Start of recording ¶
00:00:00 Mayor Stewart: Good morning everyone. Welcome to this very special meeting. I declare the special meeting open. I would like to acknowledge that today we are meeting on the traditional lands of the Kabi Kabi people and I pay my respects to the elders past, present and emerging. Obviously, as everyone knows by now, but for those at home, the special meeting is in regard to the presentation and adoption and implementation of following ministerial approval of the Noosa Plan 2020. I note that everyone is in attendance and apologies. I think I just said that. Today the purpose of, I've already said that. We have three items on the agenda. Item one is the Noosa Plan 2020 presented for adoption and implementation following ministerial approval at Page 2. I would like to disclose a perceived conflict of interest. Speaker 1: Read out what that is. Mayor Stewart: I declare a perceived conflict of interest in this matter as defined in Section 175D of the Local Government Act 2009 due to the fact that Youngcare, a not-for-profit community organisation of which I am a director, made a submission on the draft Noosa planning scheme in relation to a parcel of land at 32 Viewland Drive, Noosa Heads.
00:01:00 Thank you. As council is not reviewing the submission made as part of the earlier process, they're examining individual parcels of land within the context of the Shire planning scheme. And given that the adoption of a planning scheme is an item of ordinary business under the Local Government Act, I believe that I could be considered this impartial and in the public interest and request that I remain in the meeting room to participate in this debate and vote on this matter. Speaker 1: Thank you. So, councillors, just for information, when the mayor declares a perceived conflict of interest? Automatically in a council meeting, the deputy there then assumes the chair to be able to deal with the issue. So, councillor Wilkie would chair the meeting while these issues are being considered. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Mr CEO. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just to clarify, because I am also going to declare a similar conflict, I wouldn't be eligible to vote on this matter, is that correct?
00:02:00 Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: For the benefit of those listening, Mr CEO, could you explain what ordinary business means in this context? Speaker 1: My suggestion would be that I understand there's some other potential conflicts of interest declarations from council, so put all of those on the table and then deal with that at that stage. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Do it. Nice. Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: I declare a perceived conflict of interest in this matter as defined in section 175D of the Local Government Act 2009, due to the fact that I made a number of submissions on the draft Noosa planning scheme in relation to the issue of short-term accommodation. As council is not reviewing the submissions made as part of the earlier process, nor is it examining individual parcels of land within the context of the entire planning scheme, and given that the adoption of the planning scheme is an item of ordinary business under the Local Government Act, I believe that I can consider this item impartially and in the public interest, and I request you remain in the meeting room to participate in the debate and vote in this matter.
00:03:00 Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes. I too would like to declare a perceived conflict of interest in the matter under the Act, due to the fact that I made a submission as group leader on behalf of the Noosa Sea Scouts to the draft planning scheme in 2019 in relation to a parcel of land at 11 Yookimundi Noosa Road, Noosaville. No changes have been made to the draft planning scheme as a result of this submission. I do not currently hold an executive position in the Noosa Sea Scouts. As council is not reviewing the submissions made as part of the earlier process, nor is it examining individual parcels of land within the context of the entire planning scheme, and given that the adoption of the planning scheme is an item of ordinary business under the Local Government Act, I believe that I can consider this matter impartially and in the public interest, and I request you remain in the meeting room to participate in the debate and vote on this matter. Councillor Wilkie: So, Mr. CEO, the description of this is a matter of ordinary business.
00:04:00 Could you explain for the benefit of those listening? Sure. Speaker 1: Thanks, councillors. And I might go a little bit wider than that, given there's a fair bit of public interest in the planning scheme process and how that works. Obviously, conflicts of interest do arise. Councillors live in the community, they're involved in the community, they have friends, neighbours, they're involved in community organisations and so on. What's important in conflict of interest management is that they're identified and declared and then dealt with in an appropriate way. And so I commend the councillors for those today who have identified they have a potential conflict and raising it for consideration. How to deal with it. The meeting today, the special council meeting today is part of a process to adopt a planning scheme, and it's at the end of that process. The process last year that the council went through was to consider submissions, and it was at that point that individual submissions and all the submission process were considered. That is not part of the process today. So, low councillors have done the right thing by identifying that they made submissions.
00:05:00 That's not under consideration today. The second thing is, and this is what I guess you've asked me, in terms of how the Local Government Act deals with what's defined as ordinary business matter. The regulators recognise that councillors, as I said, live and work in the communities, and sometimes in some of the decisions they have, they may have potential conflicts. And I could probably give two examples. One is the, in the definition, it actually defines adoption of the budget, which the council did last week. Every councillor I assume owns a property, and you're making a decision in a budget process about what rates and charges would apply to all properties across the entire Shire. So what the Act recognises is the adoption of a budget is an ordinary business matter, and the fact that a council might own a property and you're making decisions about what rates are going to be paid is by definition therefore not a conflict, and it's appropriate to be able to make that decision. One of the other definitions in ordinary business matter is the adoption of a planning scheme. So that's the final step in that process where the council adopts a scheme in its entirety.
00:06:00 It's not looking at individual submissions or parcels or whatever it might be. It's the adoption of the scheme in its entirety. So certainly the definition in the Act clearly prescribes that it would be appropriate for councillors to recognise that at the adoption stage, councillors can vote on the matter when they have no greater or lesser interest than any other resident would have. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you Mr. Mayor. Speaker 5: Mr. CEO, just to clarify, the difference here in something like a budget submission or in elements of a planning scheme is that various councillors have actually made submissions towards the planning scheme. I understand we're at the adoption phase and that those elements aren't considered at this point in time. Is that the only difference? Had this been at an earlier stage of the planning scheme debate, would the situation be different? Speaker 1: Yes, it would. In the process, if the council was considering submissions and individual councillors had made a submission, then that councillor wouldn't be protected by the exemption.
00:07:00 The exemption provides to the adoption of the scheme, the final adoption. And in fact, in Councillor Stockwell's case, he was a councillor at the time when the council was considering the submissions in relation to the draft scheme. And in that case, he was, did have a conflict of interest and has to leave the room for consideration of the matter in relation to the Scouts or Sea Scouts, I think it was at the time. But the adoption process is a different process to that submission process. Speaker 5: Thank you Mr. CEO. In that case, Mr. Chair, I'll move the first resolution. The council's note of perceived conflict of interest, declaration of Councillor Stewart resolved that this represents a perceived conflict of interest in this matter and that Councillor Stewart may remain in the meeting room to participate in the debate and vote on the matter. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Jurisevic. We have a seconder, please. I'll second it. All right, Councillor Jurisevic, you wish to speak to the motion? Speaker 5: No, thank you, Mr. Chair. I think the questions I've asked the CEO and the explanation he has provided is sufficient
00:08:00 for me in the matter. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Any other councillors wish to speak to the motion? That can only be Councillor Finzel or Councillor Wegener. No? Jodie, do you wish to close? Okay. Okay, I put the motion. Those in favour? That's Councillor Wegener, Jurisevic, Wilkie. Against? Councillor Finzel, are you? Are we voting again? Speaker 5: We're voting. We're staying in the room. Councillor Stewart is staying in the room. Councillor Wilkie: Oh, yes. So we'll do it. We'll call that a day. Sorry. Those in favour of Councillor Stewart remaining in the room? Councillor Wegener, Jurisevic, Finzel and Wilkie. That's unanimous. Next motion is about... Speaker 5: Mr. Chair, I'll do that. Take the initiative again. I'll say that... I'll move that the councillors note the perceived conflict of interest in the declaration of Council Oreston. Resolved that this represents a perceived conflict of interest in the matter and that Council Oreston may remain in the meeting to participate in the debate and vote on this
00:09:00 matter. Councillor Wilkie: I'll second that. You wish to speak further on that? Speaker 5: Only for the same reasons outlined earlier. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. I'll put the motion. Those in favour? Councillors Wegener, Jurisevic, Finzel and Wilkie. That's unanimous. That's carried. And final resolution, Your Honour. Council Oreston and Jurisevic. I want one on a roll. Speaker 5: Council does not perceive conflict of interest in the declaration of Council Stockwell and resolve that this represents a perceived conflict of interest in this matter and that Council Stockwell may remain in the meeting room to participate in the debate and vote on the matter. Councillor Wilkie: I'll second that. Speaker 5: Councillor Wilkie. Again, for the reasons outlined in the two previous circumstances. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. All in favour? Councillor Wegener. Jurisevic. Wilkie. Against? Councillor Finzel, are you voting or not today? Speaker 5: Sorry, I wasn't paying attention. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Okay. Councillor Finzel. We're voting on a similar resolution to the last two about a perceived conflict of interest
00:10:00 in this time. It pertains to Councillor Stockwell. So I'll put the motion. We're looking at Councillor Resolution that's highlighted there, moved by Councillor Jurisevic and seconded by myself. Note the perceived conflict of interest declaration of Councillor Stockwell and resolve that this represents a perceived conflict of interest in the matter and that Councillor Stockwell may remain in the meeting room to participate in the debate and vote on this matter. So I'll put that. Speaker 5: Those in favour? Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Wegener, Jurisevic, Finzel and Wilkie. And that's carried unanimously. Councillor Stewart. Councillor Stewart. It's back to you. Mayor Stewart: Thank you very much. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And I'd like to move the staff recommendation, please. Mayor Stewart: Thank you very much. Councillor Wilkie: And I'll second that. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. So, Councillors, we're at step 20 out of 20 of the statutory planning scheme review process. There is no step 21. It's either adopt or go back to step 1.
00:11:00 If we go back to step 1, we'll have another two to three years of working with the plan first gazetted in February 2006. And we'll be throwing away over $3 million of ratepayer investment in the planning scheme review. So let's reflect to start with. What's changed since the current scheme was first presented? In February 2006, you may have been, like me, one of the 100 million MySpace users. It was bigger than Google around then. But unless you were attending Harvard University, you definitely did not have a Facebook page because it didn't open up to the general public in Australia until September that year. If you were a really cool businessman or business type, you had a Blackberry, and that was the first time you could talk on the phone and send messages, and an iPod to listen to your music. But you wouldn't have had an iPhone because they weren't around for a couple of years after that. In 2006, the baddies triumphed over the religious with the number one blockbuster, Horrocks
00:12:00 of the Caribbean, looking for a dead mayor's chest, grossing twice as much in the box office compared to the acolytes who were trying to unravel the Da Vinci Code in search of the Holy Grail. In 2006, the last VHS movie was made. We've moved on. The world that the current DUSA plan was based on no longer exists. Like the dead man's chest, the current plan is filled with plenty of gems, but it's time for a remake. The Noosa planning scheme for this community is like the Da Vinci Code. It's about searching for the Holy Grail of what a sustainable future for this community looks like. So since we've kicked off this scheme review process, we've had extensive consultation. We've had detailed deliberations with six different stakeholder working groups to contribute to the GARF scheme. We've gone out to public consultation on three separate occasions. We've reached over 34,000 people on social media, and just under half of those, 16,700,
00:13:00 have downloaded information about the plan. During the two public consultation periods on the draft plan, there were eight public pop-ups. 850 people had direct face-to-face discussions with staff. 750 phone inquiries were answered and responded to 180 emails. That all resulted in a total of 1,540 emails. There were 40 submissions, which each were individually considered and responded to. So today, we're at the decision. It's important to note that in any democracy, there's a range of voices in the community be heard. And I respect that there are people around this table and elected on the platform that would like to see some elements of the draft scheme changed. But the decision in front of us today is either to adopt or not adopt. Staff and state government officers advise, once submitted for a draft scheme, to adopt or not adopt. Once the minister's approval was given, there is no opportunity to amend, except to satisfy
00:14:00 his conditions. So the decision then is about what is the best thing to do for this community from an environmental, social and economic perspective, which will help us respond to the immediate challenges ahead. Which plan best serves the needs of this Shire as we endeavour to navigate our way out of a pandemic-induced recession? Do we adopt a new scheme with enhanced protections for waterways, wetlands and groundwater-dependent ecosystems? Or do we stick with the plan that was conceived when the largest incident in Cooroy was the closure of a sawmill? Do we adopt a new scheme which has zoned substantial new areas for social and worker housing close to employment hubs to address the significant need for affordable housing in the community? Or do we stick with the plan that predicted, with the high growth rates at the time, that we'd reach the population? Do we adopt a new scheme which facilitates growth in rural and nature-based tourism
15 minutes in ¶
00:15:00 along the Noosa Country Drive and the Noosa Trails network? Or do we stick with the plan developed when Pomona didn't even have a supermarket? Do we adopt a new scheme which provides more flexibility to interchange business uses and centres, and reduces the level of assessment for 75 different types of business, making the start-up process quicker and less expensive? Or do we stick with the plan that was written in 2016? Or do we stick with the plan that was written when the Shire had about six stores where you could rent a video and the Bridgin Digital Hub was still a bowls club? Councils, there's obviously only one answer to all these questions. It's time to adopt the planning scheme. There is one final reason why we should adopt a new plan. It is perhaps, for me, the most compelling reason. In March, the residents of Noosa Shire had the chance to select their representative for this place. In the wisdom, they chose four councillors who made a public commitment during the campaign to adopt the scheme. While the mayoral vote was close 50-50, four out of six of us mere councillors are at least
00:16:00 in part sitting here because we made our position clear that we would adopt the plan. This is not saying that all four of us agree with every single aspect of the plan. For example, I for one was keen to see more significant protection for the character, housing and significant old trees around Old Swatton, Cooroy and Pomona and was convinced to wait for further studies and then if of the need for amendment of the scheme. So the most compelling reason for me is that the people have spoken. In the interest of respecting the democratic process, it is now time to adopt the new Noosa plan. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Madam Chair. Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Rob. For the benefit of those listening today, the work on this planning scheme began almost four years ago, has attracted nearly 2,000 total submissions and cost an estimated $3.2 million to get us this far. It has the approval of the state government and is here for adoption with ministerial conditions which are standard practice with new planning schemes.
