Start of recording ¶
00:00:00 Mayor Stewart: Good afternoon everyone. I declare this special meeting open, unlike the knowledge that we are meeting in traditional lands of the Kabi Kabi people, and I pay my respects to elders past, present and emerging. I note that all councillors remain in attendance and that councillors Wilkie and Finzel have requested to attend via Microsoft Teams. I will move the motion to allow the councillors to attend via Zoom. We'll have a second please. Thank you councillor Wegener. I won't speak to this. All in favour? Carried unanimously. I welcome the councillors Wilkie and Finzel. Today's special meeting is to consider Draft South East Queensland Regional Plan 2023 Update. New to council submissions. We have Kim Rawlings, our Director of Environment Strategy here, and Rowena Skinner, our Principal Strategic Planner, to present the report. Rowena, Kim, could you?
00:01:00 Speaker 2: Yes, councillor. This report basically outlines the draft of secure regional plan. The update, the 2023 update that the state released in August this year. It's been through community consultation from that stage up until the 20th of September, where the state government presented the draft as an update to the 2017 Shaping SEQ plan, specifically not a new plan, but an update to the existing one, and based around the same five themes that the current one is, which is grow, prosper, connect, sustain and live. It does however revise some of the aspirations and actions within each of these themes. One of the primary drivers underpinning the 2023 update of Shaping SEQ is to ensure that land and housing supply settings are responsive to current growth and that processes are in place to accelerate delivery of more housing.
00:02:00 The draft update is underpinned by a new population projection model which projects South East Queensland to be home to nearly 6 million people by 2046. Accordingly, revised population forecasts have been assigned to each local government area in the state. In addition to that, there is a new population projection model in the state of South East Queensland, and therefore new dwelling targets as well. There's now an emphasis on consolidation or infill rather than expansion or greenfield development. And also central to the plan is housing diversity and housing affordability within each local government. So this report brings forward details on that 2023 plan. A submission before the 9th of October, which is the deadline for local governments to make their submission.
00:03:00 Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Any questions for or on the document? Councillor Wegener: Should we mention that? Speaker 4: It's in a mute. Mayor Stewart: Frank, could you put your microphone in mute, please? Thank you. Any questions? I can't see Councillor Finzel. So, Councillor Finzel, any questions? No, no one's answering. Councillor Finzel: Can you hear me? Speaker 4: Yes. Clearly. Councillor Finzel: Yes, I have no questions at the moment. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions? Councillor Lorentson: I have one question. Can the growth target set by state in the draft be delivered if the proposed scheme amendments that we've got in state proceed?
00:04:00 Speaker 2: Councillor, I think when we talk about the growth targets, my focus is on the dwellings. And I believe, theoretically, the dwelling targets can be met under the existing planning scheme without amendments, but they would be much more successfully met if we could get those proposed amendments through. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Are we going to act with those plans and amendments? Where are they at with the state government? Because they've been there since February. Speaker 2: They have been with the state since February. Basically, at quarter past five on Thursday afternoon, we got some advice saying that we were closer to being able to meet the state's expectations around the State Interest Review. So, there's a few things that the state have asked for. They came back with a formal implementation agreement. There has been a little bit of back and forth since then.
00:05:00 But effectively, we're now in a position where if Council is amenable to those last few changes, we could formally resubmit that package and they would potentially sign up for the purpose of consultation. Thank you. Speaker 3: Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: I have a question. Mayor Stewart: Councillor Woopie. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Mayor. Rowena, would you be able to explain the difference between the submission that's being ratified today and the housing supply statement we're required to make, also? Speaker 2: Councillor, the submission goes to a number of areas in the SAQ regional plan update. So it's probably fair to say it's largely focused on the issue of growth, which is around our population targets, our dwelling targets, the diversity of housing that's expected, and I guess the rate of growth that's expected.
00:06:00 But it also does talk about some of the matters under the theme of sustain. It talks about some of the matters under the theme of prosper, and also connect, and the theme of live, or liveability, I guess. So it addresses the whole SEQ regional plan draft update, whereas then the housing supply statement is a much more technical document, which says, specifically, it's just looking at the quantum, the speed, and the mix of housing delivery, looking at the different types of dwelling sizes, the different tenures, the range of accessible housing, affordable housing, everything else that the shire might need to deliver, and how they can do that in a timely fashion to keep on a par with the state.
