? Speaker 4: Well, complaints come into the council in many ways. So, yes, there could be complaints that have come in through customer service or to different offices that may not have been logged. If there are site-specific details, then we do log them. We do have a system that does log complaints. But, you know, it's my experience that this issue, complaints come in various ways, various forms, and not all of them are captured in that formal system.
00:36:00 Councillor Glasgow: That's a close question. Now, I know we're not supposed to have instructed you to ask you questions directly, but in terms of the short-term STR-type uses in our low-density areas, would you agree that there's an economy around this industry? I.e., you know, mums, dads, cleaning, people changing light bulbs, people cleaning pools, etc. There's a small amount of an economy around this industry, and we haven't had enough of the economic data back to us to really make an informed decision. Mayor Wellington: I'm sorry, but you're putting a debate here. I know. I'm sorry. I'm not going to allow that question to start. Anyone else wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. Mayor Wellington: Councillor Jurisevic. Councillor Jurisevic: Whilst I don't agree with the current situation of inconsistent and impact-assessable,
00:37:00 equally I can't agree with consistent and self-assessable for short-term accommodation in low-density residential zones. I think the staff got it right in their report. I think we've taken it a step too far, but this takes it a step back in the opposite direction. And I think that's why we're here now. I think the fact that there has been no regulation, which is essentially consistent and self-assessable, will return to means that the amenity issues that exist will struggle to be addressed. And again, the existing use rights issue, as Kim rightly pointed out, will present challenges. Whilst I acknowledge and accept a great number of the points that the Councillor raised in her debate in raising this issue, one of the issues with regard to development applications, I mean, businesses in most facets of activity
00:38:00 are required to lodge development applications. And I don't think a use such as, that can impact as much as a short-term accommodation can within the low-density residential zone should necessarily go without a development application. I think that's a prudent way of Council being aware of and being able to manage those that want to open up short-term accommodation in that area. Look, the issue of equity does come into it. I think what we've currently got is probably inequitable, but I think this is equitable on a grand scale. And I can't support the element of self-assessable within the low-density residential zone. Mayor Wellington: Thank you, Councillor. Anyone else wants to speak? The Councillor will stop on. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, I will. Mayor Wellington: Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, Councillors, what we're debating here is a planning scheme. And what's going to surprise you
00:39:00 is Councillor Jackson and I are taking the same approach today. I've got five speaking notes too. They don't alliterate. My five points are planning schemes about what we want Noosa to look like in 10 years' time. The second point, good plans are based on an understanding of trends and trajectories. Third point, we should follow best practice planning recommendations for short-stay accommodation. Fourth point, one thing we haven't done is prohibit short-stay accommodation in low-density residential zones. And lastly, I'm not going to make any apologies about putting the interests of our residents first. So, it's important when we're debating this motion to keep at the top of our mind that we are seeking to bed down four years of work to achieve a shared vision for Noosa in 10 years' time.
00:40:00 We would have been here earlier had we not actually done a whole first session of consultation with the community that isn't required under legislation to bed down the desired outcomes in the strategic framework. That is what this plan is set up to do. And so this motion actually moves away from achieving some of the strategic outcomes. So under community wellbeing in section 3.32 of the strategic framework, it says about Noosa Shire has an inclusive community of older people, families, children, young adults and other households. It then goes on in housing choice and mentions things like a wide range of housing is spread throughout the existing urban areas to meet the different demographics. That council will support various levels of government and community-based entities in delivering comprehensive range of social and affordable housing. And most importantly, the strategic outcome that was agreed to
00:41:00 as a result of consultation says that the planning scheme protects areas for visitor accommodation and the planning scheme also, if I would do it bigger, the neighbourhoods of permanent housing are protected from short-term visitor accommodation that would impact on the amenity enjoyed by residents. So that's the outcomes that we've been seeking to achieve since the first round of consultation. So when we debate it, it's not about what's happening next March. It's not about short-term fluctuations in the real estate market. It's not about the number of submissions nor the number of complaints. It's about maintaining Noosa at global best practices. In land use planning to continue to make this place a great place to live and a great place to visit. It is about whether our high school students today will be able to afford to rent or buy their own home close to work
00:42:00 when they first get married. That is the timeframe we're thinking about. So when we're looking at those timeframes, simplistic economic impact assessments of the effect on individual landowners about losing or having a higher level of assessment is nonsensical. You have to look at understanding the trends and the trajectories. And these are very consistent globally. It was mentioned that it's anecdotal evidence. That is not correct. I've spent hours and hours looking through the peer-reviewed literature about what the trends and trajectories are. And so I can tell you that studies by the Australian Housing and Urban Research Unit, the University of Tasmania, the University of Sydney, Southern Cross University, University of Queensland, McGill University, University of Massachusetts Boston, University of Victoria in Canada, all, for example, come up with the same main conclusion about the social and economic impacts of uncontrolled short-stay accommodation.
00:43:00 And that is it reduces the availability and increases the price of permanent rental accommodation and places upward prices. And that's the real pressure on housing prices. Many also highlight increases in traffic and parking congestion, increased waste management problems, and therefore increased cost to council services and infrastructure. This problem is not new. There was a commission of inquiry in New South Wales on the impact of short-stay accommodation and identified frequently that Airbnb homes can amount up to 167% of the rental vacancy rate in central Sydney. So that's the proportion of rentals available for local households to rent, as opposed to those available online for holiday living. That's in central Sydney. But nearly four times the number of rental vacancy in high-demand suburbs surrounding popular beaches. It suggests that if further properties are converted to short-term accommodation, the shortage of rental housing will intensify,
00:44:00 contributing to rising rent and house prices. The University of Sydney research in 2018 suggested, in Byron Bay, there are 50 holiday rental vacancies for every permanent rental available to local residents. But it goes more than that. When you look long-term, what does the trend say? So research in Spain found that the eruption of Airbnb in the Palmer Old Quarter led to the consolidation of large landholders and real estate agencies specialising in the Airbnb market and led to an increase in the social backlash against tourism. So if you're thinking you're doing this for tourism, think again. Because that's what's happening around the world. It creates a social division. This is an emerging trend. It first reported in Barcelona in 2014 when there was a string of street demonstrations by residents. Then the next report was in Berlin when there was a process of emotive and graphic campaigns targeting hosts and visitors. With this plan, we need to understand that these trends
45 minutes in ¶
00:45:00 and forecast what might be the trajectory if the issue isn't addressed locally. We are not there now, but this plan is our opportunity to make sure it doesn't happen. So I ask the question, is it worth risking damaging the Noosa brand by standing back and allowing the current discontent to turn into open hostility toward the impact of tourism in seven to ten years down the track? I think not. I think we should be aiming to best practise in this plan and get the balance right. So what is international best practise? Mayor Wellington: I've done a search. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So Professor Nicole Gurran suggested in the Journal of Planning Theory and Practice that in high-demand housing markets, such as we've got here in Noosa, urban planners need to defend permanent housing from conversion to short-term holiday accommodation, Mayor Wellington: which the plan, as advertised, proposes to do. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: She goes on further with a colleague in the Journal of American Planning Association
00:46:00 recommending, that planners and policymakers in locations with increasing numbers of Airbnb rentals need to review how well local planning controls manage the neighbourhood nuisances, traffic and parking problems that may be associated with them while acting to protect the permanent rental housing supply. Local planners need to ensure that zoning and residential development control distinguish between different forms of short-term Airbnb accommodation listings and their potential impacts on neighbourhoods and housing markets. A researcher in Vancouver came up with similar recommendations. She suggested that you limit short-stay accommodation to primary residents occupied by the operator, which is what we propose to do. She also said to prevent the use of housing units created to implement affordable housing policies as full-time short-term rentals. And that's just what the second version of the plan did.
00:47:00 It is saying we don't want short-term rentals in the medium and high-density zones created to generate more affordable housing in the junction and the nursery business centre. So one thing we haven't done is prohibit short-stay accommodation in low-density residential zones. We've made it easier for people offering rooms in their own homes. We have permitted people to offer their house while they're on holidays for two months. With around 3,000 existing premises, many of which would be able to claim existing use rights, we will maintain the capacity close to our tourism accommodation and coastal business centres. However, we have set a limit. And setting limits is what stood Noosa apart ever since the 1997 strategic plan. We have listened to those many people who have said they don't want to see whole house rentals spread throughout the neighbourhoods, so we've made it an inconsistent use. An inconsistent use tells people generally we don't think this use is suitable for the majority of land zanned for low-density residential.
00:48:00 But there will be still some situations where an application can be approved on its merits. And if you think this is improbable, I've asked. The development approval record since January 2016 shows that 33 applications for inconsistent uses have been approved by Council, where the need for and community benefit have been demonstrated up until December 2019. Councillor Glasgow: So councillors, my last point. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I make no apologies for putting the interests of our residents first. As I travel around this Shoah, I'm hearing every day that we should not allow uncontrolled expansion, choking our streets and beaches at the expense of the people who live here. We need to focus on value, not volume. We need to protect our local neighbourhoods and hinterland towns to retain their character and quiet ambience, and not let them be turned into noisy, overcrowded, and noisy places. So, councillors, when you're voting on this motion,
00:49:00 I urge you not to support it, not to think about March 2020, think about March 2030 and what we want our neighbourhoods to look like. And let's keep a place for our hospitality workers and our tradesmen close to our beaches and our hospitality precincts where they can live. Mayor Wellington: Thank you, councillor. Councillor Glasgow? Councillor Glasgow: I'll keep my closing statement. Sure. This has been a really, really prickly situation. Do you understand it's not a closing statement because you didn't move? Rob, sorry. My opening statement. Opening statement, I say. Sorry. My opening statement, short and short as I always do. I understand this has been a very prickly issue around the community. And I believe it's been done right. We went here on November 11 to make the decision. It's gone out to the public to see what the public feedback has been. And our main prerogative around this table is we work for the people. And the people have spoken, I believe,
00:50:00 with the right enforcement and the right management of this issue. You know, there is obviously the hairy bits around it about, you know, affordable housing and all these other types of things that Councillor Stockwell has talked about. But the public has spoken on this issue and not just real estate agents and people that are in this business industry themselves. But just general people that short stay, let their house in Tewantin a month a year and go on a vacation somewhere else. So I really believe with the right enforcement and management of this issue and use in low density areas, it can function good in our society, good in our industry, and especially in our low density areas. And I will be supporting it because the public have spoken. And I believe our main prerogative around this table is to listen to the public. Mayor Wellington: Thank you, Councillor. It must be my turn. I want to begin by acknowledging that this is actually a very large motion before us,
00:51:00 which is not specifically about Airbnb. In fact, it goes to the whole planning scheme. And I do want to acknowledge that the planning scheme has a lot of fantastic value in it, particularly with regard to freeing up business opportunities in the industrial estate, creating a precinct, reducing red tape significantly for people with businesses who are applying for development approvals. We've been working with the Noosa Junction Association to make the Noosa Junction work better for them. We've designed some interesting developments around the Noosa Civic area. It supports Noosa's historic approach to planning. It also goes to housing diversity as best we can through a planning scheme. However, what we are debating is the short stay issue. And if we go back to planning principles, I think it's important that the purpose... Can I actually have that dot map of the data scrape of where short stay is in certainly the coastal area
00:52:00 of the Shire on the screen? The low density residential zone is designed... That's all right, I'll carry on while you climb up. Oh, there we go. Is designed for neighbourhoods of permanent residents. The purpose of residential zoning has never been to facilitate tourist accommodation. People who buy in a residential zone expect residential amenity when they buy in a residential zone. They don't expect to be living amongst holiday revelers when they buy in a neighbourhood. And neighbourhood's a key word here. So why do we have zonings at all? We have zonings because we want to avoid conflicts. That's why we don't allow industrial in residential areas, why we don't allow masses of residential in the industrial zone, et cetera. And obviously in tourist accommodation zones as compared with residential areas because we also have to consider a whole lot of other factors about impact on public infrastructure,
00:53:00 population density and dispersal, et cetera, et cetera. But the conflicts here go much further than the notion of simply amenity conflict. And I do get tired when the debate gets focused only on this notion of noise amenity and how many complaints have there been, et cetera. That's not really the key issue. The key issue here is about what we're doing to allow residents the opportunity to live in the Shire. Already we're seeing large numbers of people being forced out of the Shire because they can't find accommodation here. That means they're driving into the Shire every day. That's increasing traffic congestion. If we take council as a sort of a litmus test, it's the biggest employer in town. The majority of workers in Noosa Council now live outside the Shire. They're having to drive in. And that's a problem not just for our community but also for our roads of course. After two years
00:54:00 of, I just want to actually go to this notion that it's not just Noosa dealing with this. It's actually right around the planet particularly as everyone is struggling with this. Can I put another photo up please? This is a photo that I took in Girona. There it is. Can we make it bigger? What it says is one tourist flat more is one home less. Kim Rawlings in fact noted earlier that one of the impacts of short stay is the availability of property. So after two years of legal action by the way Ontario in Canada has ruled in favour of bylaws which are aimed at limiting the number of short stay rental properties and that's because they are struggling to have enough capacity for their own residents. Their recent decision will reportedly in fact lead to 5,000 long term rental units being taken off the short term
00:55:00 rental market and now once again provided for permanent residents. Honolulu has moved will see the number wound back considerably. The cap that they're working on doesn't apply to the resort or tourist accommodation areas only the residential areas. The estimate is that between 8,000 and 10,000 short stay properties are in those areas and the total cap is going to be 1,699 reducing the number by 8,300 listings in Honolulu. Why? So they can get residents back into their neighbourhoods. Meanwhile closer to home I want to point out that the Parliamentary Committee in Tasmania has recommended that Council should be given the power to refuse permits for Airbnb listings where they are having a negative impact on housing availability. Tasmania by the way already has a registration system for short stay. But of course unlike places
00:56:00 like Toronto and Honolulu here in Noosa we're not actually reducing the number of short stay properties. That's not the intention here. What we are doing is say they have arguably spread far enough into the residential suburban neighbourhoods and it's time to begin protecting those residents in those neighbourhoods who wish to live and work here rather than forcing more people to drive in and out of the Shire each day. In terms of the economic impacts given their existing use rights for short stay accommodation properties and given that home hosted properties are not affected by what's proposed in the planning scheme I really am struggling to see how what we're dealing with here that is if we go with the staff recommendation is actually going to have a huge difference to our local economy. There isn't going to be a sudden loss of short stay properties. It won't happen. There might be a minor attrition within the residential area and that capacity
00:57:00 or the medium or high density residential areas. If the concern is that we will no longer be ramping up or escalating visitor accommodation well I say now is a damn good time to be taking stock of how many visitors we want and what sort of place we want. Whether this Noosa is a place for visitors or whether Noosa is a place for residents and visitors. Let's not forget that if we erode the availability of housing for residents we also reduce the ability of local businesses and services who serve and provide for those residents. I'm talking about things like education, sport and recreation, grocery stores, motor mechanics, etc. It's been painted as there is this economy around Airbnb that we're suddenly going to lose because there are people serving the Airbnbs by providing linen and cleaning etc. Yes. But if you've got residents there throughout the whole year those residents are also spending in the Shire and are supporting family owned businesses
00:58:00 across the Shire in a way that tourists own. So of course this council has been very active in helping to diversify the local economy in many ways and this planning scheme goes to that. We are not about having a sudden impact on the local economy. The new planning scheme seeks to enable greater opportunity in the business centres to make it easier for co-locating complementary businesses in the industrial areas, to make it easier for businesses to be able to apply for development applications without having to go through a whole lot of red tape. We are working on expanding the economy so it's not totally reliant upon tourism. If we support this motion and don't support staff recommendation then what we're doing to protect housing in this Shire is nothing. We are not doing a single thing to protect housing for residents. That's the end result
00:59:00 because research the world over absolutely totally clearly demonstrates that where Airbnb and its ilk have penetrated cities and locations residents are being forced to struggle with it. We're a microcosm here but we still need to get on top of it. I am going to refer to Byron Bay because it is the nearest easy comparison we have to Noosa and my friend Mayor Richardson in Byron Bay has talked about the hollowing out of his community thanks to Airbnb with significant losses of volunteers in the SES, loss of rural firefighters kind of important at the moment, losses to the cricket club, the softball club, et cetera, et cetera. The rest of the community is being impacted by the infiltration of short stay accommodation. Those volunteers
60 minutes in ¶
01:00:00 that help make our community safe, that help make the community functional are being lost in Byron Bay and that's been acknowledged. There's been some great research done just this year by Southern Cross University that's confirmed that significant numbers of residents in Byron Bay are being forced out of Byron Shire because of two things. One is permanent rental stock is being converted to short term rental stock and once kicked out of their homes those people are forced out of the Shire. And finally I want to challenge the notion that the majority of Noosa residents support the notion of a laissez faire approach to short stay accommodation as Councillor Vasco suggested. What we're hearing from is the vested interest. The noise of people. That's fair enough. They have every right to make their point known and I welcome that. However what you don't hear from whenever Council puts something out to the public you don't hear from the people who agree. Funnily enough every time we put something out the ones we hear from are the ones who disagree with what we're offering with what we're putting out.