00:17:00 As advised, there are no more opportunities for change in state review. As staff have advised, we are finally at step 19 in the 20-step process. We adopt today or we start again from scratch. The current Noosa plan has been in place since 2006 and been amended nine times. It cannot be amended further. And over the last 14 years, the Noosa community has experienced a period of unprecedented change, which this scheme seeks to accommodate, especially in commercial enterprises where businesses are now often multi-purpose and may include manufacturing as well as a range of mixed services from the one premise. Through the reduction of red tape, in this case, removing the red tape from the red tape and reducing the need for material change of use or impact accessible applications in a wide range of businesses, this plan makes establishing a new enterprise much easier and less costly. It also acknowledges and seeks to balance the social and economic impacts, both positive and negative, brought by online accommodation booking platforms for home-based and whole-dwelling
00:18:00 short-term accommodation. After undergoing extensive legal checks, the final draft has been approved by the state of conditions. Including the amending of fire hazard, erosion hazard, biodiversity and koala habitat overlays to reflect state mapping, providing more detailed planning guidance for the Noosa Business Centre site, changing provisions around social housing to reflect state guidelines. And in a condition that will help improve general understanding, Council will prepare a comprehensive guide explaining the requirements for operating short-term accommodation in Noosa Shire. Council will also undertake a two-year review of the social and economic impacts of short-term accommodation and produce a report for the Minister on the findings. It's worth noting that Planning Scheme's balanced approach to short-term accommodation in low-density residential neighbourhoods is similar to that adopted by at least nine other Queensland Councils, including Sunshine Coast, Gold Coast, Port Douglas and Whitsunday.
00:19:00 The positive and negative impacts of short-term accommodation were highlighted in Council's case studies from around Australia and the world in the Council's Short-Term Accommodation and Online Platform Issues paper, the Planning Responses to Online Short-Term Holiday Rental Platforms by University of Sydney study, which both helped guide this scheme. The aim has been to balance the benefits offered by home-based visitor accommodation experiences while protecting resident amenity and ensuring residential neighbourhoods over time are retained primarily for permanent residents. The reality is that under this new Planning Scheme, every dwelling in the Shire can host some form of visitor accommodation, be it whole dwelling or home-hosted. There have been claims to the contrary, which is why the Minister's requirement for comprehensive guides to be publicised is welcome and much needed.
00:20:00 But under the new Planning Scheme, every dwelling in the Shire can host some form of visitor accommodation. Under the new scheme, in the medium-density residential, high-density residential, rural residential and rural zones, plus visitor accommodation zones, short-term accommodation will be a consistent use and impact-accessible. In the low-density residential neighbourhoods, properties that are already being used for short-term accommodation, including all traditional holiday houses, will continue to do so as they will have existing use rights. Owners of houses and residential neighbourhoods that want to go overseas and short-term let their properties can do so for up to 60 days a year. Property owners in the low-density residential areas that are not currently short-term letting, but may want to, can also apply within the next 12 months for the right to do so under the superseded Planning Scheme. And homeowners in the low-density residential zone who want to let out one or two rooms
00:21:00 for home-hosted stays will be able to do so without the need for town planning applications, as long as certain conditions are met. To recap, under the new Planning Scheme, every dwelling in the Shire can host some form of visitor accommodation, be it whole-dweller or home-hosted, and a local law, yet to be implemented, will help regulate behaviour and minimise negative impacts for short-term accommodation. That said, the low-density residential neighbourhoods are to be preserved principally for permanent residents. This was an issue where widespread consensus could not be reached, unfortunately. And some interests who believe Noosa's real estate potential no longer remains unlimited may not rest until all dwellings in the Shire become potentially available for whole-house short-term letting by making it a consistent use in the low-density residential zone. In my view, Noosa is not just an opportunity for those seeking their second, third or fourth investment property for short-term letting. It is first and foremost a community.
00:22:00 It is not just a much-loved visitor destination. It is also a community. I urge colleagues to at least give the current, widely-adopted, lawful and balanced approach to short-term accommodation a two-year trial, as mandated by the Minister, before considering amendments on this matter. Other local governments across the State have also adopted a similar well-reasoned approach that seeks to balance commercial and community interests on this point. And finally, I'd like to thank the staff who have put in literally thousands and thousands of hours in getting the planning scheme to this point, and to all the residents and businesses who have made submissions on this matter. It's been a long journey. It's been a difficult journey. And if it was an easy undertaking, it would have been done yesterday and finished perfectly. But there is still capacity to amend the scheme after it's adopted, because we know there will be fine tuning and no planning scheme is perfect. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor Wilkie.
00:23:00 Anyone else like to speak to the motion? Or move amendments? Councillor Wegener: I would like to move an amendment by adding the following words. And this is concerning the industrial use zones. And I'd like to initiate a process to monitor, over a two-year period, the effectiveness of provisions in the new use zones. The new use zone plan 2020 with regards to industrial land and industrial precincts to ensure the provisions meet the objectives of enabling the changing nature of business, including increased diversity in key sectors and provisions for small purpose flexibility in work. Provide and provide a report back to Council on this monitoring program, including any associated recommended amendments to the new use zone plan. Mayor Stewart: Seconded? Seconded. Thank you. Cancel it right now.
00:24:00 Councillor Wegener: Well, as you guys remember, some of our most lively discussions have been around the Cooroy industrial area and the very, you know, the use set out there. And also, we have learned that there are numerous inconsistent uses in industrial areas throughout the, all the different industrial estates in Tunisia. And I hope this motion will help guide Council in the future. And I hope that the Commission will continue to make regulations which reflect the needs of our community. The nature of business is continually changing. And I just would like to push that vote of staying on top of these changes and making regulations that reflect the needs of the community. Mayor Clare. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor Wegener. Would anyone else like to speak to the motion? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm happy to speak to the motion. I think it's a good amendment in terms of I think when we make new and interesting changes to the scheme and certainly the level of flexibility in this scheme around the industrial zoning is very new. And it's an approach that was very much looking at the trends we're experiencing around the
00:25:00 globe. And the fact that we do have now an enterprise type precinct in the Noosaville industrial estate and a makers precinct. And the fact that we actually have a lot more flexibility to small scale manufacturing in our business zones while living above the retail is also a very new way of thinking for the Noosa scheme. And it's one which I think has a great potential to allow us to provide opportunities for smaller businesses by subletting by the dominant tenant like we see with one might be for Council Windsor. Councillor Wegener, we have is a surfboard maker with two or three other different types of enterprise in the one building. I think that is a very useful model to go on. It's one that I actually went to 2016 election. I'm promising to put into the new scheme.
00:26:00 And it's one that I think everyone in the previous council and staff were very keen to pursue. So really working out whether what we have done works over the next two years, I think is a really good model is to monitor and evaluate. The first two years and if things are looking at like they're not achieving the objectives we set out to, then by all means, that's the time to consider amendments. I support the amendment. Speaker 5: Likewise, I support the amendment. I think that as Councillor Stockwell alluded to, any significant changes that we've made and that we have made some changes into the industrial area, as Councillor Wegener pointed out, deserve to be monitored and evaluated over a certain period. I think a two year period. Is the appropriate time frame to enable that to happen, to see the changes. Professionally, because in the first 12 months of any change of planning scheme, there's an opportunity for an applicant to put an application under the superseded scheme. So to allow that 12 months to pass and to see the impact over the 12 month period of
00:27:00 the new scheme, wholly and solely in operation, I think is appropriate. And I commend Councillor Wegener for bringing this forward. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: I strongly support this amendment because it gives us the opportunity to develop what I call true enterprise precincts that encourages innovation and employment diversity. I think that we've taken the first step in creating an enterprise precinct by allowing the mix of hospitality industrial uses in the Noosaville industrial area under the Venture Drive enterprise precinct. But I think that when you look at Victorian models of enterprise precincts, it's clear that we still have a long way to go. I think this amendment gives us the opportunity to take the next steps to establish true enterprise precincts that capitalise and embrace exciting opportunities such as distilleries and microbreweries and support this new emerging economy.
00:28:00 So thank you, Tom, for bringing this to the table. Mayor Stewart: I too support this motion. Thank you, Councillor Wegener. I think it is a good one. I think it provides greater flexibility for our potential economy. I think it diversifies our economy. I think it empowers our community through these enterprise precincts. I think it creates hubs in different areas. Specifically, you mentioned Cooroy. I think it's great to have more industry out there. And I think it's also potentially, if we do create these hubs around our Shire, it will address some traffic issues it will take away from our hotspots, Gimpy Terrace, Hastings Street, and it will be go-to places for many. So that will address in ways, too, our issues with transport and parking. Not wholly, but it will contribute towards it. So I commend this amendment and I wholeheartedly support it. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah, I endorse the comments of the Mayor, Councillor Lorentson, Councillor Jurisevic, and Councillor Stockwell. We want to make sure that we get this right.
00:29:00 These precincts are critical to enterprise. And it's only appropriate that after two years, there be over two years. Two year period. There be appropriate monitoring of new initiatives. And it gives us the opportunity to make sure that we have got the settings right in this case. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: Thank you, everyone, for your comments. And thank you, Councillor Wegener, for your motion today. I support it. I think it's a great opportunity to test the flexibility of the new Noosa plan. To meet changing needs for mixed-use industrial space. The integration and co-location of a variety of industrial uses to be provided for is a great step towards innovation. And a future that encompasses the current needs of industrial spaces as we move towards new industry. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Councillor Finzel: Would you like to close, Councillor?
30 minutes in ¶
00:30:00 Councillor Wegener: You have a right of reply. Mayor Stewart: A right of reply? Councillor Wegener: Yeah. I disagree with anyone. Mayor Stewart: We'll put that motion to a vote. Councillor Wegener: Thank you. Quit while you're ahead. Mayor Stewart: All in favour of Tom's amendment? Or Councillor Wegener's amendment? Unanimous. Thank you, Cathy. Would anyone else like to move a further amendment or motion? Does that make sense? Yes. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. I would like to move a motion today. Mayor Stewart: Amendment. Councillor Finzel: Amendment. To monitor over the next two years the effectiveness of the provisions of the Noosa plan 2020. In enabling the delivery of housing choice and affordable housing. To meet the diverse needs of the community. Specifically housing for those in our community on low incomes with special needs or in identified groups of need of community and affordable housing. And provide a report back to Council on this monitoring program including any associated recommended amendments to the Noosa plan to strengthen the provisions towards these outcomes.
00:31:00 Thank you. Speaker 5: Thank you. Councillor Finzel: So one of the conditions of approval by the Minister was to amend the provisions Council had in the Noosa plan regarding social and community housing to be achieved as our two major centres. This small housing right in the centres close to shops, work, transport. The intent was to achieve housing for our key workers, young people, people on the road, on low incomes or special needs. Council has taken a strategic approach to these requirements providing substantial uplift across these sites and was considered a good community outcome and reasonable to require community housing outcomes as part of these major developments. Council will continue to pursue these outcomes for its community and the plan will continue
00:32:00 to play an important part in achieving more affordable and affordable housing for our community. This is vital and important as we head towards a future where no one is left behind. We will continue to work with the State Government to advocate for support for affordable and community housing for our community. And monitor how this progresses over the coming couple of years. I think it's really important that as we talk about a plan that heads towards a future, that we have to be fully inclusive of those who are different or who are not, who have needs that need to be identified and measured. Gandhi states the true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members. Moving forward I would like to see that this Shire is innovative, progressive and contemporary
00:33:00 in meeting the needs of those who are left behind. I think we are all more fortunate than some of us who can access the best things in life. So today I can really call upon this Council to please consider my motion in one way that we lose no one along the way we can measure and monitor the effectiveness of this plan in meeting the needs of all of us in this community. Speaker 3: Thank you. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. As a Council we have an obligation to ensure that local residents are able to access a range of diverse housing options based on their needs. Affordable housing strategies and their implementations need to be locally driven. We should not just leave this to the state. We need to undertake our own housing market analysis and use this data to create strategies for action to facilitate more affordable housing for our community.