00:07:00 Speaker 4: One further question to follow on from something that you said earlier with regard to the members that are currently for the state with regard to being able to meet the residential target as opposed to the population target. Can you possibly clarify how the interrelation between dwellings and residents don't appear to marry up in this document as opposed to what our current status of population per household is? Does that make sense? Speaker 2: Yes, councillor. It would probably take me a minute to find the exact figures, but effectively we do not control the number of people that live in any given dwelling. So we can control
00:08:00 dwellings in terms of we assign a zone to properties and then also we assign a zone where all those zones have an assumed density or yield attached to them, whether that's going to be a detached house, whether it might be townhouses or apartments. So we can control the number of dwellings. Now we know historically and certainly at this point in time we have a majority of small households, something like three quarters of our households are just one or two people. Whereas similarly over 75% of our dwellings are at least three bedrooms or more. So we're looking at redressing what would be on paper at least this mismatch between our occupancy, how we're using the dwellings we have, and trying to make sure that of the additional
00:09:00 dwellings yet to be built, we get the most out of them. So we're looking at the most number of small dwellings out of that mix and also some diversity in terms of community residences, rooming, accommodation, some of those other models that might allow for share housing as well. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: I'm happy to move to staff recommendation. Councillor Lorentson: I'll be at your second. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: The report before us outlines the draft shaping SEQ 2023 update, which has been used for community consultation from the 20th of August 2023 to September 2023. Specifically, today's meeting relates to Noosa Council's submission to the State Government. The draft update is underpinned by a new population projection model, which projects South East Queensland to be home to nearly 6 million people by 2046. Consequently, revised population and dwelling targets are assigned for each local government
00:10:00 area. Key concerns which are raised in Noosa Council's submission to the State Government in regard to the draft regional plan include. The short-term allocated population growth is not realistic and cannot be supported by either rapid delivery of housing or infrastructure. The assumptions of population modelling do not take into account nuances of each local government area and how many people a place can support. Population and housing targets are exclusive of tourist and tourist accommodation. Significantly, there is no state-funded infrastructure proposed to support requested growth. Language in the plan can be misleading and confusing, leading to genuine fears around buildings up to eight storeys in height. The iconic values of Noosa Shire once protected through legislation are at risk of being diminished, i.e. low-set buildings, absence of city symbols, substantial areas of open space. Lack of recognition of the considerable work undertaken to date by Council preparing and endorsing a housing needs assessment, housing strategy and associated planning scheme amendments.
00:11:00 Lack of transport infrastructure that genuinely supports locals and residents. Similarly, residents have provided over 200 written submissions, as well as 150 residents who attended face-to-face consultations. There are five themes of the draft South East Queensland regional plan, which include grow, prosper, connect, sustain and live, as Rowena has alluded to. With an additional 19,100 people, Noosa has been assigned the second lowest growth figure in SEQ, but as a percentage increase, Noosa has received the second highest proportional increase in the region of SEQ. The draft plan specifically requires greater housing diversity, with an increase in attached low-rise dwellings, one to three storeys, and an increase, although less, in attached medium-rise apartments, four to eight storeys. There is absolutely no support in Noosa's planning scheme for anything over four storeys, nor does it reflect the community sentiment received to date. Indeed, low-density and medium-density residential zones are typically limited to a two-storey
00:12:00 height maximum. The little expansion of the urban footprint across SEQ, which is proposed, is a welcome step. In regard to social and affordable housing, and a target of 20 per cent, this has yet to be informed by independent modelling. Prosper. There are relatively few changes. The concern is, where are all the thousands of new people we are supposed to accommodate going to find employment, opportunity, business or innovation? Connect. There is positive talk around sustainable transport hierarchy, but new and improved infrastructure needs to be retrofitted in existing road reserves and corridors. The plan refers to proposed extensions of high-frequency public transport connections from Noosa to Mooroochydore and beyond, but this ignores any connection to Noosa's major regional activity centre and future transit hub. And similarly, although the plan refers to the Birrbarra and Nambour rail upgrade, there is no commitment of track duplication or noticeable improvements north of Birrbarra.
00:13:00 Sustain. It makes positive statements around sustainability, but the details are lacking in terms of how strategies will be enacted, and who will and when will they take responsibility for actions. Live. Noosa Junction and Peregian Beach Beach Village have been added to existing Hastings Street and Macon Street, Cooroy, as SEQ great places to live. The Gympie Terrace and Pomona are also addressed in the outcomes for live. There are no specific details as to the implications of being a listed great place. Place. These are all rural towns and Noosa Council is already undertaking work in this space with our first placemaking project, pilot project in Pomona. Specifically concerns as outlined on page 14 of the agenda state. In general there is a lack of acknowledgement of the substantial and strategic work Noosa Council has been doing for the last five years and seeking to improve housing choice and affordability including completing a comprehensive housing needs analysis,
00:14:00 monitoring the impact of short term accommodation on permanent housing, adopting a housing strategy, repairing planning scheme amendments and moreover a lack of acknowledgement of the iconic values that set Noosa Shire apart from other more densely settled parts of South East Queensland. I want to thank, and lastly similarly on page 17 of the agenda which is very important, there is the expectation that by 2026, which is only three years away, our population will be 11,200 persons higher than the 2021 figure which would rely on an average annual increase of over 3.9% which has not been experienced by Noosa since the 90s and since the 90s Noosa has been experiencing just over a 1% growth rate since that time. Thank you. So that's very significant and that clearly is not sustainable for us as a small shire.