01:01:00 That makes sense. I don't need to say anything. From my speaking with residents around the Shire my impression is that the vast majority actually want to see greater regulation of short stay. And again I'm going to go back to Byron because it's an interesting comparison. Southern Cross University surveyed 819 Byron residents. This is a good sample size. 819 of them including Airbnb hosts. 77% agreed that short stay reduces the availability of affordable housing for residents. 75% agreed that short stay increases parking and traffic congestion. 71% agreed that short stay leads to extra costs for ratepayers to provide infrastructure. Something else we haven't talked about. The more tourists you have the more residents are paying for the infrastructure including the roads etc. And people who use Airbnb are fundamentally driving here. They're not flying in and sitting in Hastings Street.
01:02:00 69% of Byron residents agreed that short stay adversely affects lifestyle of neighbourhoods. 61% agreed that short stay increases property prices. So how did Byron Bay residents feel about placing controls or restrictions on short stay? 75%, three quarters agreed that there needed to be restrictions on Airbnb and properties that didn't have onsite management. And 68% agreed that there needs to be zoning restrictions. What we're talking about here to control short stay in residential areas. And just out of interest of whopping 91% believe that there need to be more adequate reporting opportunities for complaints about the impacts of short stay. And my gut feeling is that we'd get a similar sort of response here if we went out and surveyed our residents. But in the end this is not about the public perception. This is about ensuring that Noosa residents into the future can actually find
01:03:00 accommodation in the Shire. That's hopefully affordable although that's a struggle we're having. And I have to say I've had a lot of real estate agents come to me and say the problem is if you reduce the amount of short stay in the residential areas we can't get a premium price for our properties. Because at the moment they're advertising properties as great for Airbnb or a home. By saying they're great for Airbnb they're telling me they've said this that it actually pushes the price up. Well I'm sorry folks we have a real problem here. The majority of our residents are below the state average of household income. The average household income in Noosa is below state average and our property prices are high. And what Airbnb and the others are doing and the real estate agents agree with it is pushing up prices. So we're making it even less affordable here. The purpose I come back to the purpose of planning. The purpose of the low density residential zone is for neighbourhoods for residents not tourists. In fact it's the only zone that absolutely ensures
01:04:00 opportunities for residents and as the planning scheme says with minimal impact for visitors. I therefore inform my fellow councillors in favour of Noosa's living amenity. In favour of community wellbeing which will be impacted by the proliferation of short stay in neighbourhoods. In favour of Noosa's future to ensure that Noosa remains focused on the needs of residents and vote in favour of the very purpose of the low density low density residential zone as defined in the planning scheme. Thank you. You wish to close Catherine? Councillor Jackson: I certainly do. Thank you very much. I see one councillor certainly knew he was going to speak for more than five minutes. Look, because of the length of all these speeches it's actually quite difficult to do a reply but I shall try to capture some of the key things that have been said and look I think one of the big things that's come through all the things
01:05:00 that everyone has said is back to the lack of actual evidence-based study that has been done here in Noosa. We've just heard what Byron Bay surveys have done. We don't know anything about the statistical validity of that survey but that's Byron Bay. Apparently they have a different problem than Noosa currently has. So, you know, I think that there's a basic problem here that council is going to have a new report and they've all got a little to give that we've The survey results were duplicated in Noosa from Byron Bay that he knows the results. Well, I don't know Oh, if we know the results, Mayor. Frank Wilkie, I appreciate a lot of good words said about the Noosa plan, which I think it has a lot of good stuff in it.
01:06:00 I think there's a, you know, unfortunately, the tendency to be the master of worst case scenario, raising issues of high rises and lack of environmental protection, greater population. This is not what my motion is about. My motion is simply about giving people an opportunity to let out houses that they choose to let out and to diversify our tourism accommodation choice. I think there's been a fair bit of talk about how by having inconsistent amongst residential houses, that they may still get an opportunity to apply for a development application and get development application. Councillor Stockwell quoted some figures about inconsistent development applications. I'm losing my voice.
01:07:00 I don't know what type of properties those were. They may not have been residential. But I think there's no question that. With the expense of making an application in an inconsistent zone, which we're talking about, as I understand it, something like $9,000, just the charge by council for a fee. And then all the planning planner having to get a commercial planner to help you write an application. We're talking about thousands and thousands of dollars making an application. And you know what? It's only going to be some very rich people who could possibly afford it. So it's really, you know, not really something that people will be doing. And in fact, even with consistent, many of the other zones have been proposed to be consistent zones where people can make an application are more likely to get approval.
01:08:00 But even then, we're talking about thousands of dollars for making an application. Most people won't be able to afford that. There's an issue of I guess I've been talking about equity. There was a question asked about whether this particular proposal would be a significant change and whether that would require community consultation. And as Kim Rawlings explained, that is a matter of judgment for council in line with ministerial guidelines. I guess one would have to ask oneself whether it would be such a problem to have to go back and get more feedback from the community. You would be I think we're all aware we had an email this morning to let us know that a petition requesting deferral of the decision has already attracted 875 people requesting deferral.
01:09:00 So the concept that this is just real estate agents. I don't think so. I think there are a lot of people who are not satisfied with the situation. Maintaining global best practice. The erudite councilor Stockwell has given us a lot of information about what he's been reading. But you know, can I say I've been to Barcelona and when I was there not that long ago, I did look into this and they're using a form of local law with permits. And what they do is then they manage each precinct. And decide how many permits are allowed for precincts. So it can be managed outside of a planning scheme situation. Councillor Stockwell also talked about he was against uncontrolled short term accommodation. Well, so am I. And that's why I'm saying it can be managed properly through a good local law. I think that can be managed very well and it doesn't need to be in the planning scheme.
01:10:00 Councillor Stockwell has many nice terms of phrase. And one was he wants our young people to be able to get married here and buy a house. Well, you know what? Young people can't even get married here and get a job. If you've ever looked at the statistics of our demographics, we've got a lot of very young people. And then they have to get out of here to have a career somewhere else because we don't have the jobs here. All we've got is low level jobs. So if we want to do something that's going to further damage our economy. And we haven't got an economic impact assessment to be sure that it's not. And the ripple effect that will have throughout the economy in our diverse attempts to diversify. I don't think we're going to be helping young people by by doing that. I'll just continue having a look at what else people have said. The idea that our hospitality workers and our other tourist workers
01:11:00 will by stopping our houses from being allowed to be let short stay will give them accommodation. I think Councillor Wellington's map with all the dots on it showing where short stays happening demonstrated that it's happening in Noosaville, in Noosaheads, Sunshine Beach. Those are places where people have expensive houses. It's not going to make it available to our key workers to get housing to live in. So I don't think that the danger of the whole Noosa Shire and the worst case scenario that is being presented by, well in particular by Councillor Wellington, I don't think we're facing the worst case scenario. And I think that's a way of arguing a worst case scenario to get people to agree.
01:12:00 I'm just seeing what else, I took notes to see what everyone was writing. I'm interested to hear that Toronto was talking about bylaws and managing it bylaws. And I mean I think it's important when we throw out words like Paris, New York, London, Barcelona. Hey, we're not Paris, New York, London, Barcelona. We're a little place over in Queensland. Quite far away from the rest of the world. It's really hard to get here. And we're not actually going to have the issues of some of these locations that are located in the Northern Hemisphere. Everyone goes. It's not the same issue. I think probably that covers what I was going to do as a right of reply. I won't be making my speech again. I think I'm covering what I've heard people say. And I continue to feel that because of the lack of evidence, the need for equity, the expense of any other option than making short stay letting an acceptable use, and the need to put in place something to enforce, which can be a local law.
01:13:00 These are things that I still think are a value to what would be our future NUSA plan. Thank you. Mayor Wellington: Thank you. Before I put the vote, I've got a question for staff. A suggestion has been made by Councillor Jackson that a local law similar to Barcelona where they limit numbers in certain areas could be the inferences that a local law could be used to limit numbers of a short stay in NUSA. Is there any capacity for a local law to be able to regulate numbers of land use such as short stay as opposed to a planning scheme? Speaker 4: Back through the chair. Not that I'm aware of. The draft proposed local law certainly didn't propose to limit numbers. It did propose to put in place an approval system and an annual renewal system and potentially, depending on complaints and what may have happened in that particular property contract,
01:14:00 throughout the year that there was a potential for renewals not to be given as a result of that. But other than that provision, no, local law is not proposing, and not that I'm aware of, could limit the numbers. The planning scheme, councillors have mentioned the word limit. The planning scheme can in effect limit uses in zones. So the planning scheme is the tool that can do that. It can't prohibit uses, but it can make them inconsistent, and that's what's...
75 minutes in ¶
01:15:00 Mayor Wellington: You might just explain, too, for those who aren't aware, what's happening with the local law in terms of short-staff, where we're at, while we've got this moment. Speaker 4: Sure. So the local law for short-term letting was also on consultation throughout October and November. We received a lot of submissions, very considered, thorough submissions on that process. And we're still working through those. You will note that in the staff report, we have outlined where that's at, and that it does need further work. At this stage, we anticipate that there'll be changes to that local law, and that further consultation will be required, and that we'd like to continue to work with key stakeholders in the development of that local law. Mayor Wellington: Thank you. I have a quick question. Yeah, sure, Councillor Glasgow. Councillor Glasgow: There's a lot of talk about this going around, about affordable housing and, you know, how this is really affecting affordable housing in now and into the future. In the new planning scheme, we do have quite a few sites coming up of affordable housing, right, don't we? Coming up specifically in Shire Business Centre. Is there anywhere else?
01:16:00 Mayor Wellington: I think the question is, what's the planning scheme doing to advance affordable housing? Councillor Glasgow: Yeah, yeah. We're talking a lot about it, and it's pretty adamant this is going to be a real contentious issue. Re-affordable housing. Re-affordable housing, short-term letting. And what we're going to do about it in those councils. Speaker 4: Sure. Through the Chair. Councillors will know that the issue of housing and affordability was a big issue through the development of this planning scheme. And, yes, the planning scheme does seek to do what it can do around affordable housing. So it's – there's new provisions for encouraging smaller dwellings. There's new provisions that provide the bonus provisions. There's new provisions that provide the bonus provisions. If people develop smaller housing where they potentially get further density as a way to encourage smaller, hopefully more affordable housing.
01:17:00 Council has allocated a number of new sites for high density residential development in Noosa Junction and also in the Shire Business Centre, which encourages, again, smaller housing. Council's also put in provisions for – specifically for smaller housing. So, yes, there are a number of provisions and mechanisms that the new Noosa plan seeks to try and achieve more affordable and diverse housing choice. Mayor Wellington: Okay, councillors. I shall put the motion. Those in favour? Councillors Jackson and Glasgow. Those against? Councillors Stockwell, Wilkie, Jurisevic and Wellington. The motion is lost. Councillor Sattler. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'd like to move the staff recommendation plus the additions required in terms of the submission with regard to the C-scales. Yep.