00:34:00 Thank you. This is our opportunity under the Town Plan to facilitate and promote this outcome. I fully support your motion, Carrie. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak to this motion? Councillor Stoke. I will. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I always thought it was going to be me who would quote Gowdy in this question. One of the first planning studies done for this planning scheme was a housing needs assessment and there's no doubt that while diversification of the economy is important, provision of housing that meets the needs of our population is equally important. The scheme has a raft of initiatives to provide incentives for private investment in affordable housing. It gives inducements for small housing to fit the needs of our ever-shrinking household size. But, Councillor, it's one of the biggest disappointments. The absolute shattering realisation that even though it went through the first State Interest
00:35:00 Check without anyone raising an issue is that in the Condition 5 of the Minister's approval, he required us to remove a requirement. The two sites which this Council specifically gave a significant upzoning to, at the coal site at Noosa Junction, very close to the employment hubs of the junction and Hastings Street where we put an area into high-density residential, and at the Noosa Civic, another employment hub where we put a vast area into high-density residential, where we said that extra development potential we're giving those people who own that land should be offset by a requirement to provide a decent income. We want it to be a requirement, and while we really thank all the hard work by the State
00:36:00 Government and the Minister to get work with us on this planning scheme, I'm afraid the Queensland Government needs to hang its head in shame. The next two years, if we see the continuation of the current trends in this recession, the provision of social housing is going to be a disaster. It's a big priority for governments across Australia and the world. What this motion does is allow us to track to see whether the private market will prove me wrong and suggest that the Minister's requirement just for us to encourage the provision of social housing actually works. But if it doesn't, we may have to look at other mechanisms. There are other mechanisms that we're currently looking at, which is looking at whether there's a way to make this council-owned land that may be suitable for social housing.
00:37:00 But this one is important because council can't hope to be a social housing provider. We have to build in the community ethic of making part of all our new development suitable for our age, suitable for our young workers, and suitable for people with special needs in housing so they're integrated into community and we all look after each other. So well done on the amendment. I hope you support it. Thank you. Speaker 5: I too support the amendment and I share Councillor Stockwell's bitter disappointment at the fact that the Minister saw fit to remove a provision for social needs housing in those two areas of greater facilitation of high density residential being at the Shire Business Centre and at the Noosa Junction, I forgot the word, Noosa Junction Centre anyway, Business Centre. Thank you. It is a shame, but I commend Councillor Finzel on her approach here with regards to managing
00:38:00 and monitoring of social needs housing as a result of the change to the, or the introduction of the new planning scheme. The affordable housing document that we initiated showed us that there was a distinct need for affordable housing in the region and of course, through the COVID-19 environment, one of the things that seems to be hitting the news headlines this week in terms of affordable housing in particular is the need for social needs housing and that opportunity for not only economic stimulus for the building industry, but the need to accommodate those most in need within our community. So I commend Councillor Finzel on this amendment and I look forward to the review over the next couple of years. Of course, this isn't the first time that council has tried to instigate provisions into the planning scheme to provide for social needs housing or housing for the working community, as we've done in the past. But I hope the, and they haven't necessarily succeeded. So I think the need to go back and review and see the effectiveness of those measures
00:39:00 that we've put in is why. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor Finzel. I too support it. Those words advocate for affordable and community housing. Well, they took on new meaning for me yesterday when I attended United Synergies and I walked around that incredible resource that we have available in our community. And I spoke to them about the people who are homeless who came and have come and have showers, about the children in our community who are sleeping in their cars and who are coming there and that's not acceptable. That is not acceptable. We can, we are doing so much, but there is so much more that we can do. Affordable housing is mandatory and we must fight the good fight and get it through. We must help those who can't help themselves and I wholly support this. I would just like to finish with a quote if we're talking about Gandhi, the best way to find yourself is to lose yourself in the service of others. As roles of leaders, we are in a role of not only leadership, but we are in a role of service. And this is a great indication and a great area where we can provide and fight for that
00:40:00 service. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Finzel, thank you for bringing this motion and for your arousing speech. You have raised an issue that is dear to our hearts and dear to all of our hearts, and as you've heard, we did make efforts through the draft planning scheme to include social housing in two key sites, but although certain departments in the government, we understand, were fully in favour of it, the final decision was contrary to what we had hoped for. I fully support your idea of monitoring over two years. Two years is a good, sufficient period of time to gather sufficient data, to make some meaningful decisions about how we're tracking in that regard, and it's consistent with what we're going to be doing for the industrial estate and also short-term accommodation as
00:41:00 mandated by the Minister. So thank you for bringing this. And I fully support that. Thank you. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Councillor, Councillor Wegener. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Wegener: Just quickly, yeah, congratulations, Councillor Finzel. Thank you. We've been quoting Gwand, Gandhi, and of course, another person who you wouldn't expect to, who would have supported this motion is Adam Smith, because Adam Smith actually said that very important role of a capitalist society is to look after the elderly and the most vulnerable. Speaker 3: Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you. Councillor Finzel. Mayor Stewart: Councillor Finzel, would you like to write a reply? Oh, well, I see. You don't have to. Councillor Finzel: I'd just like to thank all the staff at this time, too, for their hard work and how you've committed yourselves over the last four years to deliver this plan. So thank you. And I'd like to thank everyone's support today. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: We might put that vote to a motion. All in favour?
00:42:00 Motion to a vote. Councillor Lorentson: I'd like to make an amendment to the Town Plan to include F, initiate a process for amending the Noosa Plan 2020 under Section 18 of the Planning Act 2016 that reviews the levels of assessment and associated provisions for short-term accommodation in the low-density residential zone, specifically considering the inclusion of the use of short-term accommodation as a consistent use in the low-density residential zone where consisting of no more than one dwelling. I first want to start, oh, you've got a second, there's a second and then complete. Oh, and sorry, G. I'd also like to move an amendment to complete and introduce a local law for short-term letting, including the associated code of conduct to regulate short-term letting.
00:43:00 I second that. I second that motion. I want to first start by just correcting Councillor Stockwell. Today, in front of us, we actually have three choices, not two choices. First choice is to adopt the new plan. Second choice is not to adopt the Noosa Plan and start the plan preparation process all over again. And our third choice is the choice that I'm putting to Council today, which is adopt the Noosa Plan and initiate amendments to the plan. One of the reasons that I ran for Council was because of the short-term accommodation debate. I'm going to refer to that as STA. Changes in the Noosa Town Plan around STA regulations created great debate and massive divide in the community. I was approached to help fix the divide and bring clarity and perspective to this debate.
00:44:00 I was approached to represent a large group of people in this community who were not being heard. According to my numbers at the election booth, that was 10,600 residents who were not being heard, or nearly 40% of the people that voted at the March election. My research has also revealed some real data. Council data shows that from the 1st of January 2014 until the end of January 2020, that is over the last five years, Council received only 32 formal written complaints, an average of five complaints per annum about noise from short-term accommodation. To give you all a bit of perspective, during the last 12 months, Council also received 508 complaints about dogs barking. Council decided to change legislation to appease five people out of 55,000.
45 minutes in ¶
00:45:00 I am here because 40% of Noosa voters were outraged by this decision. We all make commitments to listen to the community. Well, now is your chance to listen to some real data. What I believe makes things worse is that the solution to the imaginary problem did not involve, in my opinion, proper or effective consultation. In my opinion, the community was bombarded with a scare campaign about the evils of short-term accommodation. Thankfully, the community did not believe the hysteria and decided to vote me in council. How can we as responsible councillors change the town plan to please only five people in a town of 55,000 people and at the same time angering 10,600 people? The right thing to do is to go back to the original proposal that made STA consistent, impact accessible in low density residential zones.
00:46:00 Unfortunately, this is not what is being proposed today. What is proposed is to divide the community even further by saying those of you with existing use have rights to STA and the owners of properties next door to you do not. It's absurd that we would discriminate amongst our own community. Not only is it denying residents equal rights, it's unfair, undemocratic and it's actually considered illegal. May I quote to you a statement from Bill Potts, Bill Potts, the ex-president of the Queensland Law Society, quote, that the planning amendments will be unenforceable with the risk of significant litigation against council in the community's interest. In his opinion, regarding STA regulation, council has no other option than to start again. According to Bill Potts, these changes were, quote,
00:47:00 a discriminatory assault on the rights of property owners and could skew values. Not only does he consider that these changes should be illegal, but in February 2020, Cameron Dick's office, the state government, sent the town plan back to council and by way of condition number eight told us what 10,600 residents, already knew, that the plan in regards to short-term accommodation needed further work. Not just further work, it needed further consultation because the potential impact of these significant changes were in fact significant. Councillors, we changed the town plan because of five formal written complaints. Using this logic with the 508 dog complaints, we should have banned dogs in Noosa years ago. I'm asking you all to do the right thing today. Not to approve the plan because the STA regulations
00:48:00 that were made at the last minute by Councillor Stockwell in September 2019 were unfair. And Councillor Jurisevic, your vote against Councillor Stockwell's motion is noted. I'm asking you to approve the plan and initiate immediate amendments to provisions relating to STAs and complete and introduce a local law, and a strict code of conduct for everyone, residents, permanent renters and STA providers. Because if this plan is approved, all of our promises of listening to the community will be broken. The words, your say, your Noosa, will be just that, words. We have an opportunity today to get things right, to show the community that we're listening and this is in fact your Noosa. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Stockwell. I have a question of the Director of Planning. A number of statements that I need clarification on.
00:49:00 Firstly, there was an opinion by the head of the, ex-head of a legal professional association, the POTS. Have you ever heard of Mr POTS's name used in the Planning Environment Court? Is he a Planning Environment Court lawyer to your knowledge? Sorry, that's not up to the Director to identify what basis that person has. Speaker 1: That's an unfair question. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So I'll ask a general question. If a Councillor is seeking legal advice on a planning scheme, would it be appropriate for that person to ask either a professional planner or a lawyer who is active within the Planning Environment Court? Is that the best place to go for information? Yes, it is. Speaker 1: In fact, through this whole process, Council has sought advice from our solicitor who specialises in the Planning Environment Court and we've also sought advice from Queensland's leading QC in the Planning Environment Jurisdiction.
00:50:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And on that advice, are you, Mr CEO, happy that there is nothing illegal about the planning scheme as is proposed to be adopted today? Speaker 1: Yeah, sure. We obviously have the scheme reviewed by our lawyers. We wouldn't be putting the scheme forward as stark if we believed there was anything unlawful about that scheme. Councillor Wilkie: May I ask a question also? We've had an extraordinary statement that if this scheme was introduced, particularly the provisions pertaining to short-term accommodation, then it would be illegal. Was there any feedback from the Minister's Office that suggests that this scheme was illegal? These provisions are illegal. Speaker 1: I can answer that. The short answer to that is no. If the Minister... I understand they don't do a legal review per se. They're looking at the planning issues, but the legality of the scheme is not raised with us in the conditions associated with the approval of the scheme.
00:51:00 Speaker 5: And just to further on from that, were there any other comments in relation to the provisions around short-term legging that we got from the Minister's Office other than the condition within the responses? Speaker 3: The Minister and Planning Department signed off on the scheme. As part of signing off on the scheme, they provide written advice that the scheme complies with all state regulation, legislation and the Planning Act. So from that perspective, no, there wasn't any concern from the Planning Department about its compliance with the legislation. As you CAS councillors know, over the last couple of years in the development of this scheme, there's been a whole lot of to-ing and fro-ing around this issue. It's been one of the most complex and potentially controversial issues that the planning schemes had to deal with.
00:52:00 It's a land use. Noosa's always had short-term accommodation, holiday legging, but nothing like what's occurred in the last couple of years. So like every other land use in our community and in our Shire, the planning scheme needs to deal with that. We had lots of conversations and lots of to-ing and fro-ing between the state departments and us about this issue. But at the end of the day, the Minister signed off on the scheme and provided a condition that said this attracted the most interest, this issue, in your planning scheme. Hundreds of submissions that we responded to, hundreds of submissions influenced the approach that was put to Council, well beyond five complaints, I need to say. Hundreds of submissions, hundreds of conversations.
00:53:00 No doubt it was divided. Lots of people supporting, lots of people against. Ultimately, we needed to balance out all of those issues around what was an appropriate use in the low density zone, which its primary purpose is for permanent living. Ultimately, that's what we recommended to Council and what Council adopted. So at the end of the day, the Minister signed off on that, provided a condition to say because of the heightened nature of it and the community interest, we strongly suggest you monitor it. And we had conversations with him about that and agreed and said absolutely. It is absolutely something we will work on. We will be monitoring. It's a key aspect of the scheme and we should do that. So we're absolutely happy to comply with that condition. Councillor Wilkie: To go back to the claim of illegality, there are at least nine other councils across Queensland that have a similar approach to short-term accommodation, making it inconsistent and impact-accessible
00:54:00 in the low density residential zone. Has there been any feedback from those councils about problems, about any so-called illegality associated with that? Speaker 3: No, not that we're aware of, Councillor Wilkie. We definitely had conversations with other councils. We looked at what other local governments were doing, both here in Queensland and in other states, particularly Victoria, because they're also in places like Mornington Peninsula, you know, dealing with the same... Lots of tourist towns are dealing with the same sort of challenges. But, yeah, no, we hadn't... We hadn't... We hadn't received particular advice or been advised if there was any concerns about the legality of their approaches either. Probably incident. Speaker 1: There's no legal challenges that I'm aware of against those other schemes. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Thank you, Mr Sear. There's also an opinion expressed that the consultation process was somehow flawed. Has there been...