15 minutes in ¶
00:15:00 I want to thank the planning staff for their diligence, their expertise and their advocacy in regard to this paper and their submission. I think it's a terrific submission. I think it outlines the concerns that have been raised, the concerns of this council and I think it's one that the state really needs to heed and take direction from. So thank you. Councillor Lorentson: I have a question through the Chair. The recommendation authorises the CEO to prepare and submit a housing supply statement which you made reference to Rowena. My question is in terms of land banking. As part of that submission, will we also be advocating to the state to investigate any relevant mechanisms to address land banking? Such as, you know, lose it or use it sort of law or sunset clause and even a discussion around compulsory land acquisitions.
00:16:00 Speaker 2: Yes, Councillor. As part of the housing supply statement we can go into a lot more detail around the area of speed of delivery of housing as well as mix and quantum. So part of the issue of speed is, as you mentioned, the fact that there are already development sites that have approvals in place for many years and have not yet come to fruition. There are development sites where developers are releasing just one or two blocks a year as part of their ongoing income or superannuation. There are, I suppose, Noosa... Noosa doesn't have the large scale developments that see a rapid influx of new houses or at once or, you know, supply of a great number in any given year.
00:17:00 So we will be talking to the state in there about the length of currency periods which are currently six years and they can seek extensions to that if they like. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Speaker 2: And we will be talking about various, I guess, tools to encourage the swift delivery of housing, whether that's through infrastructure charging or something else, as you said. Thank you very much. Speaker 4: My question was of a similar nature and I asked staff if there was any mention of addressing that and the housing statement is where this has occurred. My question, CEO, is... This is through Point B, authorised the CEO to make any minor amendments, whether we can include a statement or a summary of the land banking issue that's mentioned in the housing statement in our main submission to the state.
00:18:00 I think it deserves consideration to be included. Speaker 1: Do you want to say anything? Absolutely. Yes. That's... I suppose we will... We'll... We'll... We'll pass in some words, make that... Any of these new ideas, some ideas that come to the table today, we're happy to add them to the... Fantastic. ...contact. Thank you very much. Mayor Stewart: May I ask that? Speak to this? Oh, sorry, Council. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Meg. Thanks for your excellent summary. I have a question for staff. Where does the proposal to allow up to three storeys of unit development on each low density residential lot sit in the shaping SEQ review proposal? And will our submission back to the state be making comment on that specific aspect? Speaker 2: Councillor Wilkie, the SEQ regional plan doesn't in itself dictate height limits.
00:19:00 That's still a matter for the planning scheme. Yes. But the SEQ regional plan talks about increasing the diversity of housing within the low density residential zone. One of the things it looked at was saying that a range of low density, low rise housing products would be suitable for that zone. And then it goes on to elaborate in the definitions that low rise is considered anything up to three storeys. So I guess, as the Mayor alluded to, the language within the plan is unfortunate in that it leaves the door open to sort of fears of three storeys development in the low density residential zone through this ambiguity. However, it can't in itself change the height limit that's allowed in this at the moment.
00:20:00 It does mean... Yes. It does mean that any planning scheme amendments we do in the future, obviously when we do a state interest review and they are cross checking our proposed amendments against state interests, including the South East Queensland regional plan, they will ask us the question as to whether we should be looking at three storey height limits within that zone. Speaker 4: I've got a follow on question with regard to heights. In this, there's mention of eight storeys. But I understand in the public consultations that the State held with the community that eight storeys was mentioned, spoken about and addressed. Can you advise what the response from the eight storey height limit from the State would have been during that process? Speaker 2: Councillor, I didn't attend the State Government planning sessions, the community consultation sessions. So I can't tell you what they've told anybody at the moment.