01:18:00 I'll second that. So, councillors, it is time to look at the whole plan. The last debate highlighted this – a issue that wears a divergence of opinion and that, in a good democracy, reflects that. It reflects the divergence of opinion in our community. But there's a whole lot of things where there isn't a divergence. And I'm really pleased with the way that we, as councillors, have worked collegially as elected representatives and in partnership with our highly professional strategic planning staff over the recent years. It's important to note that this plan is the first time since the much-heralded 1997 strategic plan that we have legislation that allows us to include a strategic framework within the new Noosa Junction. Any plan – I believe this is the most important element, because that tells you what you want to achieve. That's what planning is about. It sets priorities in the lower order provisions, and I believe this plan takes meaningful steps
01:19:00 towards achieving the strategic intent outlined right at the very beginning of the plan. And I think it's really good to remember what those key themes that this plan seeks to achieve. It wants a well-managed and sustainable Noosa Shire. It wants a connected, safe, and happy community. It wants housing for all. It wants something to meet the diverse needs of the community. It wants protection and enhancement of the natural environment, the scenic amenity and landscape character, a diverse and resilient economy, an innovative, responsive transport system, coordinated efficient infrastructure, and preparing for natural hazards and increasing resilience. Mayor Wellington: Now, I believe we've done well. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think there is still work as identified in the motion in regard to climate change adaptation plan and coastal hazards. But on the whole, I think the plan has really set out a wonderful framework for Noosa to retain its values going forward.
01:20:00 Now, Councillor Glasgow mentioned about being here to represent the community. And one way to do that is to listen to the feedback at the time. The other way is to put out what you stand for and get people to vote for you. So back in 2015, I did that. I wrote down what I thought were the key priorities and policies I would like to pursue on behalf of the community, seven of those campaign commitments related to the review of the planning scheme. So while this has definitely been a team effort, I'd like to do it by way of a final checklist. I'm happy to report that I can put a tick beside each of those seven commitments I made. Number one was to drive the review of a planning scheme to ensure it builds on Noosa values. Tick. Ensure the new Noosa plans limits population growth to the carrying capacity of our natural and social assets. Tick. Improve the affordability of housing for young and older life by promoting mixed uses on the Noosa Heads bowl club site, shop top housing in business centres and more housing choices that suit family size.
01:21:00 Tick. Create more flexibility in commercial, industrial and rural zones to foster innovation and a mix of enterprises possible in the next generation economy. Tick. Ensure the revised planning scheme supports free grain, low chemical, sustainable agriculture. Tick. Include measures in the revised Noosa plan which reduce car dependency. Tick. Encourage eco-efficiency in homes and businesses as part of the new Noosa plan. Tick. So councillors, this plan and this recommendation I believe well reflects the aspirations of our community and does place us in a good place to assess development applications over the next seven to ten years. And I urge you to support it. Thank you, Councillor Sissler. Thank you, Councillor Randley. Councillor Jackson: Councillor Johnson. Councillor vídeo. Chair, I see Cathy is working on changing the wording on the recommended motion, the motion that's been proposed. Could we just go through that and make sure that we're all on the same page about this
01:22:00 wording? Councillor Jurisevic: It's about to change in a second. Speaker 5: Can I make an observation. Yes please. It might be easier. The motion of the motion! I think the Councillor Stockwell was moving, as per the staff recommendation, but taking into account the exclusion of the issue that he had already declared a conflict of interest on. Yes. And so, Kath, we don't need those other changes, because there have been no other changes yet. If there's an amendment moved and those wording would need to come back in to deal with any changes that come through. Councillor Jackson: So, it really should just be the original motion with A and B in the first bit of red. Speaker 5: Yeah, that's what I'll say. Speaker 1: But, so, we'll have to decide. Speaker 5: Because that's right. That has to be in. That has to be in. And under B as well. Yeah. Speaker 1: And under that. Speaker 5: Yeah. Well, there's been no changes. Councillor Jackson: Oh, the change is the one about. There's been a change in A above, that one. The change is above. Speaker 4: Brett's cool. Speaker 5: The submission.
01:23:00 Oh, okay. Yeah, but there's not been a change. There's been no changes. Yes. Correct. So, you can take out that in B, Kath. There's been no changes. Ditto in C. But if there are any changes due to amendment, we need to put those in. Okay. Thank you. You can leave them in there, because they're about to propose, but, yeah, and if there is an amendment to this in terms of paragraph A, then you'll need to put those other changes in to reflect what would flow through to the planning scheme. Mayor Wellington: Mr. Chair, I'd like to move an amendment. No, before you do, can you just go back? Kathy, I just want to look at part G there. Councillor Wilkie: Part E doesn't make sense, does it? Mayor Wellington: Yeah, part E it is, doesn't it? Yeah, part E is not quite right. It's not quite right anymore. Can you, you've lost some of the original wording. Yeah, I've got to do it again. Okay. Any minor changes? Speaker 5: Any minor changes to the plan for 2021? No, it's better. Yeah. Well spotted.
01:24:00 Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Jurisevic, please. Councillor Jurisevic: Mr. Chair, I'd like to move an amendment. Yeah. Kathy, if you could, I've circulated this amendment to staff and councillors earlier. Yeah. M20867830, agree the changes be made to the strategic outcomes for transport and movement within the strategic framework as follows. N, the Noosa Aerodrome off Wyver Drive, Noosaville, is retained and operated as the only commercial airstrip within the Noosa Shire.
01:25:00 Use of the Noosa North Shore Airstrip will not be expanded and the airstrip will ultimately be closed, which is where the staff recommend the wording in the introductory spiel of the... Mayor Wellington: You're not even talking to it, you're only reading it. Councillor Jurisevic: I'm just telling you what the additions are. So the only changes to what staff had recommended apart from the submission numbers is to use by private and commercial helicopters and fixed closed to use by private and commercial helicopters and fixed wing aircraft while they continue use of the area by emergency services helicopters for operational landings and limited local area familiarisation and training by ultralight and model aircraft will be permitted. Councillor Wilkie: Just a question. Just a question. Just to confirm, Councillor Jurisevic, you're saying the original motion as included in the planning scheme... The original wording by staff in the planning scheme is up to the word closed. It was up to the word closed. That's right. Okay, I'll happen to second it. Speaker 5: Can I be clear and finalise that? Yep. If you can do it either now or later, if this amendment is passed,
01:26:00 then you can do a separate amendment to make the other consequential changes through the remainder of the recommendations, the remainder of the motions to make the changes in the planning scheme and so on. The easiest thing from my perspective would be to deal with this one. If it's successful, then you do another amendment to deal with the consequential changes to the remainder of the original motion. If there are any. Yeah. Okay. Care to speak to it, Councillor? Councillor Jurisevic: Yes. I believe that the wording of the staff ending at the word closed didn't reflect resolutions of council. To date, and the sport and recreation plan and the difficult to locate sporting activity studies that were undertaken which proposed to retain the North Shore airstrip for the use of recreational activities such as ultralight model aircraft, as well as, as I said, the resolution of council in 2014,
01:27:00 which I did circulate to councils with regard to the continuation and continued use of the area by emergency services helicopters for operational landings and limited local area familiarization. I think this more accurately reflects what has gone through the current plans and resolutions of council today. Mayor Wellington: Question. Good question. You can go. Councillor Jackson: Okay. Well, I actually would like staff to please explain, perhaps, Kim or someone else, how. The original wording in the planning scheme was arrived at, and why this was missing, and what the implications are with this wording. Speaker 4: Did you guys hear that question? Speaker 5: Councillor, would you be able to. Would you be good enough to ask the question again? Can I do it again? Councillor Jackson: Okay. Thank you, Councillor Jurisevic, for your motion, amendment motion.
01:28:00 I'm really not so familiar with this part of the planning scheme, and I'm wondering why the planning scheme has omitted this section, and how it arrived at, in the first place, the part that's in there. Speaker 2: Rebecca. Yep, through the chair. In the strategic framework, there's provisions relating to transport generally, and then also specific to road transport, buses, and aircraft. So it's important the strategic framework has a policy. There's a policy position on air transport for the various airstrips across the Shire, the two that are there in place at the moment, so it was seeking to do that. That was as far as we got in terms of setting out the policy position for that particular airstrip, and we're here to consider the further wording there as well. Councillor Jackson: And is this, just to check, is the wording being written here, which goes into the particular
01:29:00 strategic framework? The only place that a change would need to be made in the Noosa plan in relationship to this? That's correct, yes. Okay. Thank you. Mayor Wellington: So I've got a question to start. Kim, you can delegate this if you want. My understanding is that in the Great Sandy Management Plan, which is currently under review, the existing plan identifies that the Noosa North Shore airstrip will eventually be closed and converted into National Park. And we don't know, of course, what the updated Great Sandy Management Plan will suggest, but presumably it might go to that same position. Speaker 4: Yes, that's correct. The Great Sandy Management Plan, which was revised in 2004, states the Noosa North Shore airstrip will be closed and added to the Kooloola section of the Great Sandy National Park,
90 minutes in ¶
01:30:00 although continued use of the area by ultralight airstrips will be closed. That's correct. Mayor Wellington: Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Anyone else wish to speak? Just another question, Councillor Stockwell. I'm just looking at whether the amendment is redundant. Use of the North Shore airstrip will not be expanded. Am I correct in thinking that its use by, continued use by the area by emergency services, helicopter for emergency operational landings and limbal local area familiarisation and training by ultralight and model aircraft are existing uses? Therefore... They are covered by the term, will not be expanded. Speaker 4: They are existing uses, and a development approval does exist on the site, so yes, they are permitted existing uses. Mayor Wellington: Sorry. Sorry. Go on. Did you have more to say? Speaker 4: Not really.
01:31:00 Mayor Wellington: I'd like to go to the Noosa Aerodrome Office. My understanding is that council regularly receives complaints about the use of that airstrip. Can you please describe the intensity of use as you are aware? Do you happen to know how often it's used? Speaker 4: I actually don't have that information at hand, Councillor Wellington. But I do know that we do get complaints about that site and we are dealing with issues at the moment on that site. But I couldn't categorically give you the facts on how often that site is used. Mayor Wellington: Given that we do have some development issues there, I think this is where we had some illegal earthworks and dumping of improper material, etc. And that we do get complaints about it. Why does the planning scheme identify this site to be retained and operated as a commercial airstrip?
01:32:00 Speaker 4: This airstrip has been in existence for a long time. It's been zoned for this purpose, I think, for at least, if I'm wrong, the two past planning schemes. So for at least a number of decades. So this scheme was about continuing to acknowledge and recognise that use. We are dealing with the issues. Through the normal processes of development, assessment and compliance, and we're actively dealing with those issues. Councillor Jackson: I just need to ask, it's actually related to what Councillor Stockwell asked, when I, and perhaps he asked the same question, but I'm not sure. The word says the use of the North Shore Airstrip will not be expanded and the Airstrip will be ultimately closed to use by private blah blah blah.
01:33:00 Does that mean that by putting into use by private and commercial helicopters, it would only be closed for those purposes, but it might still be open for other purposes? Speaker 4: Yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes. Mayor Wellington: Yes. Speaker 4: Yes. Councillor Jackson: That's what it means. Speaker 4: That's what it means. Yes. Okay. Mayor Wellington: Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm going to speak against the motion. While I appreciate what Councillor Jurisevic is trying to do, he's taken an individual site issue and tried to present a whole lot of words in the strategic outcomes for transport and movement. If you look at that section, it's about what we want to achieve. It says the strategic outcomes for transport and movement by 2041 are, and it's not model aircraft. No one moves around in model aircraft. It's not ultralight. That's a hobby. It's not a transport option. And it's not about emergency services provision. So while I appreciate what Councillor Jurisevic is trying to do in terms of acknowledging
01:34:00 that there is some use approvals over there, it's not about emergency services provision. And we're not, as a planning scheme, wanting to, say, make that judgement. It's not an outcome. All this addition is doing is providing a slightly more enhanced description of what will not be expanded might mean. It's not an outcome. It's not appropriate as a strategic outcome for transport and movement, and we shouldn't support it. Councillor Wilkie. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Look, I've got no problem whatsoever with this amendment. Well, it's quite reasonable. I think it's quite correct to say that it may be redundant when you consider the wording up to the point, up to the word expanded, but the phrase after that, and the airstrip will ultimately be closed, is the pivotal one, in my opinion. And the additional words merely reflect a resolution of Council on the 2nd of January 2014, which ensured the continued use of the area by emergency services, helicopters for
01:35:00 reasons which have, especially in fires, proven themselves to be more essential. And also the community groups that have rights over there, it gives them certainty, it removes any ambiguity about the rights for emergency services to use that, and also for the community group to use it, and also is consistent with the Cooloola Great Plan, as confirmed by our Director of Planning earlier on. I've got no problem whatsoever with this amendment. Mayor Wellington: I've got another question for you, Kim, I'm afraid. The wording in the planning scheme and on the screen is, will ultimately be closed to use by private and commercial helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft. My understanding is, it is already closed for that use, as a result of our 2014 motion that was referenced by Councillor Wilkie. Speaker 4: The wording in the planning scheme is that the airstrip will ultimately be closed to
01:36:00 use, full stop. The further wording is Councillor Jurisevic's wording from the motion, from the amendment. So the wording that the actual planning scheme says is that the airstrip will ultimately be closed. Mayor Wellington: Right. I'm going to speak against the motion then, because it's actually contorted the intention of the staff's planning scheme in that it was noting that the commercial helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft, North Shore airstrip in keeping with the Great Sanding Management Plan, would fundamentally eventually be closed to all use. That was the intention of the Great Sanding Management Plan. Ultimately, closed to use by private and commercial helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft is actually now in conflict with the resolution of this Council, which is that it is now closed, not ultimately. It is now closed for those uses. So I can't support something that is actually in conflict with the resolution of this Council. Councillor Wilkie: Question. Just to clarify, Kim, the Great Sanding Management Plan, could you repeat what the situation
01:37:00 is with that document in terms for the use? I understand it was, what I thought I heard was that the airstrip will ultimately be closed to use by private and commercial helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft, although continued use for emergency services is intended. Right. So the Great Sanding Management Plan's, the statement of intent in the Great Sanding Management Plan is consistent with what we've got articulated before us here in full. Have I misheard? Speaker 4: Yes. Sorry, Councillor Wilkie. The statement in the Great Sanding National, the Great Sanding Management Plan is the North Shore airstrip will be closed and added to the section of the Great Sanding National Park. Although continued use of the area by ultralight aircraft will be permitted.