00:55:00 In signing off of this scheme at the state level, has there been any... ..any views expressed by the minister's office that the consultation surrounding the scheme was anything but appropriate? Speaker 3: No, there hasn't. I was going to say quite the opposite, but it's been acknowledged that the scheme met all its requirements around consultation and actually went over and above the minimum standard for consultation, both in terms of the timeframes that we had the planning scheme out for consultation, three rounds, not just one, and the methods that were used for consultation. So the final approval from the minister acknowledged complete compliance from that perspective. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Further question, if I may, Madam Chair? Yeah. A statement was made that under the... ..in the low-density residential areas, properties that have existing use rights
00:56:00 for short-term accommodation, there may be a neighbour, neighbouring property that currently does not have that use right and that is discriminatory. Is it true that under... ..if once this planning scheme is adopted, that neighbour that doesn't currently have short-term accommodation rights can make an application under the superseded planning scheme for those rights to run a short-term accommodation? Speaker 3: Yes, there's a provision in the Planning Act that, and I think Councillor Jurisevic might have mentioned it, that allows when a council adopts a new planning scheme, there's a 12-month provision where anyone can seek to exercise a right or a use under a previous scheme for 12 months. It's called a superseded planning scheme application. And that is open for 12 months. So essentially we have a new scheme that makes some changes. If those changes result in a potential loss of right or a change of use on a particular property, that landowner can actually seek to have their application
00:57:00 assessed under the superseded scheme for a period of 12 months. Speaker 1: Just to clarify that, that relates to all changes under the scheme. We're not just talking about short-term. So any particular change under the scheme that is different, any material difference between the new scheme and the scheme we currently have, that same provision applies. Speaker 5: Thank you. Speaker 1: So it's clearly known it's a use it or lose it provision for 12 months. Speaker 5: So just to clarify, for the first 12 months, an applicant can put in an application under superseded scheme or under the new plan, depending on their needs or their desires for their property. Speaker 3: Yeah, that's correct. There's a little bit of nuance to it. If you were seeking to apply to have your application assessed under this superseded scheme, you need to make a specific request. I'd like my application assessed on superseded scheme for these reasons. Our planning department then needs to assess and make a recommendation as to whether or not the application will be considered under the superseded scheme
00:58:00 or should be considered under the new scheme. They'll advise the applicant and then the applicant makes the application under whatever scheme. Speaker 5: So that's true, even if the use was consistent under the old scheme? Speaker 3: That's correct. Mayor Stewart: What were the timeframes and the costs associated with that? Speaker 3: So the process... I'm going to look at Kerry here. The process for a superseded scheme application, there's a 30-day timeframe to make a decision on the superseded scheme application and there is a fee associated with that. Speaker 5: $1,380. Speaker 3: Good on you, Joe. Councillor Jurisevic at $1,380 for that process. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah, if I may. I understand that the minister has... Well, as we've discussed and as in the report, the minister's mandated a review of short-term accommodation provisions up to two years. Could you talk about the requirements for its comprehensiveness and its rigour and it being evidence-based?
00:59:00 And I understand also that any amendments to be considered have to be considered after consideration of this report report to about the evidence-gathering process that the council would go through under these conditions mandated by the minister, please, before we would consider amendments. What a review would require. Speaker 3: Yeah. Sure, Councillor Wilkie. Yes, the minister is one of the eight conditions has required council to monitor the short-stay provisions for the reasons I talked about previously and being very specific in the comprehensive and evidence-based nature and the sorts of things that they are requiring council to consider, very much reflecting the range of issues that came up through the consultation and the preparation of the plan. So, it's not just the situation of the plan process, both by those who supported it and not supported it. So, the thing the minister's required us to do
60 minutes in ¶
01:00:00 an analysis of what our current situation is in terms of numbers and uses of short-term accommodation, which we now have done. The analysis should look at annual comparison and how that data might change based on the new planning scheme provisions. It should consider the economic and social benefits of the current situation and look at the potential long-term benefits and impacts of short-term accommodation across the residential zones. It should consider the zone intent. So, I talked about purpose of the zone previously. Levels of assessment and regulation for short-term accommodation across the residential zones. Consider state interest in housing supply and diversity and tourism. Be evidence-driven, comprehensive and prepared in a detailed manner. Once we do that process, we're then to submit a report on the findings of that monitoring process and provide all of that information to the minister and provide a statement
01:01:00 as to whether or not council considers the planning scheme should be amended based on that information. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Speaker 5: I'm also assuming that one of the things that we would monitor is the number of applications that we would get under that superseded scheme to see what the desire, the level of desire to continue short-term letting in the low-density residents or zone would be over that period. Speaker 3: Yeah, absolutely. We can absolutely track numbers of applications and we would do that. Mayor Stewart: Would anyone like to speak to the motion or does anyone have any further questions? Speaker 3: Yes, I do. Councillor Finzel: Anyone else? Do you have a question? Okay. So, firstly, thank you, Amelia, for your speech today. It covered a lot of important points. As we're all aware, the short-term letting debate has been a divisive issue in this community. The Queensland Government is committed to ensuring council decisions are made against a backdrop of openness and transparency.
01:02:00 In Queensland, there is a legislative requirement that all local governments implement a complaints management process to improve their accountability and to resolve complaints, including complaints and complaints, including those about administrative actions of local government. The reason I bring that to the table today is to just put that out there for people in community, whichever way the decision goes today. There is always a mechanism or a process by which we can have things amended or changed or work better towards a future where we are constantly working harder, longer, stronger to provide an equitable society that gives everyone a voice at the table. Speaker 3: I have questions regarding Councillor Finzel: this amendment with regards to provision for short-term accommodation in the low-density residential loan. Sorry, Councillor Finzel, just to stop you, Mayor Stewart: is this part of your,
01:03:00 are you speaking to the motion or? Councillor Finzel: Oh, do I ask that in the amendment or not? Speaker 1: Yeah, you can continue to speak to the motion, but you can ask questions later. Councillor Finzel: Oh, okay. All right. So I don't know what else to say then. So with the associated costs involved, I stand on the ground today for the most vulnerable, again, in our society. The highest homelessness rate these days is for women over 55. A lot of women that I worked with in the workspace over that age group and they use short-term accommodation in their homes to be able to meet the affordability and requirements of their mortgage as they age. If we support the provisions for the short-term accommodation in the low-density residential zone, considering the inclusion of the short-term accommodation
01:04:00 as consistent as put forward by Amelia Lorentson today, we come back to giving provision to those people who may not have the fee of $1,380 to apply under the new planning scheme. And there should be provision for these people to not end up as one of the statistics on the street because their home is no longer being able to bring them the income without the costs associated under the new plan. If there is a way that that could be resolved, I would be most grateful and appreciative to hear about that. Moving forward today, I'd like to think that we could work together to provide good and clear outcomes for our community regarding this matter. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Question, please. Just to clarify, there seemed to be a misunderstanding. The $1,300 application fee
01:05:00 was only for whole house application. A property owner in the low-density zone could, without even a town planning application, let out a couple of rooms to provide the sort of accommodation that Councillor Finzel was referring to under the provisions proposed before us today. Is that correct? Could you perhaps create some clarity around this misunderstanding, please? Speaker 3: Yeah, absolutely. Thanks, Councillor Wilkie. That is correct. So the new plan actually makes it a lot easier than the current planning scheme for people in that exact situation to rent out parts of their house or their rooms for short-stay accommodation, home-hosted, to supplement, you know, their income and to support them. So the new plan actually makes it easier. The... Councillor Wilkie's correct. The reference to short-term accommodation
01:06:00 in the low-density residential zone is for whole houses where the property owner does not live there. They're either investment property or they're full holiday houses. That's the use that is proposed in the final scheme, in the draft scheme that is considered inconsistent in the low-density residential zone. Speaker 5: The other provision that is allowed in there, as I understand it also, is that a whole house can be rented out for holiday letting, i.e. up to 60 days over... in the period of the year also without having to submit an application that that's a consistent use. Is that correct? Speaker 3: That's correct, Councillor Jurisevic. So the new scheme allows for anyone, anyone to use their home for instance, if they're going away for a couple of weeks over Christmas to rent it out for short stay going, you know, away once you, you know, capitalise on the Noosa Tri weekend where town's busy
01:07:00 and rent their property. Speaker 5: Is that, is that a consistent use that we know to be associated with that either? That's correct. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. So for, for that four times a year up to 60 days, just to clarify, it's, it's, if I rented out four weekends a year, that's my eight days, isn't it? That's it, four times, no more. Speaker 3: It's four times? Yeah. Up to 60 days? Mayor Stewart: Yes. Would anyone else like to speak to this Marisha? Councillor Wilkie: Yeah, look, I'll speak to the amendment. Like, I think the kindest thing I could say about it is that it seems to be duplicating what the minister is already mandating in terms of a review, a gathering of comprehensive, rigorous and evidence-based data about the impact of these amendments for consideration by the minister and also by this council. That is the correct process. It's a fair process.
01:08:00 It's an open process. It's a transparent process. So if there are concerns that the impacts of this, this short-term accommodation, these short-term accommodation measures are not going to be properly monitored, I think we can put that to rest. Like the review of the industrial estate, it's a pivotal issue. I do acknowledge that. It, as Councillor Lorentson said, it was a prime issue during the election campaign. But I think the proper process before amendments are considered rather than just cutting to the chase and going straight to amendments is that we gather all this data first as mandated by the minister in an open, fair, transparent, comprehensive and rigorous way so the minister as revealed by questioning the statements that said that the, this, that inferred
01:09:00 that these provisions are in some way illegal. That is absolutely false and wrong. And also any statements that inferred that these, these changes to address short-term accommodation which is a worldwide phenomenon happening in communities around Australia and the world as we've seen in the reports that helped inform the planning scheme are not just driven by a handful of complaints. It's about managing a new type of land use and we certainly don't do it, take any step like this lightly. It's not, and we're not changing legislation but we're trying to catch up and introduce legislation for the first time. So councillors, I won't be supporting Councillor Wegener: this part J Councillor Wilkie: of this amendment but I do see value in part K which is the complete and introduce the local law for short-term letting including the associated code of conduct to regulate short-term letting. I understand that's where we're heading
01:10:00 already but perhaps there needs to be more questioning around what that may involve. So if I can finish my speech with a question Mayor Stewart: we might just check that everyone's comfortable Councillor Wilkie: with the media. Mayor Stewart: Is everyone comfortable with the television? Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: So my question would be would staff be comfortable with part K of this amendment and does it encapsulate adequately where we're heading with the local law? Speaker 3: Thanks councillor Wilkie. Yes, I think staff would be comfortable with part K of this amendment. As you might recall with the last round of the consultation on the Noosa plan council also put out a draft local law for short-term letting to look at a range of sort of management issues around short-term properties. That local law also received hundreds of submissions really comprehensive
01:11:00 submissions from both individuals property owners short-stay let property owners resort owners consultants. So some incredible feedback on that. At the time we were also advised that the state government were pursuing a state approach statewide approach to a potential local law statewide approach and code of conduct. So our local law was sort of put on hold because if there was a statewide approach then great. And council was actually represented on that state administrative advisory committee on the short-stay statewide code of conduct. So it was essentially sort of put on hold to see where that went. But we absolutely would be comfortable with pursuing finalising the local law. There's a lot of information
01:12:00 we need to work through. It's likely that will that will result in changes to the draft local law and that we would re-consult on that. But that you know that's a process that we can go through. Mayor Stewart: I have a question. Councillor Wilkie stated that this is not dissimilar to the requirements by the states. My understanding of this is to enter into immediately where a state is a process of waiting two years. Speaker 3: Yeah, that's correct. My understanding of this amendment is that we would start a process of an amendment process to the plan immediately, not waiting the two years. Obviously, when you amend a planning scheme, it needs to be based on information. So there would be a range of information that we would have to gather and draft an amendment and provide to the state government. So there is some information that needs to underpin any amendment process. Mayor Stewart: Thanks, Kim. And I imagine we would already have a lot of that data on file, wouldn't we, based on so much research undertaken in this area?