00:21:00 Certainly, their advice to us is that, you know, it's a generic sort of definition that medium rise development is four to eight storeys. That's kind of based around building classifications and different processes and different styles of building classifications. Having said that, again, they can't dictate housing height or any building height limitations. So I think it's important for us to be aware of that. They have sought to say that there will be a proportion of medium rise buildings within Noosa. And certainly, the planning scheme does allow for a very small number of four storey buildings in Noosa. Speaker 1: Thank you. Speaker 2: I've got a question. Mayor Stewart: Rowena. And this is the ambiguity of the considerable language that has been in the draft regional
00:22:00 plan. Your submission to the draft regional plan is based on what was written, rather than verbal communication. The actual facts and figures outlined in the ECQ draft regional plan, which they did specifically mention, medium rise being potentially four to eight storeys and talked about that across Noosa, which of course then gave way to concern. So of course, I would imagine that your submission has to then be in response to the written draft that the State Government had put forward. Speaker 3: Yeah. That's correct. So the submission responds to what the words are. And the submission clearly articulates that those height limits are not supported in Noosa and the impacts of those potential height limits, both in the medium rise and in our low residential zones. So we have specifically addressed those issues in the submission. Mayor Stewart: Which is what you have to do, irrespective of what was said. Absolutely. Or alluded to. Yes.
00:23:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'd like to move an amendment. So I'd like to move an amendment that adds item D, that reads, authorise the Chief Executive Officer to write to the Minister requesting that the State Government consider amending the Planning Act to support those councils seeking to maximise health and well-being in housing rather than short-stay accommodation outcomes in residential zones by excluding any commercials or short-term accommodation occurring in detached dwellings from the current protections offered by Sections 260 of the Act, which is existing lawful uses, works and approvals, and Section 31, claiming compensation, unless those uses are ancillary to premises used as a principal place of residence. Yeah. Councillor Wegener: I'll second the motion.
00:24:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, Councillors, coming out of both the report and the submission, it clearly identifies that one of the constraints to quickly responding to the housing crisis in Noosa is the volume of detached dwellings that have been converted to tourist use. The reason we've got that is that under our last Planning Scheme, there is legal opinion, which suggested that there was some lawful existing use rights if you'd been doing it up to the declaration of the Gazette of Noosa Plan 2020. This recommendation is asking the State Government to do what many governments around the world are currently doing, and that is stopping protecting the use of homes for tourist accommodation. It doesn't say that any Council has to do any particular thing, but in our case, if this
00:25:00 was the case in June 2020, we could have now thousands more homes available for people to live in. It's very important to understand that the building of a detached dwelling in a residential zone is for people to live in. We've seen the massive growth of online booking of tourist accommodation within our residential zones and the large community backlash against it, and as I said, around the world governments are taking steps which will allow them to wind back those uses and put them in appropriate areas, and this takes out the major constraint in Queensland legislation for us, the Government, to consider. It's taking out the major constraint.
00:26:00 I think it's a sensible way ahead, they have listed a range of planning reforms in the regional plan, I'm suggesting that we would be the right council to promote this particular reform. Mayor Stewart: Any questions councillor? Councillor Wegener: Question, do other states, Queensland I believe is the only state that has a provision of paying change of use? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm probably not up to date but I know Queensland's endurious affections have historically been the most beneficial to developing interests of any state in Australia. Mayor Stewart: Questions? Speaker 4: I'll speak to the amendment though. I'm prepared to support the amendment because I believe that having read the report that Noose is one of the areas identified as a locality where short term accommodation does impact on residential availability of residents.
00:27:00 But also I believe it's prudent to ask the minister and the state government to at least review the impact of short stay accommodation in residential zones. Noosa isn't immune to being impacted by short stay accommodation by any means in residential properties. And many of the jurisdictions around Queensland and other areas of Australia are now looking at the measures that council implemented with regard to short stay accommodation. And reviewing how short stay accommodation impacts on their residential areas with the lack of available housing. So I'm prepared to support this amendment on that basis that it will trigger, I believe, an action from the government to at least consider looking at the impact of short stay accommodation on residential zones. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Anyone else that's true to this?
00:28:00 No. Speaker 3: Council? Yeah. Councillor Wegener: Oh, I commend councilor Stockwell on this amendment. And it's just obviously important. Like we're kind of stuck in the mud unless we can do this. So CEO, Godspeed. Thank you, councillor. Councillor Lorentson: Anyone else? Mayor Stewart: Who's up? Okay. We'll put the amendment to a vote. All in favour? That is councillor Finzel. I can't see your hand. Councillor Finzel: Can you see it now? Is that a yes? Yes, that's a yes. I support the amendment. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. That is unanimous. Thank you. That now forms part of. Thank you, councillor Wilkie. I see your hand. That now forms part of a substantive motion.