01:38:00 That's what the Great Sanding says. Our scheme then translates that into a transport outcome statement. So it's not an exact lift from the Great Sanding National Management Plan. No. And that first statement is what is in our scheme. Councillor Wilkie: So it would be consistent with the Great Sanding Management Plan that, although the aircraft will be permitted to use by ultralight aircraft, the area will be permitted to use Speaker 4: by ultralight aircraft. That's the only other thing the Great Sanding Management Plan says. Okay. Councillor Jackson: This is one of those difficult ones. Given we've just experienced many bad bushfires. Okay. And here we're talking about emergency services, helicopters for emergency operational landings,
01:39:00 and also limited familiarisation for training. Is this closure to those sorts of options a problem? And when you talked about area, so you close the airstrip, but then where do they land? Speaker 4: Ultimately, I think irrespective of the wording here. Emergency services will land as needed. Councillor Jackson: And the airspace. Speaker 4: Yeah. It's, it's, it's, it would be, there would be nothing in the planning scheme that would stop that situation. Yeah. In the case of an emergency and disaster management. Councillor Wilkie: Process question. If the planning scheme was not to include that additional clause, and we have a resolution from Council that those uses be, be, be, be, be, be, be, be, be, be, be, be, be, be, be, be, be, be, be, be, be, allowed, how is that conflict of outcomes managed?
01:40:00 Would, would the planning scheme have privacy over a Council resolution, for example, in terms of use? Good question. Good question. Councillor Jackson: No, no. Speaker 5: Great question. Um, the short answer is that we, when you're dealing with land use issues, the planning scheme has privacy in terms of that decision making framework. If there's other issues outside the planning scheme, then a Council decision would still have relevance. Councillor Jackson: I just, because I was not here in 2014, can someone please tell us the 2014 decision? Councillor Jurisevic: The wording is exactly taken from the resolution. It is word for word from the resolution. Speaker 5: So I'll read out the, actually it's visiting, like visiting our friends looking at our minutes. The minutes of the 2nd of January 2014. Item 6. Council note the report by the Acting Chief Executive Officer to the ordinary meeting dated 2 January 2014.
01:41:00 And number 1. Restrict use of the Noosa North Shore Reserve for landing ground for aircraft by prohibiting use of private and commercial helicopter and fixed wing aircraft, but allow continued use by emergency services. Emergency services helicopters for emergency operational landings and limited local area familiarisation and training. Model aircraft, ultralights and hang gliders. And 2. Authorise the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer to make representation to the appropriate authorities to have the Cooloola Great section of the Great Sandy National Park and the surrounding and adjacent residential areas declared as restricted airspace. And 3. A further report be presented to Noosa Council regarding what was said. Land tenure matters relating to the reserve for landing ground for aircraft TUR Airstrip. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So I've got a question that I'm going to put you on the spot. Who?
01:42:00 To the, if I can direct it through you too, the Director. Is the use of helicopters, sorry, the use of the area by emergency services helicopters for emergency operational landings a land use which is controlled by the planning scheme? Councillor Jackson: No, it is not. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Is it therefore at any way appropriate to have that as an outcome, a strategic outcome? No, you can't ask that opinion because. No, it is, it's, I'm going to the legislator bit next. So is it appropriate to have a non-land use outcome in a strategic outcome from our planning scheme? Okay, I'll allow that. Speaker 5: I'm hoping you can answer that. Yes. Speaker 3: Okay. Um. Councillor Wilkie: That may qualify as something. That appears that it is asking an opinion, but the question, could I rephrase the question? Yes. Can it be allowed? Can it be done? Speaker 4: Look, I think it could be done.
01:43:00 I think Council could write these words in. Is it necessary? I don't think so. Um. The, as I mentioned previously, that. That emergency services if required will land there and can continue to land there and stating this or not stating this will not change that. Um. The ultralight and model aircraft are permitted to, to use that site at the moment and can continue to while they're permitted to do so. So is it, is this wording necessary to achieve the outcomes that are happening on that at the moment? No, I don't think it is. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Further question? Oh, you're middle of my question. Sorry. Go on. You're much done. Okay. No, mine is. Let's stop. Mayor Wellington: Mine is. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Um. The Great Sandy Management Plan is a State Government document that sets out their interests. It's got a certain turn of phrase in it and we've negotiated with the State Government to
01:44:00 reflect their interest in our planning scheme by changing what is in the Great Sandy Management Plan by forwarding. Mayor Wellington: You're putting an argument. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, no, no. I'm asking what are the potential implications of changing the scheme at this stage so we don't reflect the State interest? Speaker 4: That there is a potential implication. This issue was subject of State interest. Um. And there was toing and froing about the wording quite specifically on this issue with State interest at the first check. Um. So yes, potentially we would need to have that wording checked as part of the next State interest process. Councillor Wilkie: And that's, does that imply that it will no longer be maintained? Or are you saying that the airstrip will continue to be maintained so that aircraft can continue to land there?
105 minutes in ¶
01:45:00 So I look at, if an airstrip is closed, I look at that, it seems to suggest that it's not maintained. Speaker 5: I can answer that. Town Plan schemes don't deal with maintenance of the airstrips. No, no. It's got nothing to do with it. No. No. Mayor Wellington: Councillor Glasgow. Councillor Glasgow: Question to Councillor Jurisevic. Just give this to me like you're speaking to a two year old, alright? Very simple. Why the hell has this got to do with transport? Why is this at the start of it? We're talking about planning scheme, land uses, airports. And you've tagged underneath this transport thing. And I've just glanced over Councillor Stockwell's. He's got the page up on transport. What, what is your thinking of doing this? And German is underneath this transport. Shall I try? Councillor Jurisevic: Clearly it's a use of the airport, emergency services. Councillor Glasgow: What's your thinking on that? Councillor Jackson: Sounds more like a comment. Councillor Jurisevic: I was going to get that in my closing arguments, but seeing as you've asked the question, because
01:46:00 the wording as it stood will be expanded, or will not be expanded, the airstrip will ultimately be closed, casts a definite, finite use of the airfield in any way, shape or form. And that's what I'm trying to get at. That isn't what's alluded to in a council resolution, nor is it alluded to in that manner in the Great Sandy National Park Plan. I was just trying to clarify the word closed, because I thought that gave a finite use and a seizure of all activities, as opposed to what the plans and the resolutions that have been discussed about this matter. I was just trying to define. I was just trying to get over the word closed. If I'd known it was going to take this long to get to that point, and it was going to be debated endlessly over a simple addition of the wording, strictly, specifically from
01:47:00 a council resolution, I wouldn't have got there. I do agree with the Mayor's point about ultimately, I didn't like that word, but that was the wording of staff to that point. And I just added the rest on the end. I'm happy to get rid of ultimately. I have no issue with that. Councillor Wilkie: Further question. The question about, Kim, in your, could something like this be considered a significant change to the planning scheme and have to go out again? Speaker 3: No. Councillor Jackson: No. Good. Thank you. I think I'll just speak to it. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah, sure. Councillor Jackson: Speak, I have no problem with the amendment. For someone who, for example, hasn't read the 2014 minutes, I wouldn't have known all that detail, and now it's clear. So I have no problem. It seems to clarify something that perhaps the average person looking in the future, 10 years from now, at the planning scheme may not even know.
01:48:00 So I think it's okay. Councillor Wilkie: And so, Wilkie. Final question. Is it the intention to close it to all uses? No. Is that the strategic long-term goal? To all uses, including emergency services, community groups? Speaker 4: I can't categorically answer that. It's, the Great Sandy Management Plan's up for review at the moment. Council had a position on it at the time in 2014. Yeah, I don't think it's the intention to completely close it to all uses. But the Great Sandy Plan does say that ultimately it will be part of the national park, but considering some uses. So I can't be categorical about the ultimate intention and the plans up for review at the moment, Council Wilkie. So I suggest that the topic will come back up again through that management plan. Okay.
01:49:00 Mayor Wellington: Do you wish to close, Councillor Jurisevic? Councillor Jurisevic: I need to once again suggest that all I was trying to do was add clarity to the definition of being closed. It's not closed to all uses. It's closed to specific uses. And again, I believe that the wording here is in keeping with the Great Sandy Management Plan and the resolution of Council. And I appreciate that Councillor Jackson wasn't in Council at the time, but again, we have tried to, through the Sport and Rec Plan and the Difficult to Locate activities, or Sporting Activities Plan, we have tried to, through the Sport and Rec Plan and the It has clearly been identified as the area where this activity will continue in the short to medium and long term unless, and that's the challenge, unless another area can be found somewhere in the future, which did not come up through the difficult to locate sports
01:50:00 plan. Mayor Wellington: Okay, I'll put the amendment, all those in favour, councillors Jackson, Wilkie and Jurisevic, all those against, councillors Stockwell, Glasgow and Wellington. I'm forced to use my casting vote and I'll be consistent and vote against the amendment. So we go back to the original motion and only councillors Stockwell has voted. Councillor Jackson: And I have a further amendment to the original motion. So I need to, it'll be similar to what we just had except I'll have a different amendment. So you can vote. I think we lost that bit, but. So endorse the Noosa plan, oh amendment, similar to the amendment, but the amendment we just signed. Yeah, but I'll change the wording obviously, yeah.
01:51:00 Okay, I'm on mute. I'll just wait until Cathy's done. Sorry. Speaker 3: Yeah. Councillor Jackson: Thank you. Okay. Councillor Glasgow: So. Councillor Jackson: So I'll go be moving, I move the following. Adopt the strategic planning staff recommendations with the consultation report which includes consideration of all submissions as I'll set out in, oh, is it attachment one, is this correct? Yeah. Speaker 4: Yes. Councillor Jackson: With the exception of number 2086627 and with a change which makes impact assessable
01:52:00 short term accommodation consistent in the low density residential zone, which makes impact assessable short term accommodation consistent in the low density residential zone. Councillor Jurisevic: I think Cathy had a motion that was similar to that already. Mayor Wellington: I'll second that. Seconded Councillor Blaster. Just make sure you're happy with the wording you've already received, Councillor Jackson. Yeah. Councillor Jackson: Okay. So with a change, well, as long as it makes sense, with a change which makes impact assessable short term accommodation consistent. Is there anything wrong with the wording? Yes. Speaker 4: Can I suggest that you include in a dwelling house or no more than one dwelling? Councillor Jackson: Yes. I'm happy with that. Speaker 4: Yeah. Councillor Jackson: Consistent in a dwelling house. Consistent in a dwelling house or no more than one dwelling.
01:53:00 You'll need to explain that to people. Speaker 4: So short term accommodation obviously picks up motels. Backpackers. Oh. Backpackers. Councillor Jackson: No, we don't want to worry about that. Speaker 4: So it's important. Okay. Yep. I think with the intent is about. Sure. And units. Well, not houses. Yeah. Mayor Wellington: Well, I'm not happy with that wording, I'm afraid. Sure. Because you're saying no more than one dwelling in the low density. That means there can only be one property in the low density residential zone that it's a pet. The way I read it. Speaker 4: In the lot. Or in no more. In a lot. Councillor Wilkie: Can I have a question? In a lot. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: May I just get the wording. No, but I think it's going to answer that question. Okay. Yeah. I understand that Councillor Jurisevic may have had a similar concept and already had a motion prepared by staff on this issue. And it would be better to have one that was thought through first and constructed on the run. Is that right, Councillor Jurisevic? Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. And that's what I was trying to allude to, that there's already a motion that has been drafted. It's been drafted, yeah. Mayor Wellington: Well, it's got the same problem as far as I'm concerned.
01:54:00 Councillor Jurisevic: So it's been drafted by staff. So is that about individual lots? You haven't seen the motion. Councillor Wilkie: Only one dwelling per lot. I haven't seen it. I haven't. Councillor Jurisevic: Just saw it there. Councillor Jackson: Per lot? Yeah. Oh, you read the whole thing in that column? We just said per lot. Okay. So. No more than one dwelling per lot. Speaker 5: Just wait for Ken Beard up. Speaker 4: The wording that we had was make short term accommodation in a dwelling house or in no more than one dwelling. Mayor Wellington: No more than one dwelling in the residential zone. That's the problem. Councillor Jackson: You mean in per lot? Per lot. Per lot. Speaker 5: Can I make a suggestion then, if Councillor Jackson is happy with this wording, if I think it would work better and approve the concern that Councillor Wellington might have.
01:55:00 So Cathy, start the sentence, make short term accommodation in a dwelling house or in no more than one dwelling house. In the table of zone, sorry the tables of assessment for the low density residential zone. And then delete the rest. So I think Councillor Jackson that covers what you were after, which is to, and I think it deals with the issue that Councillor Wellington had.
01:56:00 He was concerned that it was about a single dwelling in a low density residential zone. This actually separates those phrases. So what this does is to make short term accommodation in the dwelling house or no more than one dwelling house impact accessible. So it's consistent. We're not specified otherwise in that table of assessment for that low density residential zone. And Cathy, can you make that low density residential zone capital? Councillor Jackson: So what I don't know is what these otherwise, specified otherwise means. What is specified otherwise? Speaker 3: There's already circumstances where it's accepted development, such as the 60 nights. Oh, I see. Yeah, for occasion. So they would remain acceptable development. Oh, I see. This would be, we're not otherwise, we're specified. Councillor Jackson: So it's not that it's causing worse, more development.
01:57:00 Yeah, okay. That's fine. Yeah, I'm happy with that. Mayor Wellington: Councillor Stokker, you've got a question? Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The problem, as I see it, is that dwelling house is a defined land use. So a short term accommodation in a dwelling house. It might be a use submitted under the current definition of a dwelling house, but it's not under the, in association with, like, to me, we're making it up on our run and we're leaving it open. Councillor Jackson: Well, may I mention that I have in front of me the motion that Councillor Stockwell made up on the run in September, and it said, but with a change to Attachment 3, which makes impact accessible short term accommodation inconsistent in the low density housing zone, residential zone. So all I'm doing is switching it back to consistent. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, no, it's just, I understand what you're trying to do. I'm just trying to make sure that it's not technically flawed. Councillor Jackson: Well, maybe the motion is technically flawed. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, and unable to be implemented by staff.