01:13:00 Speaker 3: Yeah, like I said before, there are aspects of the minister's condition that we've already started to work on. And over the last, you know, 12, 18 months, our knowledge around the quantum of short-term letting in the Shires increased substantially. So yes, there is a basis of information that we do have. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: To go to the heart of what the minister's condition requires is that we start to gather information about the impacts of short-term accommodation provisions once it's been implemented. We don't have that data at the moment because it's not implemented. Is that correct? Speaker 3: Yes. Sure. That's absolutely correct. So the minister's condition is twofold. It's understand your current situation, which we do. We've gathered that data. We know the quantum of. We know where short-term letting properties are. We know the nature of them, whether it's a room, a whole house, those sorts of things. So that's one aspect of it. The second aspect is if your scheme
01:14:00 is adopted, monitor the impact of the provisions of your scheme from a range of things I talked about previously. So yes, there are two aspects to it that go to the heart of both your questions. Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak to this motion? Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes, I will. I'm going to start off with an opening proposition is you can't vote for the last amendment and say the things that you said in the last amendment and support this one. It is just a total contradiction in terms. And I'll do that by debunking a range of misinformation that was provided in support of this motion. It was serious misinformation. It's been, some of them have been raised before and reviewed by a retired judge and they also highlighted that statements, some of the statements made were inaccurate and incorrect. There is no illegality. That was a very, very serious claim we made which needs to be questioned further. To quote
75 minutes in ¶
01:15:00 a criminal defence lawyer on a planning matter to try and substantiate your case I'm afraid is a serious misinformation. Mayor Stewart: I might stop you there. I'd like some clarification. Excuse me, Deputy Mayor Stockwell: is there a point of order? Mayor Stewart: Yeah, there is a point of order. What is the point of order please? The point of order is that you've raised something that Councillor Lorentson has stated and she said Deputy Mayor Stockwell: that I may have said something that's inaccurate. Is that a point of order under the standing orders? No, it's not. Mayor Stewart: I'd just like clarification of Councillor Wilkie: Madam Chair, if I can put Can I, I can, if I, regarding the point of order they can't be raised if you disagree with what you're hearing and there's opportunity for clarification through questioning later. My suggestion. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And I will, if I have misquoted, I will retract
01:16:00 the statement. I will say again, is it serious to make an imputation by quoting others who are unqualified to make comment of illegality? As I said, I've done a look at Mr. Potts' I believe it's the same one that I've read and I found that he was a criminal defence lawyer with no mention in any of his his write ups have been anything to do with planning law. I think it also is really serious to suggest even if flippantly that the scheme amendments were made as a result of five out of five 55,000 people. My argument on this being the most compelling case to stop what was a raging growth industry of whole house acquisitions to convert residential
01:17:00 areas close to tourism areas into tourism areas was that its effect on housing prices and the subsequent effect the fact that the Airbnb phenomenon across the world has had this effect in places like Noosa is really well established that 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 and Canada all suggest their research says that by doing what is proposed to make short stay accommodation a acceptable use in low density residential is that it reduces
01:18:00 the availability and increases the price of permanent rental accommodation and places upward pressure on housing prices. There's also evidence given to the commission required in New South Wales, which identified that frequently available Airbnb homes amount to 167% of the rental vacancy rate. The proportion of rentals available for local households to rent any one time in Central Sydney and nearly four times the number of rental vacancies in high demand suburbs surrounding beaches. In Byron, there are around 50 holiday rental vacancies for every permanent vacancies. I think the world has changed. I think the pre-COVID world where we did see this huge upswing and we did see the conflict and we saw places like Barcelona and other areas in Spain where people took to the streets, that's gone because COVID has changed the nature of the world. As I said, social housing and providing affordable accommodation for our workers and for people
01:19:00 over 50 are where we should be focusing on. So, councils, what this motion does is suggest we're adopting it, but we don't really want to adopt it. We're going to change it straight away. I don't support that notion. If it had said exactly the same what Councillor Wegener's amendment had said or Councillor Fisdell's amendment had said, which is we're going to look at it for a couple of years and see whether we need to change it. We've already highlighted for the next 12 months, anyone who feels agreed by it, can come and say, I want to do short-term accommodation. Now, there is an argument that short-term accommodation in the high-value suburbs around Noosa Heads, Noosa Sound are not going to be affected by the social housing or the upswing in prices, and I agree. They've got 12 months to apply.
01:20:00 If they feel agreed by what's changing and they want to do short-term accommodation, anyone in the low-density residential zone can come and say, I want to do short-term accommodation, and have that considered. And it's most likely that if they're in an area where a lot of the streets already converted to short-term accommodation, they might be successful. We can't re-empt. But in reality, what will probably happen is all those concerns can be addressed simply by putting in a superseded planning scheme, and all those people who feel agreed by the fairness argument can get their rights preserved, as well as, of course, anyone who's already doing it can retain those rights under existing use right provisions. I think it is really important to say that, yes, some of the issues are about local amenity, and the local law was meant to address those. And I'm happy if a future amendment comes up to look at reaffirming our intent to proceed down that line. I also think it's important to understand, while the answer, I appreciate that there
01:21:00 is competing views in the community about this, and yes, I have no doubt that Councillor Lorentzen was elected based on her strong advocacy in this regard, and I think it's important that she has a voice to say those things. But in reality, the choice was clear. Four of us, other than the Mayor, were clearly identified in supporting the adoption of the planning scheme as it is. 49,000 votes were cast for those four. Just under 21,000. For those who didn't make that commitment. I think, once again, if we honour democracy and we honour the voice of the people, then we don't support this amendment. If we value social housing and we want to create suburbs for people to live in at the best possible price, we don't support this amendment. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Graeme, I'd like to look at this amendment. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes, please. Speaker 5: Look, I appreciate it. I think Councillor Stockwell alluded that there are differing opinions around the
01:22:00 plans in our community, but some of those seem to not fully understand the opportunities within the new planning scheme to provide home host estates and all short-term lex, holiday lex, as has been the go-in in Lucifer for many, many years. The challenge with regard to short-term lex is that element of whole house and in the residential zone. And as Councillor Lorentson alluded to, look, I had challenges when we went through this initially through council. I still have challenges now. There's a lot to get your head around. This isn't an easy issue to get your head around, because there are so many different views around the neighbourhood. But trying to please every element of our community on every element within this planning scheme is impossible. The opportunity for amendments and further considerations of issues through the plan
01:23:00 scheme, through amendments as per the last planning scheme that went away, nine amendments, is here. But I think I'm challenged by point J, but I support point K. I think point K has, and I'll speak to each of those elements that Councillor Lorentson has provided here in the amendment. There is, as has been alluded to by the previous two amendments, another choice in the way we deal with matters. We can either approve this planning scheme. We can either not approve it. We can reject this planning scheme going forward. Or we can, as we've alluded to in the last two amendments, monitor the benefits or impacts, as the minister's conditions have given us a clear requirement to do for two years before moving into an amendment process. And I think that's the appropriate way to undertake a process of trying to make amendments in the scheme. We haven't even seen the impacts, at least. For the next 12 months, there will be no, potentially no impact, because we haven't
01:24:00 seen an amendment superseded scheme. So we'll take that second year before we actually see whether that impact occurs. And of course, as Councillor Stockwell has alluded to, we're in a post-COVID-19 world. The world has changed. The impact of all of those people that were trying to do those short-term lets through this period of shutdown, many of them have had to go and review the way that they do things. Many of them may not come back to the short-term letting arrangement. We may see no more of these properties in some areas. The market forces that determine where short-term letting is and isn't effective hasn't been given an opportunity to see what impact it will have in a post-COVID world. 32 formal written complaints, five said, I'm not going to go into those figures because I receive correspondence on a regular basis regarding the impacts of short-term accommodation on our residents.
01:25:00 That are out there. The element that is missing within the planning scheme at this point is the point that comes up in point K. It's complete and introduce a local law for short-term letting, including the associated code of conduct to regulate short-term letting. I believe that once that's introduced, that will give us the greatest understanding and the greatest bearing on the impacts of short-term letting within our community. And I wait to see the impacts of that local law being introduced before I... and hopefully the whole judgment until I see that as to how effective all of this has been. Airbnb has certainly been a phenomenon that has come on that has given people the impetus to jump into this short-term letting market where we've been a short-term letting society for a long, long time here. But again, I think principally under the holiday lending. And it has certainly had an impact on housing affordability. The irony for me is that one of the last amendments that we moved was exactly about that point about housing affordability. We know that the impact of short-term letting over this period has diminished the opportunity
01:26:00 for long-term rental accommodation for those workers that do work in our region. So this isn't something that's going to go away. This isn't something that we need to move on quickly. It's something that we need to take a considered approach on and we need to monitor the impacts of that we've done. I think the first 12 months. We will see how many more properties are likely to be slated into that short-term letting field. If we get inundated with requests or applications for short-term letting, it'll give us an indication as to whether there's still people that want to go into this field. I'm of a mind at the moment that I don't think we'll see that. Again, as Councillor Stockwell alluded to, the Ministers have been very, very, very clear about the need and the requirement to monitor this for two years and to review it at that point in time.
01:27:00 And I think that's the appropriate way to go. So like the other two amendments that give that two year time period, I think that's much more appropriate. So I won't be supporting this amendment, but I would support an amendment that follows the lines of the Minister's conditions that asks for this review and that this process to be undertaken over that two year period. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Perhaps you should add in the new Noosa, you see where we find ourselves today is not where we were yesterday. Our world has changed. Our lives have changed. Australia has changed and our Shire has changed. It is a scenario that no one could have or would have expected. The economy worldwide is failing. Over $200 billion have been borrowed by our own federal government to keep the Australian economy afloat, to keep our workers afloat, to keep us afloat. As a Shire heavily reliant upon tourism, we are hurting more than ever.
01:28:00 Over 4,500 people in our Shire are on JobKeeper, one of, if not the greatest percentages in Queensland. We have no idea about the real ramifications and pain until that gravy train dries up. As a Council, we have spoken religiously about supporting our workers, our economy and our tourism industry. We have sharpened the pencil to the very stub. And we have cut costs to ensure we reduce our rates. To acknowledge that our Shire is hurting, our people are suffering, to do anything we can to show support. We have just brought down a budget which puts our community and our people first. The Noosa Plan 2020, which is before us today, has many good attributes and I would like to acknowledge all the hard work and dedication that staff have put in to get it where it is today. I would also like to acknowledge their diligence in adhering to the requirements and conditions set down by the State Government. I do acknowledge that our town needs clarity and decisions have to be made.
01:29:00 The amended motion put forward today is one which I support. I do not support short-term accommodation deemed inconsistent in low-density residential zones. It should, however, be subject to local laws, including an associated Code of Conduct, which this motion supports. I will come back to that. The new Noosa Plan was instigated back in 2016. The preparation of the draft Noosa Plan was undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the Queensland Planning Act 2016. The draft new Noosa Plan was opened firstly for public input and consultation between February 2019 and May 2019. Council staff brought to the special meeting on 12 September 2019 that short-term accommodation in low residential areas be deemed consistent and implementable. During that meeting, an amendment was made to make it inconsistent use in low-density residential zones. That amendment succeeded. At a further Council meeting on 11 December 2019, Council confirmed the change of consistent
90 minutes in ¶
01:30:00 to inconsistent. This was after subsequent consultation from the community between September 2019 and November 2019. The impact of changing consistent to inconsistent use of short-density residential areas was Residential areas on our economy in our Shire cannot be underestimated. The zoning laws deemed inconsistent have, in my opinion, the potential to impact house prices. Investors will be less likely to invest in houses in low-density residential areas, and thus there will be less demand in this area for housing. Investors in turn could seek to look elsewhere, in the medium to high-density residential, where it is deemed consistent to have short-stay letting, providing better financial return. This has the potential impact of creating a somewhat distorted market. Added to that, in the medium to high-density residential areas,
01:31:00 we are driving up prices because demand is increasing, ensuring for many of our residents who reside in unit or duplex-style accommodation increased costs. Areas where we need it to be affordable are potentially becoming unaffordable. Affordable housing is an issue for us all. We have just unanimously supported a motion about that very matter. Tourism may suffer. As less stock is available to attract our tourists, there is a significant chance that they will choose to look elsewhere for their holidays, robbing us of the ever-important tourism dollar. We have seen in recent months the devastating effect on our town, and we can't have visitors. Tourist accommodation, short-term letting, short-stay accommodation are a juggernaut in themselves. Hundreds of millions of dollars per year into our economy, our Shire. The impact of reducing this stock cannot, in my opinion, be underestimated. Fewer jobs for our workers, our gardeners, our cleaners, our handyman, our admin staff, our hospitality industry, our hairdressers, our retail shops.
01:32:00 It's a flow-on effect, and so many may suffer. Potential legal implications with existing use rights has been flagged. Limiting short-term rentals in low density also creates vacancies. Vacant houses with the inability to rent out at the owner's discretion, a ghost town. Walk down the streets of Kensington or Belgravia in London and feel that very same impact on a town. That is no community. When our people need it most, in my opinion, we are providing increased barriers. Barriers to affordable housing, barriers to jobs, and barriers to tourism. Most concerning is that no economic impact assessment has been undertaken. We have no data, no facts upon how this change will affect our economy. The state has acknowledged in one of their conditions that this is significant, and has imposed a two-year monitoring process, including the requirement of data analysis to consider the economic and social benefits of the situation,
01:33:00 and forecast the potential long-term impacts of short-term accommodation across residential zones, housing supply, diversity, and poverty. Two years. We need to enter into something now. Our community needs it now. The motion put before us is a good one, and I support it. We must be able to have the opportunity to engage in amending the plan, once adopted, to enter into a review to consider the return of inconsistent to consistent use in low-density residential areas. It can't, however, be carte blanche. I hear the owners, the accommodation providers, the operators, the tourism providers. I hear the tourism sector and the businesses. Yet I hear our residents too. I hear the people who suffer because they live next door to a party house. Their needs must not be forgotten, and need to be addressed. That is why implementing a local law for short-term letting, including an associated code of conduct, is a must-do. We must have measures, laws, and benchmarks in place to protect our community.