00:29:00 Councillor Finzel: Thank you. I'd like to raise an additional amendment. Mayor Stewart: Yeah. Councillor Finzel: I'm seeking an additional recommendation following the submission process to the South East Queensland Regional Plan for council to consider any submission made regarding extension to the urban boundary from landowners and provide its position on these back to the state government. The reason I raise this additional recommendation. Councillor Lorentson: I'm not sure I understand what I'm having. Speaker 4: I don't understand. Mayor Stewart: I'll sign it for the purpose of the debate. Okay. Thank you, councillor. Right. Councillor Finzel, the floor is yours. Councillor Finzel: Thank you, everyone. The reason I raise this additional recommendation is firstly that I want it on the public record. In addition to supporting the development of the urban boundary, I want to support the good governance, thereby providing reassurance to our community that due process is taking place following the principles of accountability,
30 minutes in ¶
00:30:00 transparency, fairness and responsibility in the best interest of all stakeholders. Given the high level of engagement in our community regarding this matter, I think it is imperative that we support our community. And showing that we are being open and transparent and making sure that all processes are taking place in a transparent manner. The reason I raise this is because I feel there are some communities that in the rural setting are still very much close to centres that provide access to services like doctors, schools, public transport, recreation. And community centres within reasonable walking distance, even though they currently sit
00:31:00 outside the urban footprint. So this is why I'm seeking support today for this amendment to ensure community sees that we are following process accordingly. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Thank you, councillor Finzel. Any questions for staff around this? Speaker 4: May I have a question? Can I ask a question? Can I ask a question? Can I ask a question? Can I ask a question? Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Question for staff. Is it the case that the state government is not proposing any extension to Noosa Shire Council's urban boundary? And more, is Noosa Council supportive of any extension to the urban boundary under the SEQ plan? Speaker 3: Thank you. Through the Mayor. At this stage, yes. That's the situation. But I think it's important for us to make sure that we are doing what we can to make
00:32:00 The public consultation process enabled people to put in submissions, Councillor Wilkie, and we are aware that through that process there have been submissions from the public, from some landowners, to the South East Queensland regional planning process around urban boundary extensions. So there's a number of those. We will be asked by the state government what our position on those submissions are shortly. Councillor Wilkie: Follow-up question? So this amendment is not advocating for an extension of the urban boundary, it's just articulating the process that is going to be occurring anyway? Speaker 3: That's my understanding. But Councillor Finzel, Councillor Finzel may wish to talk to it, but we had a conversation that this is to put on the table the process that we'll go through.
00:33:00 So we understand there have been some submissions about urban boundary extensions. We'll be asked to have our position on those and provide them back to the state. At this stage, and as you can see in our submission, we aren't supporting any extensions to the urban boundary, but we'll need to consider the information when it's provided to us. Speaker 4: Thank you, I understand. So, yeah, I didn't quite understand. Sorry, can you just minimise, Councillor Hawkins? I didn't quite understand. So the question for Councillor Finzel is, with regard to this amendment, is that what you are alluding to, that submissions made to the state through this process that council is aware of are made available to the state government? Is that the intent of this amendment? Councillor Finzel: Yes, thank you, Councillor Jo. Yes, it is to just show transparency and show the due process. Given that, yes, council has a position, but it's to be transparent and provide good governance back to community members that put in a submission into the South East Queensland draft plan.
00:34:00 And as the staff member just alluded to, that state will be approaching council in relation to the matters with those submissions that were made. Speaker 4: So further question. Given that it was the state that's requesting those extensions, or those requests for extensions to the urban boundary from landowners, and that those submissions would have been made directly to the state, where does council sit with regard to those submissions? An awareness of them, or were they all made to the state government? Are we aware of all the submissions that were made? Speaker 3: We've just recently become aware of submissions, and we haven't, as a team, we haven't been aware of any submissions that have been made to the state government. We haven't yet had a chance to assess those, but we will do those very quickly, and that will definitely be a conversation with council about those.
00:35:00 Speaker 4: But as far as those submissions are being up, were they made to council or to the state government? No, they were made to the state government. So the state government is already aware, so what I'm alluding to is the amendment here with regard to consider the submissions and present them to the state government. They've already been presented to the state government. Speaker 3: I think this is, and provide council's position on these submissions to the state government? So the submissions were made... Speaker 4: Okay, so the element here is provide its position. Speaker 3: That's right. The submissions were made directly to the state government. They ran the process. It was a state government process, not a council process. We hadn't, those submissions didn't come via us, they went straight to the state. We've just been, late last week, provided with some information about those submissions. We haven't had a chance to assess those. We will assess those and then we'll bring those to council. Speaker 4: Sorry, I misunderstood the question. I clearly now see that it's talking about providing council's position back to the state government. Councillor Finzel: Yeah, and also, I just wanted, on the public record, for good governance and transparency,
00:36:00 just to reassure our community, given the heightened sense of what's going on around our housing crisis, to provide just this additional transparent process to show community where we're at. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Now, Councillor Lorentson and Stockwell, we both will stir up at the same time. Councillor? Councillor Lorentson: Just so that I can understand the process, so Councillor Finzel has alluded to transparency and openness. What is the correct process? Whoa. That's the next question. Thank you. Speaker 3: Well, the process that's been undertaken is the correct process. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Speaker 3: So there's not... Councillor Lorentson: There's no... Yeah. Speaker 3: This is absolutely the correct process. It's been a state government-led process. The draft South East Queensland Regional Plan is a state government document. They ran the public consultation process. So submissions have been made directly to the state government. That's the correct process. When we've been asked by the public how to have an input, we've directed them to the state government to the process. Absolutely correct process.