01:58:00 Two wrongs don't make a right. Councillor Jackson: Wow, but maybe it was wrong. Speaker 5: This, this is the wording that Councillor Jurisevic, sorry, this is the wording Councillor Jurisevic had looked at a similar approach and had asked staff for some wording, and this is the wording we provided to Councillor Jurisevic. Councillor Jackson: This is the wording. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I suppose that's the question is, if this was to go to court, because it may be, are we on, are we on good grounds or shaky grounds that that is clear to what is actually intended, because you'll, you'll be the people who'll be putting that into court. Mayor Wellington: Councillor Jurisevic, if you're going to talk, you have to stand, and you have to get my permission before you talk, rather than just rattle on, you want someone to say. I apologise for my prattling, sir. Speaker 5: I think there was a question hidden in that statement. The short answer is yes, it's clear what that intent would be, and if this amendment is passed, then my, similar advice before is we need to make amendment to the other parts of this resolution to say that this would then be included in the planning scheme.
01:59:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Okay, Councillor Jurisevic. Yeah, my, my understanding is that what staff had drafted for our, my request included those other, other provisions within the, the rest of the body of the, of the planning scheme. Mayor Wellington: Okay, so you're satisfied with the wording now, Councillor Jackson? Councillor Jackson: I, I will accept the wording in spite of my lack of full understanding of the tables of assessment, but yeah, oh sure, yeah. Okay. Okay. Mayor Wellington: Feel free to speak. Councillor Jackson: So I'll just speak about it. Look, I, I'm coming back to the original proposal that staff gave us in September, that it be consistent in all residential zones, and I'm, I'm not going further by making it not impact accessible, so it's still impact accessible as, as was originally recommended. So this is just a minor change to make it consistent instead of inconsistent. And the reason, there are reasons obviously for that.
120 minutes in ¶
02:00:00 One is that I do believe that, and I've had advice, that a, a planning scheme should be performance outcomes oriented, performance based, and that people should have the right to make applications not in a situation where they're very unlikely to get a refusal, but in fact have the opportunity to make, have that properly considered, considered in a consistent way. I, I also think this then, while at the same time makes it less likely that people will apply, because we, we, as I discussed before, it's very expensive even to do a application in a consistent use area, and the reason, you know, people in general wouldn't, you know, won't be doing that across the Shire. It's more likely to be the, the more wealthy people that can possibly afford this.
02:01:00 It at least opens it up as an option that can be made available. Doesn't lock it down quite in the same way. I think that is that still addressing the issues that councillors are concerned about, relating to short stay letting not being, growing too much. In the council Shire area, while at the same time being performance based, being a, a, a, a more user friendly approach to how assessments are carried out. Mayor Wellington: Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak to this? Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. Is that you? No, you go. I thought you were raising your hand. Oh, look. Councillor Wilkie: I'm sorry. I take it you were just about to say that, um, for the reasons why I didn't support the one before, um, the question I ask is when is enough enough?
02:02:00 This, um, planning scheme is about a balanced approach. If we, uh, honouring all existing use rights, which is, um, dwelling houses and low density residential areas that have already currently, uh, operate for short term accommodational measured between two and 3000 of them, we'll be able to continue. Um. Home-based businesses that provide short-term accommodation will be able to continue and grow in the low-density residential area. The reasons the staff raised here, we know what's happening around the world. I support a balanced and equitable approach and research-based decisions. So I concur with the studies done by Australian and international universities about the need to preserve houses for permanent residents and allow people to sublet their rooms in the homes to visitors. That's what we're proposing entirely with the inconsistent use in the low-density residential zoning.
02:03:00 I go back to the staff report. There is already an adequate supply of tourist accommodation in designated zones and other locations, including all the prime land in Noosa, should not be extended into residential areas. Absentee property investors hollow out communities. These by converting permanent dwellings to short-term accommodation, which is a commercial operation. There are a range of negative impacts on residential amenity, community well-being, social cohesion and the social fabric. This is about the type of community, type of what we want our neighbourhoods to become in 10 years. If we allow short-term accommodation to be consistent in low-density residential zones, there is due to the pressure, market pressures, and Noosa is a very attractive place to invest. There's the high likelihood that these neighbourhoods will be converted into visitor precincts over time.
02:04:00 It's starting to happen already and this is what we're resiling against. I support giving the staff at least one leave at a pool and preserve some dwellings in one residential zone to ensure that people can live there. What we're proposing under the current planning, under the draft planning scheme, according to the staff recommendation, is to allow short-term accommodation in new applications for short-term accommodation in medium-density residential, high-density residential, tourist accommodation zone, rural residential zone, rural zone. And also honour the existing use rights in the low-density residential zone and allow property owners in the low-density residential zone to sublet.
02:05:00 So the question I have is, when is enough enough? This is an unbalanced approach to planning. And if approved, it will not result in a balanced approach long-term. There is a real potential for Noosa to become, to have very little residential neighbourhoods left if short-term accommodation is allowed to proliferate in each and every zone, including the low-density residential. And I know there's a lot of pressure out there from some elements of the community, but I ask councillors to hold the line on this one. Mayor Wellington: Thank you councillor. Councillor Jurisevic: I will support this amendment. I supported the staff position when they, after the first round of revisions, when they had consistent in all zones.
02:06:00 And I continue to support that line. The irony for me with council is being inconsistent. I've heard many, many arguments around the table today about housing affordability. When we first started, we bought a unit. That's where we started. We started at the low end of things. Those units are in the medium and high density areas where it's consistent. So the most affordable properties are the ones that we continue to allow to be accessed most readily for short-term accommodation. Again, as far as amenity goes, those people in those medium and high density living are living in close proximity with the likelihood of amenity being, amenity loss being greater. As a result. Again, the lower cost of these properties in the medium and high density areas make them more affordable.
02:07:00 And so where the arguments have gone previous to this with regard to affordability, I just see a complete irony here in that the most affordable properties are the ones that we continue to allow access to short-term accommodation. The issue of, finally I get to do the spiel too. The issue of. The issue of short-term letting has been and remains a challenging one. I sympathise with residents that live adjoining short-term accommodation where there have been problems. The issue I have is that making short-term accommodation inconsistent in the low density residential zones does not alleviate these issues for the residents that live adjoining short-term accommodation where there are problems and may actually exacerbate the situation. The short-term accommodation will now be more likely to remain with properties in these areas to retain existing use rather than see them extinguished as a direct result of the change. What Council is seeking to introduce to deal with the issue is a local law to deal with resident amenity and manage existing and new short-term accommodation.
02:08:00 Councillor Jackson alluded to this. I believe this is the most effective means of dealing with matter and should be given the opportunity to be put in place and have the effectiveness evaluated before adding further restriction. As I understand, other areas began to do with great areas, with great effectiveness. I also believe that short-term accommodation in the low density residential areas has been in existence in New South Wales. It has been in existence for many years. It is not new, although the online platforms have made their existence more prevalent and accelerated the uptake of available properties. The thing is, while short-term accommodation may return a better return, there is a lot more work, and there will likely be more work with the introduction of the SDA local law. This will likely dissuade a number of properties from continuing down this path, and also a crackdown by the Tax Office may weed out those that are just in the area for a quick return. In the report to Council following the first round of public submissions, the staff report read,
02:09:00 There are currently a great many holiday-let homes, and while many are of no concern to neighbours, some are having a significant impact on the residential amenity within their city, particularly those that accommodate larger numbers of guests and particularly those that are remotely managed. I believe staff have addressed that in the current iteration before us. It goes on. To date, the short-term letting of a whole house has not been regulated through the Planning Scheme. This is where the problem lies. Legal advice indicates that short-term letting properties will retain existing right use. So we're not going to stop them. We're somewhere between 2,000 to 3,000 properties available for short-term letting. This equates to something like 8% to 9% of our available residential stock. Shut the gate. The horse has bolted. These properties will retain existing right use. This sounds like a level of saturation to me, and only market forces will see if this level of short-term accommodation can be sustained in these areas.
02:10:00 I'm sure that local resorts and motels would like to see the influx of short-term accommodation properties through online platforms reduced to reduce the competition. I note that Tourism Noosa is working well with local resorts and body corporates with the Refresh Noosa program to retain a level of product that will keep visitors supporting those businesses. I'm sure that many home-based short-term accommodation will be challenged to keep up. Anyone who has stayed at one of these properties will be aware that they are subject to review and substandard service or facility is a deadline. Many of these properties on these online platforms may well be existing short-term stay and resort-style units that have taken up the new online booking platforms to try and boost their patronage. There may also be multiple listings. The issue is that we have little data to know where we are at before online platforms were initiated, and there are no measures in place to regulate short-term accommodation in the past. Sure, there has been an increase in the number of properties available, but I'm yet to see data that tells us what the increase has been.
02:11:00 And whether these are permanent short-stays or residents making properties available periodically at times such as school holidays and during major events that would be permitted under the proposals in the new planning scheme anyway. The online platforms have been caging in making data. There is no data available, which has made it difficult. Cathy, if you could put that image up again, please, that the Mayor used earlier. The Mayor produced an image at our last meeting and again in this meeting with regard to B&B guards showing the prevalence of short-term lettings. I've got some concerns with the accuracy of the information on the website when around 10 properties are shown to be in the industrial area around Rennie Street. What a place to enjoy your stay in Noosa. Not to make light of it. But I'm sure the impact of online platforms have created a direct disruptive influx of properties into the market. The issue of an influx of guests at larger properties has been ongoing in the larger properties at Sound and around the region for many years.
02:12:00 B&B Guard, by the figures that are presented, show this to be somewhere in the vicinity of 50% of the online market. Lord knows I've cleaned up after nothing over the years when I've served at these properties to know the impact that they have. The current staff recommendation addresses this by limiting the number of bedrooms to five for short-term accommodation to try to clamp down on mass gatherings in residential areas. Having to have a local manager available to take responsibility for noise and amenity complaints is laid out in the local law, which we are yet to finalise. The current move to regulate short-term accommodation is inconsistent and is once again creating a divide in our community. And I don't feel that I can support this element of the planning scheme that drives a wedge in the community. Just this morning we received an online petition with over 800 signatures objecting. And you may say it's not a numbers game, but I'm sorry, democracy is a numbers game. And so the voice of public opinion has got weight and merit as far as I'm concerned.
02:13:00 I understand that you may not agree with this perspective, but I've spoken to and been contacted by many others that feel the council has taken a step too far in this regard. What we haven't done is acknowledge the owners and agencies that have managed short-term rentals well over the last year. And I know for many years that they've been in existence in Noosa. Neighbourhood disputes and amenity issues are not immune to properties that are in short-term rentals and have been one of the areas of great concern of my timeline council. Fences, trees, dogs, noise, domestic violence and drugs are just some of the issues that challenge neighbours wherever people live in close proximity. Unfortunately, I don't feel that trying to prevent further short-term accommodation in the low density zone will do much to alleviate the issues of neighbourhood amenity, but the local law might. I again refer to the inconsistency with regard to low, high and medium density, the disparity between the two. I think the greatest impact will be in the medium and high density residential zones where amenity of living in closer quarters will be the greatest. Mayor Wellington: I've got a question for the Minister of Tourism.
02:14:00 Where on that map are the ten properties in the industrial zone around Remy Street? Councillor Jurisevic: Where's Woolworths? Mayor Wellington: There's Woolworths. There's Remy Street. That one up the top's not. Councillor Jurisevic: That's in Remy Street. Mayor Wellington: That's in Remy Street. Councillor Jurisevic: My apologies. I read the map incorrectly. I took them in the industrial area. Mayor Wellington: Okay. Anyone else going to speak? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Stockwell. I'll speak. We don't need to rehash the debate, but what I suppose we do need to do is understand the impact of what this would do and why. Some people are very popular that they thought I made an ad hoc decision to change it to inconsistent the last time on the planning scheme. It wasn't ad hoc. It was after many hours of discussion with all our colleagues, and it was after many hours of research. It is performance-based. As mentioned before, the new Planning Act put in place the ability for Council to set out the strategic outcomes. Our strategic outcomes of this plan says limiting visitor accommodation in our residential areas.
135 minutes in ¶
02:15:00 It also then goes to the next one, which is covered on page 90 of the report, where it says the overall outcome for the low-density residential zone is that low-density residential neighbourhoods are home to permanent residents with minimal impact of visitors. So that's why the use is inconsistent. If you say it's consistent, it says that an application is not consistent. An application, if received, is generally suitable for that zone. It's saying that Council must give the reasons why it shouldn't be approved rather than the other way around. Because it's generally accepted that if they can address certain aspects in the scheme, that it would be approved. If you make it inconsistent, then it's up to the applicant to demonstrate why it shouldn't be refused.
02:16:00 It's up to the applicant to say in their particular situation, perhaps it's because they're in a whole street of traditional holiday homes and that there's no residents to be upset. That is what the technical implication of making it inconsistent is. There is no sense in a planning scheme to try and rely on market forces to choose who or who should not be applying for a particular use. It makes sense to put in the scheme a logical framework which achieves your strategic outcomes. It achieves the outcomes for the zone and achieves the outcomes that the vast majority of this community signed up to as part of this planning process. Councillor Glasgow: Councillor? Councillor Glasgow? Yeah, look, I'll support this motion. I just don't agree with some of these words that are being said here at the moment.
02:17:00 You know, highly likely, potential, referring to other places, you know, on what data might happen in the future. There's all these words coming out there that's like, you know, maybe might happen. And there's really not much hard data on the table exactly what will happen in the future for this type of use in low density areas. You know, there's always this talk about housing affordability. And what it's going to do to our low density areas. But like we said in the town plan, we've got these exciting new parts of the land coming up in the Shire Business Centre that are high density living. We've got some stuff coming up in the junction as well. So, you know, we're thinking about this in the future for us. And I really don't think these words like potential and, you know, referring to other places. And like we've said, Councillor Jackson, we are not Barcelona or New York. Has anyone flown to New York from Noosa? It's the last time I went to New York.