01:34:00 That is non-negotiable. Never before have we as a Council been more obligated to stand up for our economy, our jobs, our employment. If the issue of short-term accommodation was a stand-alone question, we must ask ourselves, in light of the circumstances we face, of the community we represent which are hurting, would we support the motion of consistent to inconsistent? Would we gamble with the uncertainty of not having a chance? As a result, we have not received or undertaken an economic impact assessment. The bow has broken and the cradle has fallen. COVID is well and truly here. Never before has it been more important that we relax restrictions, not seek to impose them. We must include this amendment in the adoption of the Noosa Plan 2020. Thank you. Speaker 5: A question, if I may. The Mayor alluded to a diminishing stock of short-term accommodation.
01:35:00 Is there anything in the plan as it currently stands going forward that retrospectively degrades the existing use rights of people that are undertaking short-term accommodation for a whole property at this stage? Speaker 3: No, there's not. If people have been short-term lending their properties, they've got existing use rights. A new plan does not take away existing use rights. In fact, some of the work that we did looked at, at the moment, about 50% of all properties are used for short-term or could be used for short-term lending. So, no, there's nothing in the plan that would extinguish or diminish that. Speaker 5: And further than that, I believe some work has been done to try and gather further information on the number of properties that are currently short-term lent. Do we know how many properties are short-term lent across the Shire and whether they are permanently lent for the entire year or lent for only part of the year?
01:36:00 Speaker 3: Yes, we do. I just can't recall those figures. Speaker 2: It's around the $6,000 mark. We don't know whether they're lent for the whole year. We don't have that data. I thought we noted their value for short-term lending. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: There's been some concern raised about the availability of short-term lending or visitor accommodation in the Shire. And for the benefit of those who came in late, does the new planning scheme allow for every dwelling in the Shire to be used for some sort of visitor accommodation? Speaker 3: Yes, it does. The new scheme actually allows for, makes it a lot easier than the current scheme does for anyone to use their property for short-term lending. As I mentioned previously, you know, if people want to go away for Christmas and let out their property, they can do that.
01:37:00 If they want to capitalise on, you know, the Noosa Tri weekend when the town's full, they can rent their property out for short-term lending. Absolutely. So the new plan does that, makes it a lot easier. And it also makes it a lot easier to home host. So anyone can home host. Rent out a room or two for Airbnb or visitors. That can also happen. The new plan makes that easier than the current plan. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. So you're saying there's the, under this draft planning scheme we adopted today, it'll actually make it easier for houses that aren't currently home hosting to be able to do that? There won't be a planning application required? Speaker 3: Yeah, that's right. As I said, the new plan, at the moment, there's an application request. So if there's an application requirement to home host, for instance, the new plan makes it self-assessable. You don't require an application for that. So yes, there is a freeing up and making it easier. Speaker 5: And just to finally get a full understanding of who is impacted in this, medium density and high density residential areas are still consistent and able to be short-term leased?
01:38:00 Speaker 3: Yes, that's correct. It's only the low density residential zone, which is the, of all the residential zones, is the zone that its primary purpose is for permanent living with minimal interruption of visitors. That's the purpose of the zone. So that's the only zone that has it inconsistent for short-term letting of a whole house. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Speaker 3: You can still short-term let part of your property. You can still home host in those. And if you've been doing it, you have existing use rights. Speaker 2: Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Kim, do you think some of the, in regard to the low density, that the local laws and the code of conduct would address the problems with what some of the complaints that you've received? Speaker 3: Yeah, absolutely. I do. That was its intention, to absolutely look at some of those sort of management impacts.
01:39:00 So the planning scheme regulates the use. The intention of the short stay letting local law was to manage some of those impacts, particularly where properties may not be managed. You know, many properties have property managers managing those issues, and very successfully. But some properties don't. You know, you turn up to a property and there's a key box on the, and there's no one. The only person that goes to that property is maybe the cleaner. It's those sort of properties that tend to have the impacts. But like I said, many, many of the short stay properties are very well managed and don't. But the intention of that local law was exactly to do what you said. Mayor Stewart: And if it was deemed consistent in low density residential, surely those local laws, which aren't currently in place at the moment, and that code of conduct, would address some of those issues and the livability in those neighbourhood precincts?
01:40:00 Speaker 3: Like I said, yes, the short stay letting local law. Was intended to manage some of those things. The challenge is that there's a fundamental conflict with the use in a low density residential zone. The low density residential zone is the only zone that is predominantly for permanent living. So on balance, the operation of a whole house for short stay letting, which operates as a, you know, could change over three to five days, a mini hotel, a commercial operation. In the low density residential zone is in conflict with the purpose of the zone. Mayor Stewart: Can I ask why council in 2016 at that special meeting brought to the table that short term accommodation, low residential be deemed consistent and impact accessible? And then it was changed by councillors in an amended motion. So initially you brought it to the table as deeming it consistent. Speaker 3: Yeah. Yeah. Look, there's no doubt that over the last 12 to 18 months, council has looked at a range of ways.
01:41:00 To manage this issue. We started with short stay overlay. You know, maybe there's an overlay that allocated areas that were traditionally used for short stay. And that would be a way that those inside it were consistent, those outside were consistent. So we were definitely looking at ways to try and manage this emerging issue. That this phenomena that was growing rapidly. And the planning scheme and policy was trying to keep up with it. So we were testing a range of options. So the position on this has evolved. Absolutely. From that, the short stay overlay to consistent. What we found in the last round of consultation was a huge number of submissions. Many for, many against. Lots of the ones against were pro forma. Hundreds of them were pro forma around sort of similar issues.
01:42:00 The ones that wanted to, I guess the hundreds of residents that told us personal stories around the impacts of short stay letting in the low density residential zone. These are traditional residential neighbourhoods. That's what the purpose of the zone is, tends to be. You know, where people were kept up all night. We had the experience of the local doctor at the hospital saying, I'm working emergency all night. I've got a short stay next to me. It's a problem. I can't sleep. So there was a range of issues that were very compelling and took us back to the kind of primary purpose and principles of a planning scheme, which is about managing land use. And making sure that zones, uses that happen in zones are appropriate to those zones. Like we do in the industrial estate. We make sure there isn't residential development in the industrial estate. Other than caretaking, appropriate caretaking. It's about that. It was about managing that conflict and coming back to the core purpose of the low density residential zone.
01:43:00 Mayor Stewart: Thanks. Speaker 3: I understand that. Mayor Stewart: Just to confirm, though, that after consultation with the public from February 19 to May 19, the recommendation that was brought by council. And I know how council are very thorough in their recommendations. It was to deem short term accommodation consistent, wasn't it? After that consultation, that initial consultation, that three month consultation period. Yeah. Thank you. Thanks, Kim. Councillor Lorentson: Tom, you're the only person who hasn't spoken to us. I've got some questions also. Mayor Stewart: Oh, okay. Councillor Lorentson: Sorry. Questions in reference to number of Airbnbs. Kim, I think you made reference. I think it's Guard B&B that collating all our data. 6,000 properties so far are listed as Airbnbs. Is that correct? I think. Speaker 3: Yeah. Anita's the expert on this. That's what you just mentioned. We are using a range of data sources.
01:44:00 So, yes. Airb... B&B Guard. B&B Guard. That's it. On source. Speaker 2: Yep. Okay. And they're looking specifically at some of those platforms like Airbnbs. Okay. That don't advertise addresses. Okay. And then I've been doing extra research in terms of identifying them through real estate agents and looking agents and a range of other methods as well. So, collectively that's 6,000. Councillor Lorentson: 6,000. Okay. So, given that every household had two, two and a half people, those 6,000 properties that short-term let represent actually about 12,000 residents that short-term let in the Shire. Would you agree with that, Anita? Speaker 1: Do you just want to repeat the question? Yeah. It might be one better for Kim. Yeah. Okay. Councillor Lorentson: The numbers you've given are that 6,000, there are 6,000 properties that are listed as short-term rentals. Given that each property represents two people in a household, we're saying that there's
105 minutes in ¶
01:45:00 12,000 residents that are impacted by short-term rentals. Is that correct? Speaker 2: No. They're investors largely. They're investors. They're not principal place of residence residents. Okay. These are properties that are listed as short-term rentals. They're 100% entirely let for short-term living. So, there is no resident. Councillor Lorentson: Oh, okay. Speaker 2: So, these are investors only? Well, I'm assuming it could be a second holiday investor. Okay. But there's no resident on site because it's 100% let for short-term. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. Thank you. Also, in relation to medium-zoned residential areas, so the new Noosa plan actually now moves short-term accommodation into short-term. Is that correct, Kim? Speaker 3: No. It doesn't move it into medium-density. The difference between the medium and high-density is that it's a consistent use.
01:46:00 It's not only a consistent use. So, we've got a history, I guess, of medium and high-density zones being able to be used for both visitor and residential. And so, that continues to do that. It's only the low-density zone that's being used. Okay. So, it's also consistent in the tourist accommodation zone, the rural residential zone, the rural zone. So, yeah, all of the other zones. The only zone that's inconsistent is the low-density residential zone. Councillor Lorentson: Low-density. So, an example of a medium-density zone, Noosa Hill, is that an example? Speaker 4: There are a couple of them, sorry. Noosa Hill. Noosa Hill. There's, in Noosa Hill, there's a large area of medium-density which already has well-established
01:47:00 resorts scattered right through it. And holiday units scattered right through it. There's medium-density in Tewantin. There's medium-density along the coastal communities. Many of them are there or have resorts scattered through it. Okay. Councillor Lorentson: So, medium-density zones are areas where a lot of our workers find rentals, affordable rentals. Would you agree with that? Speaker 3: I think it's kind of hard to answer that. I think there's, I mean, there's rental properties right throughout the Shire, so that does happen throughout all the zones. You know, depending on who's looking for the type of housing, whether it's a family, a young person, share housing.
01:48:00 Medium-density zones do tend to have a mix of all types of dwellings. So, as Rowena had said, there's resorts and traditional tourist accommodation already in the medium-density zone. There's dwelling houses in the medium-density zone. There's apartments. There's townhouses. It's the zone that probably tends to have more of the mix of all the types of dwellings. So yes, potentially, but I couldn't categorically say that's the zone where all the renting occurs. Speaker 1: I'd probably just add to that. The other experience that we've seen over the years is that the further you get away from the coast, the more affordable housing becomes, and therefore you tend to have more workers living further away. That's the other element where they tend to live. Mayor Stewart: Kim, putting on your economic impact assessment hat and your economic hat now, it would assume, would I be correct in saying, as an investor, by creating an inconsistent use in different zones, that the more attractive as an investor would potentially be the medium to high-density
01:49:00 because it has more flexibility in regard to the short-term letting. Would you suggest that's correct? Speaker 3: Sorry, do you want me to say that again? Mayor Stewart: Sure. So if you're an investor and you're looking to invest in a short-term letting accommodation or holiday accommodation and you want to rent it out, is it more attractive with the zoning to be in the medium to high-density because that has the consistent use rather than purchasing, say, a house in a low-density residential? Speaker 1: I'll probably answer that because I've done this before. I think the answer to that is yes, if you're buying based on the range of uses, but no, depending on the location. A location normally trumps every use in terms of the value and what happens to value, but in terms of the range of uses, people generally try and buy a property that has a broader range, gives them more options for the future. But location normally trumps use. Councillor Wilkie: Question is, maximising in turn returns for investors, the prime purpose of consideration
01:50:00 in introducing a new planning scheme? Mayor Stewart: Sorry, I think you might have misunderstood. I was alluding to the fact that affordable housing was being taken out of the market because investors actually for that very reason were going to invest in medium to high-density, therefore the affordable housing- Point of order. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That's all. A question was asked and a debate- I think the question was- No, the question was asked and a debate on the point. I would like to hear the question answered. Is it appropriate to debate a question? Councillor Wilkie: Well, I'm happy for the Mayor to qualify after I've received my answer, if that's all right. Yes, sure. Speaker 3: So the primary purpose of a planning scheme is to manage and guide land use and development for a Shire. There are a range of things that need to be balanced in preparing a planning scheme. We look at every lot. In the Shire, we consider all state planning policy, we consider all our own strategic
01:51:00 work, our social plan, our economic plan, our environment plan, there's 30 technical studies that influence the plans. There's a range of things that a planning scheme seeks to have to balance and achieve. But at the end of the day, the core purpose of a planning scheme, it's a legal document, that is to guide land use and development for a Shire. So that people can make applications, our planners can assess against a robust planning framework, and ultimately council can use it as a decision making framework. It's not the purpose of a planning scheme to consider an individual's investment potential. That's not its core purpose. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. That actually was, I was alluding to the fact, and I think Councillor Wilkie understands, that the fact that if we look at this, where we put more demand in an area, it raises prices.