00:37:00 The state are now reviewing those submissions and anything of relevance to Noosa, they're coming back to us saying, we've received these submissions, Mr Council, what do you think about these issues? So from our perspective, that process is absolutely the right process. Speaker 4: Thank you very much. So in that regard, when would the public be made aware of any proposals from landowners for extensions to the urban boundary that were submitted to the state? Speaker 3: I can't say what the state process is going to be about making submissions, public councillor Jerusalem. I'm not sure. I'm not sure whether the state will do a consultation report and summarise submissions like we do when we put something out to the public, we do a consultation report. I'm not sure if that's going to be the process done by the state and whether they'll make all the submissions public. Thank you. Can't comment on that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, mine is a point of clarification, which I think may be desirable to change some words,
00:38:00 because I've heard a lot of people talking about urban boundaries. Urban boundaries is what we have in the Noosa plan, the regional plan has an urban footprint. I presume the amendment is meant to refer to the urban footprint and generally the terminology is not extension of it, but expansion of it, so is that correct that if we were looking at new properties going into the urban footprint in the regional plan, it'd be referring submissions to the expansion of the urban footprint? Thank you. Speaker 2: Councillor, I would actually suggest that you change it to change, to increase the request for a change to the regional land use category, because it may be that they're wanting to go into the rural living, for instance. It may be that they're actually wanting to go the other way from something back to a rural and regional landscape. So I would just broaden that to any requests for changes to the regional land use category.
00:39:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Will that be up to the... Yes, the... Is it a meeting or...? It is. Speaker 2: Is it a meeting? Councillor Finzel: Yes, it is. Thank you. Do you want me to comment on that? Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Thank you. Yes, I'm happy to take the staff recommendation to change the wording to reflect what she just said. Is that the recommendation from the staff? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes. Mayor Stewart: So we'll put that to... Is everyone happy with that? Speaker 4: Well, let's leave it so. Consider any submission made regarding... Mayor Stewart: Changes to the land use category. Speaker 4: Changes to the land use category. Changes to the regional land use category. Speaker 3: Changes to the regional land use category. That's the correct language used in the regional plan. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Changes to the regional land use category. Speaker 3: So that incorporates any application for expansion to the... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. I think I understand that.
00:40:00 ... footprint. Yes. Speaker 3: But Rowena's correct in that the submissions could... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The other way. That's right. Rowena would agree. Rowena would agree. That's right. Okay. Mayor Stewart: So just to confirm that wording... Speaker 3: Yes. From Landowners. Delete. Delete. Delete. Delete. No, no, no, no, no. I'll go back to From Landowners. Councillor Lorentson: And provide... Speaker 4: Just up to From Land... From Landowners. Okay. Speaker 3: Extension to the... No, no, no. Extension to the... Mayor Stewart: And extension. And extension. Councillor Finzel: Should that be expansion or extension? No. I'll just tell you that... No. Oh, that's coming out. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: So it should read now, E, consider any submission made regarding changes to the regional land use category from Landowners and provide its position on these back to the State Government. Any objection to that? No. Rowena. No. Thank you. Councillor Wegener. Councillor Wegener: No. So is this asking you to do anything you weren't already going to do anyway?
00:41:00 Speaker 3: No. It's not. No, it's not. That's the process we'll be going through. Mayor Stewart: Would anyone else like to talk to this member? Councillor Lorentson: Sorry. Just a quick question, Kim. Just to clarify. So... Sorry. This amendment is redundant? You're already going to be providing this information as part of the process? Speaker 3: Yeah, that... I won't comment on whether it's redundant, but that is absolutely what we're doing. Okay. So yes, it's absolutely what we're doing. Thank you. Speaker 4: So can I make a comment there? No, you've spoken to it. You can close. Sorry. Mayor Stewart: Councillor Finzel, you can wait for the close on that. Thank you. Speaker 4: So, yeah, whilst I appreciate where Councillor Finzel's coming from in this regard, seeing I don't normally support redundant amendments, seeing as staff are already undertaking the
00:42:00 actions within the amendment, I won't be supporting the amendment. Mayor Stewart: Okay. Councillor Jurisprudence, would anyone else like to talk to this and then Councillor Finzel can close? Councillor Finzel, would you like to close? Councillor Finzel: Yes. Thank you. I just want to close with the comment that I just... I wanted this on the public record. We, as elected representatives, have the privilege of having access to the staff and in-depth understandings of process. Basically, this is just to put it out to community because this is a very hot topic that's very emotional and affecting a lot of people's lives given the housing crisis. So my intent really is to just be transparent and have it on the record. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor Finzel. We'll put it to a vote. All in favour? Councillor Finzel is a yes. Yes. Councillor Wilkie, I cannot see your hand.