02:18:00 It took me 43 hours to get to my house in Tewantins in New York. You know, it's a long bloody way away. These people aren't coming here. We're not the same. So, I just, I can't get across my head and do all this stuff without these fluffy words like potentially and might happen and other places. So, I support this motion of getting low density, consistent low density residential areas. Mayor Wellington: For the record, I never said Noosa was like Barcelona, Paris or New York. What I said was that this issue is being grappled with right around the planet, including places like that. But it's also being grappled with at Mission Beach in the USA, it's being grappled with in Mornington Peninsula, it's being grappled with in Busselton WA and it's being grappled with in Byron just like Noosa. And what the research shows, and there's research papers that Councillor Stockwell referred to and I've referred to around the planet but also here in Australia looking at places not dissimilar to Noosa, is that short stay accommodation takes up stock for permanent residents and pushes permanent residents out of the areas where short stay proliferates.
02:19:00 That is not a lack of data, that is scientific evidence that's been found here in Australia as well as overseas. Again, you know, I go back to my argument about our need to protect housing stock in the Shire and I believe if this amendment proceeds it is actually in direct conflict with the outcomes, the overall outcomes of the scheme which we know are to have the low density residential neighbourhoods home to permanent residents with minimal impact and visitors. But more importantly, I'm going to bring up something new here. And that is that Kim Rawlings has said that if this proceeds we will have to go back out to more consultation, that means it pushes it past the election, now I know there are people in the community who would love that to happen, but here are the implications, if we do that, if you remember we had, we spent four years on this scheme, we've had over 50 workshops these councillors to get our heads around it, if this gets bumped into the next, after the election into the next council, we're going to have to go back out to more consultation, that means it pushes it past the election, now I know there are people in
02:20:00 we then have to allow that council to get their heads around it, it took us four years, it's going to take them at least a year and a half, there is no way in the world this particular consideration is going to go back to a council meeting inside 18 months, because the new councillors are going to have to get up to speed on being councillors and then they're going to have to be introduced to all the aspects of the scheme because this can't be separated, this is part of the whole planning scheme, which means they have to get their heads around the whole planning scheme, so what we're going to do is we're going to
02:21:00 have to wait a couple of years before they can be introduced, the removal of that red tape. Proposed changes to facilitate development in Noosa Junction that we've been working with the Noosa Junction Association with can't happen for a couple of years. It will impact on the Coles development which is simply waiting at the moment, poised in the wings, for us to approve this planning scheme. If we delay the scheme on the basis of one single issue it has massive repercussions and those repercussions are dire, because we've been working four years to bring into place aspects of this scheme that many businesses, many business associations etc have been hankering for and what we're doing is we're forcing it, we're kicking it way down the track. That has an implication for the whole of the economy, not just the businesses and residents, but the main reason, the main reason why we shouldn't be going down the track is because we have a responsibility to our residents to ensure that there is adequate stock available for them to live in if they choose to live and work in Noosa Junction. Thank you.
02:22:00 Councillor Jackson: Excuse me. Mayor Wellington: You're going to cough your way to a close. Councillor Jackson: I'm going to go close. I have a question of Ian Rawlings. Previously I moved an amendment that was not supported, recommending the change from inconsistent to acceptable development and you expressed that that would be considered probably be a significant change requiring further consultation. This is not the same amendment at all. This is simply shifting from calling it impact accessible inconsistent to impact accessible consistent. It would still require development approvals. There would still be, because it's impact accessible,
02:23:00 assumedly there would still be all the various codes and tables of assessment that would come into play. Can you explain whether this in fact would be considered a significant change? Speaker 4: Through the Chair, you're quite correct. The previous recommendation was a lot clearer about what would be significant change. This one is probably more marginal. As I mentioned, it is a judgement call based on a range of guidance. Ultimately, whether at the year one the use is consistent or inconsistent, there would be a similar process that would be gone through. So it would require an impact accessible application. That impact accessible application would be advertised. The whole planning scheme would be used during the assessment.
02:24:00 So it would be a fairly similar assessment process. The key factor is the consistency. When the use is considered consistent with the zone. As per staff recommendation, we don't believe that the use is consistent with the zone. One of the considerations is the impact of the change and the quantum of the community that would be impacted by the change. I would say this would be a fairly similar assessment. It would be a fairly large portion of the community. So although it is marginal, it is in my opinion that this would probably be considered a significant change. Mayor Wellington: And thus trigger further consequences. Speaker 4: Yes.
02:25:00 Mayor Wellington: Care to close councillor? Councillor Jackson: Oh, is there anyone else? Yes, I do care to close, of course. I guess I'm going to go back to some of those words. I used before. Evidence. A councillor Wilkie in his skill in worst case scenarios has talked about the neighborhoods will be turned into visitor precincts. I don't think there's any evidence that that's really what's going to happen. But it's of course a worst case scenario to scare everybody into adhering to his opinion. Similarly, the accusation this is not a balanced approach. And that making it inconsistent is balanced. Well, you know, that's an opinion and my opinion is the opposite. I would say this would be a much more balanced approach. In terms of equity, there isn't a set number. It's not guaranteed that what's existing use
02:26:00 rights now will remain that way. I've certainly had feedback from people who are actual real estate agents who are selling properties that there's a churn of properties and people do move in and make it permanent. So that the idea that currently short stays are going to remain short stays and have existing use rights will probably not be the case. There will be houses sold, people will move in and then the existing use rights reduce. So there'll be a gradual and we're not talking next year, but we've got a 10 year plan here. So we're talking over a 10 year period. There's going to be a change and there will be some reduction of existing use rights. And by keeping things inconsistent, there will not be a possibility of refilling them. Those gaps. So you get less and less and less. I think that again showing us the map with the dots stresses that short term accommodation is happening in fairly expensive areas of
02:27:00 Noosa and that in fact by making it inconsistent throughout all low density residential zones, we're not being equitable to all our residents. Because they cannot do it right across the Shire. It'll just be limited to the wealthy. And yeah, so that's that part. I'm just having a look. I appreciate Councillor Brian Stockwell that you have admitted that your last change in September was on the basis of consultation with all your colleagues. It certainly wasn't me, but it did appear that a lot of people were ready to speak and support it. So now we know that is the case. Noosa, as far as I'm concerned, needs to remain flexible and open to the changes in the world and to actually limit use and gradually
02:28:00 make it more and more inconsistent to use houses for short stay is just not staying competitive with what is happening in the tourist industry. And as I said, next thing you know, they'll be staying outside the Shire and driving in. The concept that is up to applicants to show whether to what extent they have to prove they have to prove that they can get the development application, I think there's no question that with impact accessible, they would still have to go through a process. It's a very stringent process to get an application approved. So shifting to inconsistent to consistent seems reasonable. And I do note that originally staff did recommend it the last time around. So yeah, look, I'm going to suggest that this would be a more balanced
02:29:00 approach. Making it consistent, giving people a chance, a performance based planning scheme as is expected under the Planning Act and probably save Council a lot of money with all that legal challenge in court that we're going to experience with the inconsistent use. Mayor Wellington: Question for the CEO. The Council has just raised the possibility of there being legal action as a result of the. Planning Scheme. Can you just speak to the history of Planning Schemes and legal action in response to Planning Schemes in Noosa and whether that is commonplace? Speaker 5: Yeah, thanks. One of the benefits of being around for a while, I'd like to pull an experience that you could see a bit over the years. We've had two Planning Schemes previously, the 2006 and the 1997 Scheme. In recollection, there were very few claims or issues that came out
150 minutes in ¶
02:30:00 of the 2007 Scheme. But the 1997 Scheme was a completely different kettle of fish. That was the one where the Council at the time introduced what colloquially became known as the population cap. And in those days, the provisions in relation to making claims against Councils for changes in the planning schemes were a lot more stringent on Councils than they are today. So in those days, we had what's called injurious affection, which is where a property had effectively been downzoned. You had the ability to make a claim against the Council. So when I arrived at Council in 2001, we had $94 million worth of outstanding court claims against the Council from that 1997 Scheme. And over the next, I think it was 12 to 13 years, we went through all those cases and didn't pay out any of those claims. They were fought and shown that the Council's planning approach was legitimate. What happens now in the planning schemes is quite different to what happened back then.
02:31:00 Certainly, anyone can take any claim if they wish to, but it's a different process that applies now rather than what's called injurious affection, which is a straight out compensation claim approach. Now, the way that the scheme or the Planning Act works is there's effectively a use it or lose it type approach where people have to go through a process before they can make a claim. It's a lot more difficult than it was back in the 1997 scenario. So that's a bit of an over-the-top approach. Thank you. Mayor Wellington: Okay, I'm going to put the amendment. All those in favour? Councillors Jackson, Glasgow and Jurisevic. Those against? Councillors Stockwell, Wilkie and Wellington. Once again, I exercise my casting vote. I hate doing this, but I don't have a choice. And so the amendment is lost. We go back to the substantive motion. Only Councillor Stockwell has spoken to it. Can I just ask a question? Is anyone planning on any more amendments or anything?
02:32:00 Because if they are, I'm going to take a toilet break. Councillor Wilkie: I'm done. Mayor Wellington: We might actually get through this thing. Councillor Glasgow: I actually got one amendment I decided I want to look at. Sorry about all this. Just a quick one. I've got all this talk about affordable housing, but I don't know how to get the Shire Business Centre map out to Cathy to get it up to the screen. Because there's that site that was high density residential. I know there's a lot of bushfire stuff around it and there's a lot of discussions around that. So what are you trying to achieve? I want to... How can I word it right to go back at it again and have a look at it? Because I believe there's an Energex easement site on there and over the last month since our bushfire emergency that have come to hand, it's got tarnished a little bit. But I just believe all this talk about affordable housing and there's all this short term accommodation stuff. Don't go to the argument. What are you trying to achieve? I want to get it back up onto the... Councillor Jurisevic: You're trying to talk about that triangular parcel...
02:33:00 Councillor Glasgow: Yeah. No, no, no. It's called RECMU or whatever it's called. Do you like me to explain what I think you're trying to do? Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It would be to alter the framework character plan then precinct for the current recreation mixed use precinct. Yeah. Which was taken back to open space and recreation to allow affordable housing in that precinct. Councillor Glasgow: But I believe it was on the cards. There's certain setbacks there. Just to look at that again and exercise if it's possible to work around it. Because this is a really good site for some high density... Well, hang on. Mayor Wellington: Do you want it to be revisited by staff or are you looking to change the zoning? Councillor Glasgow: Change the zoning. Mayor Wellington: Okay. Thank you. Can you work on the wording while I disappear for a minute? Can I make a signature? Councillor Jurisevic: Yes. Can we have a little break? You're creating a halt of proceedings, Mr. Mayor. It's not a halt of proceedings. You go. The chair's just left. I need a chair. Two minute break. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
02:39:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Mayor Wellington: There's been time to deal with this. Has it been dealt with? Do we have a motion that you're happy with, Councillor Glaston?
02:40:00 Councillor Glasgow: Yeah, I want to, first I want to ask staff, if this goes ahead, this has to go back to consultation, doesn't it? This is a major change. Speaker 4: You're not having much time to consider this, Councillor Bosco. There are implications on this side with doing what you're proposing. And I think it probably would be. I think it probably would be. You know, again, I'm going to use all the disclaimers that it is a judgment, it needs to go through those tests, it needs to be weighed up around the sort of level of significance. In and of itself, one site, maybe not, but because of the significance of the change in terms of what ultimately might be able to be, occur on that site with what you're proposing,
02:41:00 and the risks associated with that, which is why we've recommended Council not zone it that way, I think potentially it could be significant with the disclaimer around it that I probably need a bit more time to thoroughly consider. Potentially, yes. Potentially, yes. Mayor Wellington: Potentially, yes. You wish to proceed or withdraw? Councillor Glasgow: Potentially, yes. This could go out by the commentators. Again, all these words that we don't know what it's... Mayor Wellington: Well, she can't make a complete analysis. Yeah, we can't. We can't. Councillor Glasgow: So the other option is it goes back out, it comes back as an edit, doesn't it? And we can make that final change. What did you just talk about before, Councillor Wilkie? Councillor Wilkie: I'll put it in the form of a question. Could a change like this be handled as part of an amendment to the planning scheme next year?
02:42:00 Speaker 5: What normally happens with planning schemes is once they're adopted, there are changes that are looked at further down the track. Typically that happens about 12 to 18 months after the planning scheme is adopted. You tend to have a look at whether anything needs refining. So if they're site-specific or anything like that, you could look at it through a planning scheme amendment once the planning scheme has been adopted. Councillor Glasgow: You know, I don't want to wait 12 to 18 months because, you know, there's young people in these... You're not allowed to argue the case. Mayor Wellington: Do you want to proceed with the amendment? Okay, sit down please. Is there a seconder for this? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I haven't seen the motion yet. Councillor Jackson: I don't see a motion. Mayor Wellington: That's not the right way to do it. That's not it? We don't have a motion? We don't have a motion? Speaker 4: That's the motion. No, that's my own motion. No, it's not. Councillor Glasgow: No. No, that one's not. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That one's not. That screen's not right. Mayor Wellington: I'm confused. Thank you. Oh, very good. Speaker 5: Can I just point out, councillors, this is written by staff during the break.
02:43:00 We were hoping Councillor Glasgow would come and talk to staff and go through the detail. This has been written by staff, so I'm not sure whether this reflects what Councillor Glasgow was intending. Mayor Wellington: Okay. Okay. I thought the break was an opportunity for you to speak with the staff. Councillor Glasgow: No, the staff are the professionals in this area, so I'm full. Well, no, it's your amendment, so you should be working with them. Are you happy with the word? Yeah, I'm happy. What they were typing up, I was happy reading it with absolutely. Councillor Wilkie: Question. Why was there a change from the previous zone to open space recreation on that site? It was something to do with fire hazard, if I remember correctly? Speaker 4: Yeah. Okay. The council, as you're aware, we have a number of experts advising us on a range of things. We have sections of the scheme reviewed regularly, legally reviewed, expert input. We had advice from our bushfire expert that the risk on this site for high-density residential was too great and not appropriate
02:44:00 and that this site shouldn't be rezoned to high-density residential. Okay. That was after the first draft. So that was put to council with that information as part of the consideration of the second round and council determined not to zone it to high-density but to keep it as similar to the existing zoning, open space recreation, with the same uses that are allowed now. Councillor Wilkie: And further question. If I remember correctly, council refused an application for an aged care facility on this site because of the risk of... Incineration to the resident, early cremation to the resident. Oh, no. Speaker 4: I'm not sure that wording was exactly a reason of refusal, but yes, that is correct. Yes, that is essentially correct. You've got a question, Councillor.