01:52:00 And that, would you suggest, Kim, would have a potential impact of raising prices in the areas where potentially our people who need affordable housing in our Shire reside, therefore making that accommodation more expensive for them? Speaker 3: Look, yes, potentially. But I think there's a range of things that influence housing in our Shire. The cost of housing and housing affordability and supply. So yes, a planning scheme can influence a market, can absolutely influence, it does. So yeah, potentially what you're saying absolutely could occur. But equally, a planning scheme also manages uses and what's appropriate and has to have at its heart the community and its residential population. So there are, I guess there's a range of, what I would say is, yes, I think you're right for that aspect.
01:53:00 But it's not the only consideration. There are a range of factors around housing affordability, supply and availability. The planning scheme is just one of them. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Does anyone have any further questions before Councillor Wegener takes the floor? Councillor Wegener: Okay. Yeah, I just wanted to talk to the motion. Please do. Mayor Stewart: No one else has any questions? Okay. Councillor Wegener: Thanks, Kim. I'm going to put my surfer hat back on here and just talk about the reality of a person's experience coming to Noosa. And myself, a lot of my friends have come here penniless. I did not come here penniless. I had $600 to my name to Noosa. A lot of my friends didn't. Like Tim Crabtree, who now manages the Land and Sea Brewery. Parrish Watts, who's in a lot of the lifeguards. And we, when this group of people, when young people come here, we're looking for long-term rentals. And we're looking for affordable long-term rentals.
01:54:00 And we're looking at it very different from investors. We depend on that. And this last few years, a lot of the people that came in my situation live in vans. They live in vans all over the place. And I've had Noosa Council really crack down on a lot of my friends that live in vans and so forth and really scramble around much harder than it was before. And I looked at it, running for council, and saw that it just appears that there's a relationship between Airbnbs and the houses where the newcomers used to live, that the Airbnb has pushed out a lot of those people, the space that us new people coming to Noosa. And we are the upcoming residents, the new residents that make Noosa the incredible place that it is today. And so that's the way I see it. Now I look at Byron Bay, and it's very different from Noosa, however, my friends that did live, you wouldn't move to Byron Bay as a young entrepreneur right now and think that you're
01:55:00 going to live anywhere near the ocean. You need to live way, way, way back. And I think that the rental market there, my friends have told me, my studies have said, has been absolutely changed or changed by the short-term letting. And so I think in the interest of the long-term community building in Noosa and attracting the young people that are vibrant, thriving, coming here to make a better life for themselves, that in general, that we would like to stick with the way it is with that. Thank you. I don't support the motion on that basis because it just seems to me that low-density housing is where people like me who came and lived there for relatively cheap for a long time before buying a house and becoming a more permanent part of the community. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Councillor Wegener: Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Thank you.
01:56:00 Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. I want to address some statements made by Councillor Wilkie and Councillor Stockwell. Um, I've been misquoted and I take serious offense to that. Nowhere in my speech did I say that what was being proposed was illegal. I referred to legal opinion and I said it was considered illegal by the ex president of the Queensland law society. Um, I also might like to remind you that the opinion that the legal advice given by council Council was also legal opinion and advice that by the way was never provided to the community. Councillor Stockwell you also made reference to the ex-president of the Queensland Law Society not being an authority on planning and environment. Okay I'm going to quote you instead Andrew Davison before before I move on planning and law expert Andrew Davison who for the last 22 years has exclusively practiced as a planning and environment lawyer.
01:57:00 He and another gentleman called Mr Lester Manning who provided legal advice to council before the September before the December council meeting. Now let me just give you a little bit of an update on Mr Lester Manning. He's had 25 years of legal experience and represents many councils around Queensland as part of his practice. Now let me quote you Mr Lester Manning because clearly you don't like the advice or the opinion of Mr Bill Potts. Mr Manning says council is not in a position to simply remove the existing use rights of property owners in the low density residential zone through a planning instrument change without potential consequence quote unquote. This is legal opinion and we all know that legal opinion we all have one. I have a legal opinion also in relation to superseded acts which has been discussed here at the table
01:58:00 at a council workshop a few days ago we were given an example of people that could successfully make an application through a superseded act areas that we were told at the council workshop that would be more likely to get an approval where areas like Noosa Sound, Noosa Heads, Sunshine Beach. We were also told that areas like Tewantin someone making an application for existing use rights under a superseded plan were less likely to get it to get an approval. So although this is on the table for the entire Shire clearly not everyone's going to get the approval. It's still up to council consideration. So now that we have some facts on the table I want to move on with my right of reply. I'm going to move on with my right of reply. I'm going to move on with my right of reply. We all came here on the same platform to listen to the community. This new council have made it
01:59:00 their mantra. Councillors we need a planning scheme that's built on fairness and equity. So I ask you to approve the town plan and initiate immediate amendments to provisions relating to STAs and complete and introduce a local law and a mandatory strict code of conduct. Let's allow all properties. Let's allow all properties. Let's allow all properties. Let's allow all properties. Not just a select few the opportunity to use their property as they wish subject to a criteria set by our town plan and subject to a mandatory strict code of conduct. Why should one property have more rights than another? The answer is they shouldn't. Every rate payer in Noosa should be allowed to have equal rights including the 10,600 people who gave me a mandate to stand here before you and tell you that the council's decision to make low residential zones inconsistent was wrong. We simply cannot
120 minutes in ¶
02:00:00 ignore these residents and I certainly will not. If this plan is approved all our promises to listening to the community will be broken. The words your Noosa, your say will be just that, words. We have an opportunity today to get things right. To show the community that we are in fact, listening and this is in fact your Noosa. Thank you. We might throw in a motion. Mayor Stewart: All in favour of Councillor Lorentson's motion. Amendment. Amendment. All in favour? Are you in favour of your own motion? Sorry. Okay. All right. Three. All not. Against? Four. Motion voted down. Four-three. Councillor Lorentson: Did I? Can I move an amendment? We'll be able to do that. I think
02:01:00 Speaker 1: Councillor Wilkie may be calling for a toilet break. We might have a 10 minute break everyone.
02:10:00 Speaker 4: Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Welcome back, everyone. Look, before we proceed, would anyone like to make any further amendments? Councillor Lorentson: I'd like to move an amendment. To complete and introduce a local law for short-term letting, including the associated code of conduct to regulate short-term letting. Speaker 5: I'd be happy to second that. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you, Councillor Arnstead. I think enough has been said. Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak to this motion? Councillor Wilkie: Look, I'll support it. I think it's a very good amendment. The council is heading down this track already, as we've heard from the Director of Environment and Planning. I think our work on this local law is underway. Currently, but it's well worth articulating today. The council's intention to also introduce this local law.
02:11:00 Councillor Lorentson: Thank you, Councillor Arnstead. Speaker 5: Yes, I'll also support the motion. I thought the amendment has great merit. I think this is the one component of the planning scheme doesn't facilitate in the way of the management of short-term letting. And I think the local law, whilst it's a work in progress, is nearing completion. I'd like to see the completion of it. And I believe that this will also add to the elements of monitoring, that we have to undertake with regards to the impacts of short-term letting going forward. Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. I think this is a positive amendment moving forward. I've had a lot of the community reach out to me with these exact questions around the impacts of social behaviour, increased alcoholism, noise complaints, et cetera, et cetera. Waste management issues. I think this is a great step moving forward to give a really robust underpinning to the new Noosa 2020 plan. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yep, as indicated, I actually support this process.
02:12:00 It does actually change Council's last resolution, which was to really wait and see until what happening at the state level. But the current conditions and the upcoming election means that there won't be any movement that we can see on this at the state level. So it is appropriate. And I really appreciate that councillors, while we have different views in our terms of the zoning, that everyone here is mindful and wishes to set in place processes that would look after the residential amenity issues associated with short-term letting. And I think this is to, once again, give staff a really strong indication that we want to proceed on this basis. There were many submissions to this when it went out for consultation and there is a range of different issues to be addressed. I think it's really important that we continue on to give everyone who may have concerns about what their residential amenity to be addressed through a local law.
02:13:00 Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Councillor Wegener. Speaker 4: No, nothing. Mayor Stewart: I too support this motion. I think it's very important. It will provide regulations for our residents who have faced problems and concerns regarding this. So yes, I too support this motion. Councillor Finzel: All in favour? Speaker 3: No. Councillor Finzel: I'll write a reply. Mayor Stewart: I'll write a reply. Councillor Finzel: I beg your pardon. Sorry. Can I just ask a question? Yes. Just for clarification, is the state doing any work around these laws? Speaker 3: Brett, you might want to comment too. My understanding is that there was a ministerial advisory group formed and the mayor has been appointed to that. But I believe we've received some advice to say that I think it's on hold at the moment. Speaker 1: The state has set up an advisory group to have a look at this issue of a statewide code of conduct. They did a fair bit of work in 2019.
02:14:00 And they were sort of working through that process. I think really that came to shuddering halt like everything else around March this year. And there hasn't been too much more movement. When we looked at doing the councillor appointments back after the new council came in, we indicated that the former mayor had been on that working group. And we indicated to the state that the council would like Clare Stewart to be on the new group. We've got advice back saying that that hasn't really gone anywhere. If they look at reactivating that, they'll get in touch. But at this stage, as far as I'm aware, it's really in abeyance to some extent. They may bring it up again at some stage. I just don't know. Mayor Stewart: Does that answer your question? Yes. Thank you. Thank you. We might vote on this motion. I'll write a reply. I beg your pardon. You're fine. Yes. Here we go. All in favour? You know this. Thank you. That brings us back to the original motion that Councillor Stockwell moved. Councillor Stockwell has spoken to the motion as has Councillor Wilkie. Would anyone else like to talk to the original motion on page three of our agenda?
135 minutes in ¶
02:15:00 Councillor? Councillor Lorentson: Given the importance of the new plan, the overwhelming negative response from the community and the strict conditions imposed by the Queensland State Government on the plan's approval, I cannot approve the plan. We have under tourism and families are going broke. This was an opportunity for council to help. To help community. And more importantly, to deliver on their promise to listen. Speaker 5: As alluded to through the election process, I did give an assurance that I would support the plan as it stands. Whether I agree with every element of it or not is irrelevant. That's the assurance I gave to the community. And I'll stand by that. The significance of supporting this document going forward, I don't know. I think Councillor Stockwell alluded to it in his speech. $3 million investment, four years worth of work, countless public consultations and all the
02:16:00 like. Again, I reiterate that trying to please everybody with every element of this is an impossible task. But processes are in place to review and monitor the elements that are the most challenging within our community. And I'm sure that through these processes, we'll get to an outcome in the future to look at amending those elements that are most challenging. But I commend staff for their diligence and their time and effort in producing this document. I commend our community for their engagement and their involvement in this process. Over that long period of four years, I said, I think at the last meeting, I never want to go through a planning scheme again. And I reiterate those comments because it's a lot of work that needs to be done. It's a hard slog. And again, yeah, it's a difficult thing to try and have every element that addresses every issue that every member of our community has to their satisfaction.
02:17:00 But again, thank you to the staff, to all the staff associated with the planning team and planning scheme. I think your work in this is commendable. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Speaker 3: Councillor Kinsley? Oh, sure. Councillor Finzel: Why not? Yes, I'd like to reiterate and acknowledge the importance of this document. I acknowledge the work that's been put into this Noosa 2020 plan over the period of, what is it? Four years. Four years. And at the cost of around $3 to $4 million, and we acknowledge that today. Good governance sits at the epicentre of the decisions we have to make today. And I want to reiterate that my statement earlier was that the true measure of any sort of society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable. And I do hope that sitting at the heart of our decisions today sits empathy alongside our budget that we worked hard to deliver to community, understanding the impacts of
02:18:00 COVID, and the resilience that we offer through our governance to drive us forward to a future that is full of hope, innovation, where the social, economic and environmental impacts and needs of this community are met. And I hope that that's the way that we move forward. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Again, I'd like to reiterate my thanks to the staff for all their hard work over many years, hours and hours with a small team of 12, I believe. So thank you very much. And thank you for adhering so diligently to the state conditions as well, especially within the timeframes given that could have been, that was no easy feat. Look, I don't support the town plan. It is with a heavy heart that I say that. And the reason is because of the change from the consistent to inconsistent. As I reiterated in my statement, I do think it will have significant effect on our economy.
02:19:00 No economic impact assessment has been undertaken. I believe that it will create a skewed market that less people, investors will attend for the low density. And I don't care about the investor, but I care about the person who's living in that medium to high density in the affordable housing area where those prices may be driven up. It is those people that I care about. Tourism may suffer. We've all seen the impacts of what a town impacted or with no visitors can do. There are so many people in our Shire and our community that rely upon work for short term living accommodation. I've said it before, I'll say it again, our gardeners, our cleaners, our admin staff, our hospitality industry, our handymen, our hairdressers. They're really a big part of our community. We are a tourist town. And finally, if people have houses and they can't rent them out or they're limited to when they're renting it out, they create vacant houses. And that is no community.