00:43:00 Councillor Wilkie is in favour. Against? Jurisprudence, Wegener, Lorentson, Stockwell, Stewart. Motion is lost. Thank you, Councillor Wilkie and Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Mayor Stewart: That brings us back to the original, which I believe only I've spoken to. Any other questions? Councillor Wilkie: If not, I'd like to test one. Mayor Stewart: I don't think so. Okay. Councillor Lorentson: I have an amendment, but I second the original debate, but happy with the inclusion through the CEO. Thank you. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Councillor Wilkie. Councillor Wilkie: I'd like to add, I think it'd probably be an E, and it reads, include in the submission
00:44:00 to the State. I've sent a copy of this to a member if she wants to cut and paste. Include in the submission to the State an assessment of the impact of permitting three-storey unit development in low-density residential neighbourhoods. Mayor Stewart: Include in the submission to the State. Okay. Right. Councillor Wilkie: Do you have that amended? Mayor Stewart: Yes, we've got that. Thank you. Okay. Speaker 4: EY. EY story. Thank you. Thank you.
45 minutes in ¶
00:45:00 Thank you. Speaker 4: Is that it, Frank? That's the wording? Mayor Stewart: I'll read it out, Frank. Include in the submission to the State an assessment of the impact of permitting three-storey unit development in low-density residential neighbourhoods. Is that right, Councillor Wilkie?
00:46:00 Speaker 4: In Boston. Mayor Stewart: Councillor Wilkie. Speaker 4: It's frozen. It's frozen, okay. Mayor Stewart: You might have to hold it. Speaker 4: I'll let you know. Mayor Stewart: Councillor Finzel, you have your hand up. There we go. Councillor Finzel: Sorry, I'll put that down. Mayor Stewart: Sorry, Councillor Wilkie, you're back. Councillor Wilkie: Yes, thank you. Mayor Stewart: Was that correct, that wording? Councillor Wilkie: I'm just trying to see it on the screen. Include in the submission to the State an assessment of the impact of permitting three-storey unit development in low-density residential neighbourhoods. Yes. Mayor Stewart: Yes, thank you, Councillor Wilkie. Do we have a seconder for that? Speaker 4: I'll second it for the purpose of discussion. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor Wilkie. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah, thank you, Mayor. Look, this was alluded to earlier in the reply to the question from one of the planners, Rowena, that there is the possibility that three-storey unit development could be,
00:47:00 or dwellings up to three storeys, in height, including unit development, could be permitted on low-density residential allotments. And if that were to be the case, that would have a significant impact on the amenity of those low-density residential neighbourhoods in terms of the traffic generated, the parking in the streets, just the sheer volume of people that would be accommodated in those neighbourhoods and likely to have just as big an impact should there be a dotting of four to eight storeys throughout the Shire as well. I'm concerned about the uncertainty and the vagueness in the wording of the SEQ regional plan about that prospect, and I just wanted to articulate it and put it on the record that there'd be a response using the best available understanding
00:48:00 that we can glean from the document. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think this could be exactly what happened in the last Attempted Amendment. My reading of both the report and the submission is we have dealt with this issue in a fairly comprehensive manner. I suppose the question is, to Councillor Wilkie, is when you're thinking about the impact, is there something else additional to what staff have already said as to its unacceptability that you would like to include? Councillor Wilkie: I apologise if that wasn't implied in the wording. It would have a negative impact on residential amenity is what I'm referring to. Mayor Stewart: I think, correct me if I'm wrong, Councillor Wilkie, I think Councillor Stockwell's question was similar to the last amendment.