165 minutes in ¶
02:45:00 Councillor Glasgow: The QFEWS, whatever, so with the aged care facility that's provided there, correct me if I'm wrong, but there was actually talk about this wire thing. Yes, it was the fact that the home, the home that is now being turned into residential residential living in, because it was just a fact that it was a bushfire prone area and I hate to say it, there's people who are too old. Are you asking? Yes. What was it? And then it got turned to high-density res. I remember it was a red spot one day because it was more incumbent to have these kind of younger active people living there hopefully rather than these. Is this true? Speaker 4: Yes. Yeah, the issue of the limited excessive mobility was definitely a factor of the aged care. However, a bushfire expert has advised us that due to unresolved access issues to the site, that putting high density here was a risk because of unresolved issues around emergency access
02:46:00 to and from the site. So, irrespective of the age of the residents, it was still a risk. Councillor Glasgow: But with the proper conditions, I'm looking at it right now, and I know there's a big Energex map, Energex site. I only just rode my pushbike through there on Tuesday. There's a fairly big buffer. With the right conditions in place and maybe sacrificing some lot sizes, do you think we can make this work as a high density waste? I mean, yes. Speaker 4: A whole lot of issues would need to be resolved that aren't resolved. So, at this point, I think the appropriate zoning is what's been recommended, the open space and recreation. If in the future, things are resolved and changed, then the zoning could be relooked at. But at this point, I think the issues are too significant and unresolved to suggest that that's an appropriate outcome.
02:47:00 Councillor Jurisevic: You've got to move forward. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think I've got the right procedural motion. We have not got a seconder, and therefore, I believe the... I haven't called for a seconder yet. Yeah, that's okay. I'm using a procedural motion to say that the matter be taken from the table. So, the matter of the potential... Mayor Wellington: Okay, the motion is that the matter be taken from the table. Do I have a seconder for that? Your procedural motion needs a seconder. It fails, but wanted a seconder. Councillor Jurisevic: I'd like to ask a question of staff if I may. Mayor Wellington: Yeah, sure, Councillor Jurisevic. Councillor Jurisevic: Kim, just because a property is zoned open space recreation, even though it was considered as different levels, if a development application came before us that suggested something along the lines of what Councillor Glasgow was suggesting, i.e. high-density residential, which could address the issues of fire management and that on the site, is it something that Council would be able to consider? No. Okay. Given the zoning.
02:48:00 Speaker 4: Anyone has the right to make an application for anything on any property. Council would... That sort of application would definitely come to Council because it would be considered an inconsistent use in that zone. The issues, you know, would need to be considered on their merit. Councillor Jurisevic? Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. That's what I was asking. Mayor Wellington: Okay, is there a seconder to this? Councillor Jackson: I'll second it for the sake of discussion. Mayor Wellington: Seconded Councillor Jackson. Councillor Glasgow, do you wish to speak to it? Councillor Glasgow: Yeah, look, you know, we've been talking about this affordable housing, affordable housing, short-term stay residence, and this is a prime example of putting some, i.e. affordable housing, small dwelling type accommodation in the vicinity of a 10-kilometre radius from Aging Street. And everywhere else in Noosa, and it's a prime site.
02:49:00 It was zoned high-density res a few months back, while it got turned to open space, I agree. You know, if the developer wants to develop 100% of the space, we can agree that's not going to happen with the current bushfire threats and emergencies, but, you know, let's work together with them and let's just say, let's give you 50% of it or 75% of it and actually give something back to the generation that's going to need it. Someone spoke before about how, I think it was Councillor Jackson, who just said, you know, it's hard enough to get a job in Noosa, they've had to buy it somewhere. So, you know, we're getting all our employees that are driving here, which we agree, we've got the perfect site here to try and get some small dwelling type, I think on the new plan it's 85 square, or you're actually trying to entice this smaller dwelling type accommodation here. Let's work with it, let's get it back to high-density res, they're not going to get everything. Just because we zoned it high-density res doesn't mean they're going to put three storeys
02:50:00 there straight away. It still has to go through the system of planning and application, so let's work with some conditions and get something in there for the age bracket that want to spend however much they come out with it, but the affordable housing type price and the younger, and not even the younger generation. I only had this discussion the other day with someone, there was a lady living in her car at the Munner Point caravan park, because she just was in her mid-fifties, she wasn't highly degree educated, she didn't have the highest paying job, but she just didn't have anywhere to go to rent that single place for $400 a week, or buy that place for $500,000. So, you know, this is the kind of accommodation that we should be studying to apply, we've got the perfect opportunity here, and we can change it now. Councillor Jackson: I would appreciate seeing that map and exactly where it's located. You don't have it? If you pull up Google, you can probably show us more or less where it is.
02:51:00 Oh, I'd sort of like to, oh, it's quite big. Councillor Glasgow: Someone else going to speak to this? Councillor Scropple? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: On a whole other round of reasons, it's, in my view, totally inappropriate to say that, I mean, in that we've just been told by staff that we've been given professional advice that the risk to life and limb is too high, to zone it for high-density residential. To suggest that to make housing affordable, we have to go to the most marginal and risky land after this summer of fires is, I'm afraid, very disappointing. I'm sorry. As a product of public housing, I always find it quite difficult to think that people think the only place where affordable housing is where normal people can't go. It's a typification. I think it's really important to understand that while we have looked at this issue and
02:52:00 that there's probably, with the new precinct planning for the Noosa Shire business, we have actually, for the first time, required the developer to provide affordable housing as part of the development of the residential precincts around the Noosa business centre. That's a great initiative. That's where you want to see it. You want to see these young people and or people who require affordable housing in close proximity to what will be, I think, a very vibrant village centre. You don't want to say, well, we can, because we've got such high need, we need to put dwellings into very high bushfire risk places, in fact. I think, if anything, we should be looking at the prognosis for fire and the next amendment making sure that we haven't got any future development land that is in the pathway of the more extreme fires that may visit this community in the future.
02:53:00 Thank you. Councillor Chapman. Councillor Jackson: I have a question of staff. I have in front of me my Google Maps, and I can see the expanse of bushland. I have a question of staff. It's a little triangle across from Noosa Civic, but now I'm looking at my Google Map, I can see that Lake Weyba Drive, near Lake Weyba, there's residences all the way down Lake Weyba Drive, as well as into a little Sale Street. All those residences are very close also to this bushland. In fact, they're probably closer to it, and there's a lot more up there than there is More of it there in Naguiba than here. And I'm sorry I'm talking so long because it's a question. The triangle that we're talking about is bounded by one side of Emy Creek Road. The other side is Walter Hay Drive. And then there's a bit of a fire road. And that seems to be the boundary before it goes to the bush.
02:54:00 Speaker 3: National Park. Councillor Jackson: National Park. So the question I really have is why would the people who assessed this for fire danger, given that it's only one side that's against the National Park, why couldn't they have recommended solutions that would have been viable in this location? Mayor Wellington: Are you referring to the previous application? Councillor Jackson: No, I'm not. I'm not. But I understand that the reason. Mayor Wellington: Because that's what the fire assessment was for, a specific application. Councillor Jackson: Oh, I thought we had further fire assessments for the purpose of the Noosa plan. Okay, I'm referring to the further. Speaker 4: Yes, we did. We had a fire expert advise on this site because of the risk. And I don't have all the information at hand. Apologies.
02:55:00 Okay. Councillor Jackson, but feel free to jump in, Michelle. Auckland. The risk associated with this site comes from a particular direction. And with single access to this site at the moment, the risk of people escaping the site sends them back in towards the risk, the high risk. So the issues were unresolved. And of a significant scale that needed consideration in when you're proposing to rezone a site that they were considered unresolved and too significant to rezone the site. Understand what you're saying about existing residential areas having similar risks. They're existing residential areas and they need to be managed from a different perspective.
02:56:00 But when you're considering future zoning for future land use, really important that we have all these issues resolved before we do that. Councillor Jackson: And just a further question. Yep. So, sorry, I'm sure I missed it. I think it was asked already. But what is the actual zoning there now? Speaker 4: The zoning now under the current Noosa plan is open space at mixed use. Speaker 1: Mixed use recreation. It's a precinct under the Noosa Shire business zone. And it allows minimal recreational uses and places of worship, I think, and community uses. Speaker 4: So the proposed zoning is equivalent and allows the equivalent uses. Thank you. Mayor Wellington: I'm going to speak against the amendment. As we've heard from staff, there's a likelihood that this amendment would result in the entire planning scheme going back out for further consultation. That's a risk I don't think we can afford. Once again, I'll remind everyone that that means all the other good offerings in the planning scheme get delayed, possibly for, I don't know, a year or two.
02:57:00 18 months, even longer, for the sake of one piece of land, which can be dealt with by a planning amendment down the track. And, of course, an application can be made anyway that is contrary to the zoning and will be considered by staff. I don't think it's worth risking all those other things that we're trying to achieve in the planning scheme, including at Noosa Civic, but also elsewhere, Noosa Junction, the industry zones, et cetera. All of that is put in jeopardy for a long period of time. On the basis of wind here, it seems, with regard to one piece of land, which, of course, we are going to be going back and revisiting the scheme for amendments when the CHAP is finished, the Coastal Hazard Adaptation Plan. That would be an opportunity to make minor tweaks such as this. But jeopardising the entire scheme at this point in time for the sake of one piece of land just doesn't make sense to me.
02:58:00 Councillor Jurisevic. Councillor Jurisevic: Whilst I appreciate the intent of Councillor Glasgow to try and provide another location for low-cost housing options, this isn't the place to turn around and do rezoning on the run. We've had adequate time and adequate workshops to look at all of the zoning options, with regard to all of the areas of the planning scheme over the last couple of years. And I'm disappointed that Councillor Glasgow hasn't brought it up at any stage. In the past, and dealt with it at a more appropriate time. Again, as the Mayor has alluded to, there are ample opportunities going forward. And as staff have alluded to, that if a developer did see the opportunity there and could manage the risks, I'm sure that we would be willing to review any planning application with regard to that site, if it could meet the criteria.
02:59:00 Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Wilkie. I'm sorry, Ingrid. Councillor Jackson: No, you go ahead. I don't mind. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah, look, I also appreciate where Councillor Glasgow is coming from. Well-intentioned desire to provide for the less fortunate in the community in terms of affordable housing. We don't want to take the old lady in a car from the frying pan and put her into the fire. There are... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh, it's getting late. Councillor Wilkie: There are other opportunities for high-density residential zones in the new planning scheme. Some medium-density areas have been up-zoned to high-density. The staff are looking at opportunities, not just for the so-called affordable housing, but also social housing opportunities, subsidised housing, which is more in line with, I think, what you were alluding to, Councillor, and also the lateness of the amendment. And I agree that next year,
180 minutes in ¶
03:00:00 with the planned amendments to the planning scheme, once it's bedded down, that would be the time to have a proper and considered look at changes such as these. And also, I think, for the reasons the Mayor and other Councillors have mentioned, it's better that we bed down this planning scheme before the end of the year. Mayor Wellington: Councillor Jackson, did you want to speak to that? Councillor Jackson: I will, just briefly. I appreciate, also, Councillor Glasgow desire to offer further opportunity for affordable housing. And I can understand, also, from looking at the map, that this could be something that might be still possible to manage appropriately. At the same... And also, I don't necessarily agree with a concept that's been brought up previously through our amendments, that we shouldn't make changes just because it might have to go out for further consultation.
03:01:00 I think the quality of the scheme is what's important, not whether or not it takes a bit longer. However, because this is about fire danger, and because I understand from what we experienced previously when we tried to have... Well, we actually were looking at a development application for aged care, which eventually had to be knocked back because of fire danger. We've had further advice on fire issues. There's no... There's only one exit at the moment. I think there would need to be further work done, which I would welcome. But I think, at this point, I'm not able to support something where I don't think the fire issues have been sufficiently addressed. Councillor Glasgow: Thank you. Can you get it closed, Councillor Glasgow? Yeah, look, I will, just quickly. Yeah, you're right. There's a tremendous amount of bushland and scrubland
03:02:00 right down Lake Waiwer Drive as well. It's probably even closer to this site. There's a huge big energex easement going through there with big power lines, and there's miles and miles of buffer there. And if anyone hasn't realised lately, when you build two- or three-storey apartments, they're not built out of timber and diesel. They're built out of concrete. They don't burn like we all think they're going to burn. I just would agree that it would be a shame to lose this site when we're talking all about this whole morning about affordable housing and our residents in the future and where we're looking at. And if we lose this site, it takes another 18 months to get back on. But that's another 18 months of young people and the people that come to live here are moving out of the Shire and we're getting more people moving in. So I agree with that. I agree there's a lot of curly bits around it about going back out to the planning scheme and going back out to the consultation. But Councillor Jackson's got it right.
03:03:00 It's about quality, not quantity or timeframes. So I do agree that we can come back to it as well in the later elements to it and we can visit it. And I don't even know exactly what's happening on that side at the moment, but the people can put in an MCU at any stage. Is that right, Kim? Yeah, and they can change it and they can go for whatever they want there. So at any stage they can come in there and they can try and rezone this as they please with the right systems in place. But I don't like the idea of waiting 18 months or two years down the track again, losing that many more people in the community. There are vital small cogs in our community, our baristas and our chefs and our panel beaters and our mechanics and the people that can live in these type of areas for the sake of the system and the people that can go back out. But I do like the idea that the person who owns the site can entertain his right or her right any time to MCU this and get this back into a high density living site.