02:20:00 When you walk down a street and they are vacant, there is no community. That is a ghost town. And that is something that I wouldn't like to see become commonplace here in Noosa. I'll say it again. The economic impact assessment has not been undertaken and that for me is an absolute deal breaker. So unfortunately, I do not support the town plan going forward based on those reasons. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Just a question. For the benefits of those at home, we're actually dealing with a motion which has been amended. So just to clarify, what we're actually asked to approve here is the original motion with amendments. The original motion contained provisions to reduce red tape, 75 pieces of red tape to make it easier for businesses to start up and get going, as well as allowing every dwelling house in the Shire to be given over to short-term, some sort of visitor accommodation, but also
02:21:00 initiating a process over a two-year period. Mayor Stewart: So is this a question? Councillor Wilkie: Sorry. Yeah. Yeah, right. I just wanted to ask the same question. Okay. Just in the... It's the original motion plus these amendments, which include monitoring over a two-year period the effectiveness of the provisions with regard to industrial land. Mayor Stewart: Have we got a question there, Frank? Councillor Wilkie: And also monitoring, yeah, monitoring the effectiveness of housing choice. So these are all part of the one motion now. Is that correct? Speaker 1: Yes, that's correct. The original motion moved by Councillor Stockwell was the adoption of the planning scheme. There's been three amendments made to the plan. The first of that, the first related to the provisions of the scheme in relation to industrial land and monitoring households, the amendment moved by Councillor Wegener. The second was the amendment moved by Councillor Finzel, which related to, I'll call it the affordable housing provisions and monitoring that for a two-year period. And the third amendment was the amendment moved by Councillor Lorentson in relation to following through on the local law provision for short-stay accommodation.
02:22:00 So all of those amendments, those three amendments were passed and may now form part of the motion that the Council is considering for the adoption of the planning scheme. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Thank you, Clare. Mayor Stewart: Anyone else like to speak to the motion before it is voted upon? And Councillor Stockwell has right of reply. Councillor Wegener: Just quickly, you know, this is in local government democracy. We encode the will of the people and the people through the government enforce the regulations that we have imposed upon ourselves. On the campaign trail, I've heard a lot of people saying, look, we want a level playing field. I don't want to be treated as special, for example, in the industrial areas. We just don't want other people to get an advantage. And so there was a perception that there was a lumpy playing field where there's a lot of special...
02:23:00 I don't know. There were a lot of people having different, what should I say, with the laws, getting exceptions to the laws here, there and everywhere, creating a bit of a lumpy playing field. And I'm so happy that this playing field will be a lot less lumpy now and we are moving towards the direction of a really good level playing field, which is good governance. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor Stockwell, right of reply. Councillor Wegener: Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It's really interesting where my mind's got to is that the difference that's been expressed today boils down to a couple of different views about the economic impact of the scheme settings as they are now and a couple of different views about how you handle these, your fairness and equity. And no doubt that that relates both to the platforms we were elected on and also our own world views. And I particularly appreciated Councillor Wegener's contribution about where he came from.
02:24:00 And I thought I couldn't let it pass without telling you that when I moved in 1981 out of a housing commission house, I lived up with two dogs, two goats, horse, worm farm. I took my then girlfriend out of her riverfront air-conditioned home and moved into a Bondwood caravan out on McKinnon Drive, which had no power or water. My first job was a washer up at Rio's restaurant. Down near Hastings Street with Leonie Palmer as my boss. So no doubt my world view is going to come from a view about protecting social housing, affordable housing and protecting housing for workers. No doubt. But also, you know, after the slump in the late 80s, early 90s, I bought management rights down at Noosaville because a company had bought up a whole lot of short-stay accommodation and was dealing with it and went bankrupt when the market went down. And so I will be affected by an understanding of what the cycles do to short-term accommodation
02:25:00 in this town and what it means to both businesses, workers and to investors. Speaker 2: Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I also own a short-term unit and a permanent rental. And I know in the global financial crisis that what happens is investors move out of short-term accommodation into permanent rental. And this is a sensible thing to do. I also know because I've studied microeconomics and local development economics that probably one of the worst things you can do when demand's on the downward slide is increase supply. Because what that does is drive down prices, sends more businesses bankrupt, loses more jobs and has a perverse economic impact. So my world view is it is absolutely crazy. It's crazy to suggest we need to be increasing and making more areas open to short-term accommodation
02:26:00 if our objective is to help our current economy, our current workers and our current employers through what will be the most difficult economic times in 100 years. It is essential that we get this new scheme in for the very reason that 75 different types of applications are now easier, cheaper and quicker. So that businesses looking at the new economy can move quickly. I do ask councillors to reconsider their position on this because they will be judged. Because we're not now, we've had the chance to vote on our differences on short-term. And I've perfectly accepted there's two different views. I perfectly accept that the people who've argued in a very strong way, in a different way than me, were representing the people that they don't support. They strongly asserted in during the campaign, or at the very least.
02:27:00 But when we vote on the planning scheme, we're voting on the whole planning scheme. We're voting on everything that's in it. And the judgment you need to make is, is the community better off by adopting it as it is? Or is it better off keeping the old planning scheme? I think it's really important that we do adopt this scheme. I think it's really important that we do adopt this scheme. So I think it's about time that we have a decision. That it is appropriate to monitor the impact. After we've gone through the superseded, the 12 months where people can apply on the superseded scheme, after we've maybe started to come more quickly out of a recession, that within about that two-year period, we should have an indication whether the various settings are working or whether they are having a positive or negative economic impact. And then it's the time to make the decision about what sort of amendments are needed. So I do think that the amendments to the original motion have good value.
02:28:00 I do like that it focuses us on to that, yes, we're going to really keep a sharp eye on and see whether the flexibility measures in our industrial areas will make a difference. It does make us focus that, yes, we do want to put a focus on social and affordable housing. And yes, we do want to put the interests of our local residents and their amenity and their lifestyles at the centre of what we do in terms of local law. So I thank all those councillors who made those amendments. And as everyone else, both the director and all the staff behind us, have done a fantastic job. Some of the amendments that have come have really changed the way that we've looked at planning in Noosa. It's always been considered that the population cap for well over 20 years has been the centre and we've retained it. But this scheme has looked at the land use question from how do we become a focus both
02:29:00 on our economy and on housing more so than any previous planning scheme. So I commend it on that and I commend all the hard work done by the staff. We had some of the most experienced and diligent staff in this organisation, some that have been here for decades and still look like they're in their 20s. And some that have come back to the coast after experience down in the southern states. So I wholeheartedly on behalf of Kendall, thank you. And because today is a day of Gandhi quotes, I found one. And it is, in a gentle way, you can shake the world. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Thank you. We might vote on the very important motion before us. We might vote on the very important motion before us. That is on the screen. And the recommendation, Council note the report and adopt the Noosa plan 2020.
150 minutes in ¶
02:30:00 All in favour? Against? Part 2. Part 2? Yes. Thank you. That brings us to the... Oh, no, it doesn't. Sorry, that's only item 1. Speaker 1: Don't go right. Wishful thinking. Page 13 is item 2. I think it's got to charge, apparently. Mayor Stewart: Okay. Okay, there is a recommendation on page 13 of 40. Can I have a mover for that? Councillor Wilkie: Go on, move it. Madam Chair. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. And a seconder? Councillor Wilkie: I second it. Mayor Stewart: Would anyone like to speak to this motion? Councillor Wilkie: No, thank you. Mayor Stewart: No, thank you. All in favour? Speaker 4: All in favour. Mayor Stewart: The last item on the agenda is page 18, and that is the Noosa Plan 2020 Fees and Charges for the New Planning Scheme. Staff recommendation. Would anyone like to move that motion? Speaker 5: I think I might have a question somewhere.
02:31:00 Thank you. Mayor Stewart: I'm all chicken. Speaker 5: No, I'm all right. Mayor Stewart: There's a recommendation. Would you like to move the recommendation? Speaker 5: I'll happily move the recommendation. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: I'll second it, Madam Chair. Mayor Stewart: Would anyone like to speak to that motion? Councillor Wilkie: Just a question. On page 19, it says both, there's a superseded planning scheme fees and also current planning scheme fees in the schedule. And could you explain why we need to note both sets of fees here, please, Kim? Speaker 3: Sure, Councillor Wilkie. So, as discussed during the meeting, with adoption of this scheme, we now have a superseded. So, people are able to seek to apply for uses under the superseded planning scheme for a period of 12 months. So, the two sets of fees reflect that. The fees associated with the current scheme, which are the superseded planning scheme fees, and the fees associated with the new scheme.
02:32:00 Both of those need to be in operation for 12 months. Councillor Lorentson: Can I ask a question, Kim? Why are we asking residents to pay $1,380 for a right that... Speaker 3: Are you referring to the superseded planning scheme application? Councillor Lorentson: Yes. Existing use, yes. Speaker 3: So, there's a process that's set out under the Planning Act, where when a new scheme comes in, you have to put forward an application, it's prescribed under the Planning Act, to be assessed, to request to be assessed under the superseded planning scheme. Now, that's not an automatic process, that's an assessment process. That's undertaken by Development Assessment, that considers a range of things. So, it looks at what you're proposing on the land, what the new scheme's looking for, what the old scheme considers, a range of issues. So, there is an assessment process that needs to happen.
02:33:00 So, that's what the fee is for. Speaker 5: Yeah, I'll ask a question. Well, with regard to the fee names from the previous scheme for the new scheme, I noticed there's a raft of new fees. I'm assuming that they have a correlation to the previous names, and I'm assuming that they come from some element of the Queensland Planning Act? Speaker 3: Yeah, that's correct. So, the new fee names relate to the use definitions under both the Planning Act and the new Noosa Plan, and they reflect those. There is generally a translation from previous uses to new uses. That's an unfortunate thing, that when you change a Planning Act, that's not there. That's what they seem to do, change the use names. Speaker 5: That's right. I know there are things like Air Service Major, which I assume is a major airport introduction. I don't see that happening in your nursery any time soon, but I'm gathering that all of these are standards that apply across the planning schemes for all councils based on the Planning Act,
02:34:00 so that all councils have to adopt these fee names as a standard. Speaker 3: Yeah, that's right. All councils have to adopt the definitions of uses in their planning schemes. Set by the Act. Councillor Finzel: Anyone else? There's a question, yeah. With regarding to the fees for the assessment in the next 12 months, is there opportunity to waive the fees under special circumstances? Speaker 3: Yes, there is. I have delegation for fee waiver, and we often get applications to waive fees, reduce fees, and we go through a process of assessing that based on the circumstances. So, yes, there is a process in place for that. Speaker 1: Okay. And just again, councillors, when Kim does exercise that delegation, there's a report to council every four months, five months? Speaker 3: Yeah, sort of every quarter. Speaker 1: Every couple of months about what fees have been waived and why. So that comes to council for information as well. Speaker 3: Thank you. Speaker 5: And just in relation to those fees, has there been any change of the fee structures with the corresponding fee names across the board?
02:35:00 From my reading of it, there is little that has changed. It's just a transition from one name to another. But have there been any fee changes through the adoption of the new plan? Speaker 3: Essentially not, other than names. Thank you. There may be one or two new uses that weren't under the previous where there would be a new fee, but essentially no. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Just a question, and it probably relates back to the superseded applications under the superseded plan scheme. But more generally, under the superseded plan scheme, under the Act, we are required to set fees so it just meets the cost of assessment, is that right? That we're just meeting basically the start cost to assess them and transact that? Speaker 1: Yeah, there's provisions that we have to have what's called cost recovery. So we can't run a bit of profit, but we can't subsidise as well. So full cost recovery is the terminology that's used here. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And just to follow up on that, so when we're looking at the waivers, it's about the particular circumstance of the application,
02:36:00 which may mean that the assessment costs would be less than what the full cost recovery would need. There are specific grounds which they have to comply with. So maybe if you could just give us an explanation of that. Yeah, sure. Speaker 3: And Kerry can step in if she wants to. Yeah, absolutely. If we get a request for a fee waiver, it's usually a reduction in a fee or a 25% discount based on the circumstances that it might be a minor application. And what we do is we look at it and we consider what the assessment process would be. And if it's the normal assessment process where it involves the planner, the engineer, potentially a third party, then we don't tend to waive the fee. But if we look at it and go, yeah, they provided all the right information, it is a minor aspect, there is some merit for it. It's not going to take us as long. So there's a process that we go through to assess those, absolutely, on a case by case basis.
02:37:00 Thank you. Is there anyone else? Speaker 5: No, I think the questions have answered everything that I've had. I don't think there's anything that needs to be said. Mayor Stewart: Lovely, thank you. My vote, all in favour? Speaker 1: You can call against as well. Mayor Stewart: Against? One against. Yes, 6-1. Speaker 1: Just before we close, can I just add to the councillor's comments before to thank the staff. I really want to thank Kim, all the strategic planning team for the great work you've done over the last four years. It's been a rollercoaster at times, but your professionalism and dedication is second to none. I'm really proud of what you've done over that period, so well done. Thank you. Hear, hear. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: There are no feather items on our agenda, but I can make some.
02:38:00 I'd like to close our meeting, but I would like to thank this very special meeting for the adoption of the Noosa Plan. And I'd like to thank all councillors. And what I think is a really nice thing about this council is we can have a robust debate and leave it at the table, which I think is a great thing. Again, I'd like to thank Kim and all the staff. I bet you guys are going to breathe a big sigh of relief this evening, and thank you for everyone who's in attendance. This has been a big thing, so it's a big day for all of us, so thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Good afternoon. Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam Chair.