03:04:00 So thank you. Mayor Wellington: I'll put the amendment, all those in favour. Councillor Glasgow, those against. Councillor Jackson, Stockwell, Wilkie, Jurisevic, Wellington. The amendment is lost. We go back to this extended motion. Councillor Stockwell has spoken to it. Does anyone else wish to speak for the motion? Councillor Jackson: I'll speak to this extended motion. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you. Look, first of all, I'd like to say that I'm actually very pleased about many, many, many things in this new NUSA plan. It's been an exciting time. We've worked 30 or 40 workshops. It's been, you know, trying to get the best outcomes possible. I was particularly, for example, interested in Noosa Junction, wanting to see it activated, wanting to see it work a lot better. The current plan allowed building apartments or units above,
03:05:00 but the plot ratios and setbacks were such that it wasn't feasible. I'm very excited to know that the new NUSA plan will make improving Noosa Junction feasible. There's still a... Well, there's even been an effort to... To reduce... To change the ratio for car parking for commercial businesses there, and there's still some concerns around that, but I think the NUSA plan is a great step in the right direction to try to make Noosa Junction, which has a lot of potential and hasn't been maximised, or even... Well, it's been actually the opposite. It hasn't gotten there, so it's moving forward. Hopefully this will help. I'm supportive of having that entertainment precinct in Noosa Junction. It's away from the residential zoning, and at the same time, I believe that since the last consultation process, there's been a reduction of opening hours, so I think it's all great there. Noosa Civic, I was always really keen to see it activated.
03:06:00 It's a big box shopping centre at the moment, but all that land had the potential to be a bit more like the rest of Noosa, a village lifestyle, so I'm really excited that there's going to be residential opportunities there, and the type of retail and commercial spaces will be smaller, a main street, more of a place where people actually can live and work and play. Industrial zones, I'm also excited about. The Venture Drive precinct extends the diversity of use, allows more synergies between businesses and auxiliary use of buildings, which I think is a progressive step forward. The Gateway West, Gateway West? Maker's precinct is recognising what has already been developing there, a lot of entrepreneurial stuff that can now continue forward
03:07:00 in an approved way, and also the caretaker accommodation become code accessible rather than impact accessible, because in some cases that's going to be something useful. Um, I think there's a lot of opportunity to diversify the economy with a diversity of home-based business opportunities, aged care, health and wellbeing precincts and innovation zones which haven't been there before, and also I am actually satisfied, though I'm supportive of more, of the approach of the new Noosa plan to housing affordability. There are many interesting things in there which often people won't be aware of. There's more residential units in and adjoining both the business, the Noosa Civic Business Centre and the Noosa Junction area. There's a new residential precinct in the Noosa Civic area with a mix of housing types,
03:08:00 small dwellings and social housing. Um, within both Noosa Civic and Noosa Junction there's a provision for 10% social housing at specific sites. Um, for development in high-density residential precincts at both Noosa Civic and the Coles site, a contribution will be made towards social housing needs in the Noosa community. Um, additionally, there'll be some incentivization bonuses if developers construct a greater number of smaller units, therefore more affordable. And, um, yeah, there's further encouragement of affordable housing, um, in, in some of the new areas. Um, also, I understand that existing relocatable home parks have been protected. So, Coor Village, Woganville Gardens and Noosa Glades. So, I, I'm really very excited about
03:09:00 what I think our Noosa plan has in it. Um, good, good, good work and fantastic work. Thank you. Um, unfortunately, however, I'm not going to endorse, um, I'm not going to support endorsing this because I think there's a big risk to the Noosa community, the Noosa business, the Noosa economy, uh, with the decision to be so severe about the short-stay letting to a point where it's inconsistent, um, and requires development approval no matter where, uh, locating their places. Uh, so, to me, there hasn't been the economic assessment done to justify that this is okay for the Noosa economy. Of course, we, none of us know, um, but none of us know. So, I consider it a ten, a big, an experiment. We don't know
03:10:00 what the outcome will be. It could be very detrimental to Noosa. It could be very detrimental to people, the businesses, their incomes, including the little guys who do all the cleaning and all that kind of stuff, the suppliers. Um, I actually, as you know, as I've said, would think that a, a strong and well-enforced local law with a code of conduct is a preferred approach. I do understand and acknowledge that none of us, each councillor, will have to accept a plan that we don't like. Of course, it's not going to be perfect for any, everyone. But, for me, in this case, with the short-term accommodation, the potential economic impact, the potential impact on people's jobs and incomes, the reduction of the rights of property owners, I feel the whole thing is too risky. I feel I would be negligent if I didn't take a stand and vote against this.
03:11:00 So, There are many, many other things that I think are great in this plan. I appreciate enormously the excellent work done by our staff. There may be some other small things I don't like, but they wouldn't have mattered. But this one, I have to take a stand on. Mayor Wellington: Thank you. Very nice of you to speak to the motion. Councillor Low, will you? Councillor Wilkie: Look, I, Councillor Stockwell and Jackson alluded to the many, many good things in this planning scheme. It is an excellent document, an excellent piece of work which accommodates the changing nature of business in Noosa Shire, the challenges it faces in terms of growth. It's decided to accommodate the growth around existing centres where, close to transport nodes and shops and other services, which is very smart. The, well, the state government framework,
03:12:00 South East Queensland Regional Plan has acknowledged and respected Noosa Council's desire for modest growth targets. And so, we've been able to accommodate those, not with, through urban sprawl, but through increased densities around existing centres, which I think is excellent. It's a very balanced planning scheme. It's equitable and a lot of research-based decisions in there, especially in relation to, I have to disagree with, there have been some apocalyptic claims of, which, worst-case scenario, apocalyptic claims have held fire onto the economy, which, resulting from the proposed changes to short-term accommodation, which I think is scaremongering and I do not agree with. As it says in the considered, well-considered staff report, there is no evidence to suggest that changes to short-term accommodation will damage the economy because there's no proposal to reduce short-term accommodation. In fact, all existing short-term accommodation
03:13:00 is going to be respected. Home-based businesses, it's going to be easier for home-based businesses offering short-term accommodation to proliferate in the low-density residential zone. It's going to allow more short-term accommodation in the tourist accommodation zone, the medium-density residential zone, the high-density residential zone, rural residential zone and the rural zone. And when is enough enough? When is enough enough? I think we've got the balance right. Preserving residential amenity is equally, if not more, important than preserving Noosa as a great place to visit as well. And indeed, since the 80s, the approach has been very, very well. I'm also impressed there was effectively three rounds of consultation, starting with the discussion paper and the hundreds
03:14:00 of submissions received from that. Then there was the first round of the first draft, hundreds of submissions received from that. The second round and hundreds of submissions received on that. Staff have done an excellent job assessing the substance of those. And as alluded to before, it's not a matter of numbers. Yes, we live in a democracy, but it's also the substance and the quality of the ideas that we have to respond to, not the sheer volume of numbers. And I think the staff have got their recommendations right in that regard. There's the capacity, once it's bedded down, to review how it's working next year, 12, 18 months, and fine-tune with planning scheme amendments. And also, there's more work, as staff have indicated, they've responded to feedback on the local law, and there's more work to do in that regard as well. So, again, congratulate the fellow councillors for their work. Debate here today where the amendments were tested,
195 minutes in ¶
03:15:00 the ideas were tested in an open meeting. And thank you to the staff and also thank you to the Noosa community Councillor Jurisevic: Look I'm not going to go through and muffle on about all the great things that are in the planning scheme. I think it's been covered by my fellow councillors adequately except to mention the one thing that hasn't been mentioned and that is the availability of additional land for community uses. I think that's a significant thing. Over the years I've tried to find homes for community uses and there hasn't been land available so I'm glad that we've got that. We've finally got some new available spaces where we can progress our great community offerings. Look there are, I think we all have reservations, a planning scheme can never please everybody. There are challenges to presenting this document but I'd like to congratulate the staff, the councillors and the community for the valuable time and input into getting towards the end of a very lengthy process. I don't ever want to go through this again.
03:16:00 Look some of the areas where I do have reservations, some of the things that were taken out of the PIP with the introduction of the LEGIP, I'd like to go back and revisit those in the new council. I think there's some linkages there that are probably lost to the community that we need to restore. The other area of the planning scheme that I'm now apprehensive about and I'll wait to see, that is the removal of signage loss from the PIP. I now have some reservations about that but only time will tell if I'm right or wrong. Whilst the planning scheme is destined for a 10 year time frame, it is subject to change throughout its life. It's a living document, it's subject to amendment at any stage throughout its life and whilst there are calls for deferrals of the planning scheme at this stage from elements of the community, I think it's prudent of us to turn around and get the good things of this through.
03:17:00 I think it's prudent of us to turn around and get the good things of this through. Ensure that it gets to the end. Ensure that new development can be, you know, gets underway and gets undertaken. I think there are some significant passes of land that have been waiting a long long time to progress and I think this document will facilitate that as well as some of the changes within some of the major centres around the place. It will see progress going forward that many people have been calling on for many many years. So again, I'd like to congratulate staff. I think you've done a wonderful job under extreme circumstances with regard to timeframes and the like. And I don't know how you've done it because certainly the last seven days trying to read all of the documentation has been a challenge at its final stage. But I think we've got to a good end. And I'd like to support the planning scheme as it stands to undergo state interest checks and await the new council to deal with any issues as it sees fit.
03:18:00 Councillor Glasgow: Thank you, Councillor Glasgow. Yeah, I'd just like to stay where, like Joe, I never ever want to do this again, ever. The last seven days of my adult life, I've never slept ever as good trying to read this planning scheme in bed. It is. It puts Valium and Xanax and all that stuff in an absolute bed. It's an absolute great. But you guys just did an amazing job. It's so, so complex. And no one in the whole Noosa community realises how hard it is to function a local government or a council than everyone in this building. There's so many intricate movings and things happening from broken wheelie bins on a bin in Tewantin to, you know, trying to get some high density living. It's so, so tricky. And you guys just do the most amazing job. And to the average punter out there, the roads are flat, the bins are picked up, and the power of the light will turn on.
03:19:00 So it doesn't really get much more difficult than that. But it's, I really just, and I'm not going to harp on about how I just lost my 1-0 vote and all this other stuff. Join the club. Nice to see you for the first time. We'll be moving. Better until three years though, Joe. You got one in the first week. And I've had the short stay. So congratulations, because, you know, there's always going to be something, and Tony said it to me three and a half years ago, is just, there's always something coming on, you're never doing anything right, and it's just the fact that this has come to fruition now, and it's exciting, and I look forward to coming to the years ahead, and God, I hope I'm not here in ten years' time doing another one. Thank you. Mayor Wellington: Do you wish to close, Councillor Stoneman? No. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I will close. So, there is only, obviously, one issue that was raised there that requires debate, and that is the call for economic assessment, and the allegation that the short-term state could be very detrimental.
03:20:00 I think one person suggested to me what that economic assessment might include, and it was a very narrow consideration. There's someone who's actually got some qualifications in this sort of economics. The only true way to assess the economic... The only way to assess the economic impact of this planning scheme would to be conduct an assessment which looks at the outcomes of the scheme. The values, both the direct benefit of things like lowering the levels of assessment throughout the business centre zones to create greater flexibility, about putting in the innovative precincts in the industrial zone to add a mix of uses that can go there to drive our economy. It's about what are the market and non-market benefits. I think it's really important to understand, we could do a very narrow economic assessment of the property impact of changing the ability to have short-term accommodation for whole houses in the low-density residential zone, and we would be no better off at this point to make a decision, because we wouldn't have all the balancing information about the market and non-market benefits of actually controlling it.
03:21:00 And I can tell you that the very small... The very small variations between the amount of tourism, accommodation and stock as a result of that decision is not, in my opinion, likely to have any significant long-term effect. In fact, I believe this planning scheme has gone down a long way to achieving the outcome for effective land use planning in the Noosa Economic Plan that was adopted by the last council. And that says provide business certainty, a level of flexibility and reduce red tape. That's what our economic plan wanted it to do, and I believe that this scheme is probably the area of the planning scheme that has changed the most in the thinking and in the culture about how we conduct planning in Noosa.
03:22:00 It has said that in commercial zones, we want to try and make it easy for business to establish for a mix of uses. So, the overall outcome of any economic assessment for a planning scheme must be, is there an overall public benefit? And I'm very confident in saying that I think there will be a significant public benefit from this planning scheme. There's always going to be winners and losers in any planning scheme, but it is a regulatory instrument that sets the tone for the next seven to ten years. So, I've come to a conclusion. I appreciate all the work the College has done, but I think we all, at this last point, have to really thank the staff. I'd like to be the odd man out. Mayor Wellington: This is the best fun I've had for ages. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'd do it all again.
03:23:00 Mayor Wellington: Bloody planner. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: You know, particularly, it's been a large workload, four years, but the response to the second round of advertising has been immense and over a very short timeframe. And I know, for example, that even the administrative staff were going to the football club for the AGM and coming back to do work again. So, that's the level of commitment that the staff within this Council have given to ensure that the policy and planning direction of this term of Council is able to be provided to the State Government. And hopefully, we will have it in place before the caretaker period next year. So, well done all. I appreciate that this forum has really reflected the diverse views in the community. And I appreciate that this is a big milestone in the term of this Council. And thank you all. Thank you. Mayor Wellington: Councillors, I'm going to put the motion to the vote. All those in favour?
03:24:00 That's Councillors Stockwell, Glasgow, Wilkie, Jurisevic and Wellington. Those against? Councillor Jackson, the motion is carried. Hooray. Before we conclude, the CEO would like to have a word. I'd like to address the meeting. Speaker 5: Yeah, I'd just like to publicly thank the staff as well. I know the Councillors have all been through that process. But what the staff have done over the last few years has been immense. With Kim's leadership, I don't think we would have got there without it. So, I really want to say thank you. Robina, Rebecca and Michelle in the engine room, punching out all the documents, dealing with all the things. And obviously, Glen, Anita and Linda as well. It's been a real team effort. You should be very proud of this milestone and what we've achieved today to get to this point. Obviously, we've got to go through the state interest check. So, let's get that going. But yeah, again, I've been through a lot of planning schemes over the years. This has been a very thorough process in terms of the consultation, the debate and the framing of the issues around various discussion papers.
03:25:00 So, well done. Really proud of you. Yeah. Mayor Wellington: So councillors and planning staff, there's a celebratory cake waiting for us in the committee room and that concludes the meeting. Thank you very much.