00:49:00 Is there anything that, in addition, that you would want to put forward that the staff haven't already put forward in their submission about the impacts of the potential increase in height in the low-density residential, is that correct? Councillor Wilkie: If there's already reference to an increase in density to three storeys, specifically in the low-density residential neighbourhoods, then I'm sorry. I apologise. I must have missed it. I thought it was worth pulling out because I wasn't certain that that had been specifically identified. Mayor Stewart: Thanks, Councillor Wilkie. Speaker 4: Just for the purpose of clarification there, Councillor Wilkie, I'll ask if staff can clarify what the position is in the paper with regard to three-storey unit developments in low-density residential neighbourhoods on your behalf. Speaker 3: Thank you. Through you, Chair, the submission does address the issue in a couple of places. So on page one of the submission, it says quite clearly that council believes that three-storey
00:50:00 units in low-density neighbourhoods is not sensitive and builds these sorts of general statements of fear and not acceptance. And then again, it is addressed in the live section on page, I'm getting there, I'm getting there. Page seven. Under the 2.3.2. And I'm sorry. It's in the attached low-rise section, where we specifically say that low density is limited to two-storey maximum, and we refer to the iconic Queensland Places Act. Which sought to protect and identify character so that we don't support the idea of three-storey and low density, because of the impact on character and vulnerability. I've paraphrased there, but that section is addressed. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Thank you, Kim. I do apologise. I should know better. I'm happy to withdraw that amendment or see it voted down.
00:51:00 Mayor Stewart: And Councillor Wilkie, just to add additional comfort to you, it also says that in the report, it says buildings of three storeys in height will not be accepted by the community in the low-density residential zone of Noosaville Shire, nor for the most part the medium-density residential zone. So that should add comfort to you as well. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Mayor. I'm happy to withdraw it. Thank you. All right. Mayor Stewart: All right. So thank you, Councillor Wilkie. So that brings us back to the standard motion. Speaker 4: Sorry, point of order, Mr Chair. Now that the amendment has a mover and a seconder, I'm not sure whether it can be withdrawn or actually has to be voted upon. Speaker 1: I'm passing. Speaker 4: My understanding is it has to be voted upon. Mayor Stewart: Okay. Speaker 1: My advice is to vote on it. Mayor Stewart: Okay. All right. So, Councillor Wilkie, we'll be putting this amendment to a vote just for the purposes of process. So, all in favour? Against? Unanimous. Karen, your hand is... I can't see it.
00:52:00 Councillor Finzel, against or for? Speaker 4: I think we've lost Councillor Finzel. Sorry. Councillor Finzel: No. My apologies. Are we voting... Sorry. What are we voting for? The question that we're supporting Councillor Wilkie's amendment? No. Well, basically, he's withdrawn. And we're voting it because... Councillor Wilkie: Don't support it. It's a dog. Oh, okay. Mayor Stewart: Councillor Wilkie has withdrawn. I don't support the amendment. I'll put it to a vote again. All in favour? All in favour. Sorry, beg your pardon. All against? Okay. My hand is up. Thank you. Thank you. We're all against it. Thank you for the debate. All right. We are now back to the original motion with the addition of Councillor Stockwell's amendment. And I have spoken to the original motion. I believe I'm the only one. Would anyone else like to speak to the original motion? Absolutely. Do you have a question? Councillor Wegener: Good question. I feel as though that the South East Queensland plan actually makes the concept of good people
00:53:00 bad. Because I've seen what the incredible job that you guys have done. And it's... And it just takes all the work that NUSA has been doing for years now, and especially in the last year, and just sweeping it away like dirt and saying, well, no, this is what you're going to do. And you're going to do it really, really fast. Is that an accurate view of what's happening here? Speaker 3: What I will say is that there has been a significant amount of work that this Council has done around the issue of housing and the housing process. Over the last three years. In trying to address this issue for our community. We have been able to rely on that information in our submission. So I think we are... We are well positioned to be able to say that NUSA Council has done some good comprehensive work in trying to address this issue. There's no doubt that it has been incredibly frustrating that that work that we have done,
00:54:00 and the immense amount of work that we have done, and the immense amount of work that we have had in place, and have had with the State Government for some months now to seek to address the issue of housing choice and diversity for our community, are still not through. So yes, in some ways we do feel there's been a lack of recognition of the comprehensive strategic work that, led by Rowena and the team, and supported by Council, that has occurred for our community over the last three years. Councillor Wegener: Let's speak to that much. Thank you. First of all, thank you. First of all, I'd like to congratulate you on your work, Rowena, Kim, and the team, because it is substantial, and it's turned me around in my thinking towards social housing and so forth. And I hope that this very well-written submission will change the state, they'll take it seriously, and not impose this housing supply statement.
00:55:00 It's fearmongering in a way. And that, hopefully, you'll be able to submit a housing supply statement that is very consistent with what we're already doing, and they'll take it on and say, this is wonderful, Noosav, away you go. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Stockwell. Go on. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll speak. I echo the quality of the reporting and the submission. So, it was, I always like to try and pick holes in staff reports, and I couldn't find one. But, for the matter at hand, this has been a really useful process for us in our community, because it's re-established what is at the heart of painting at Noosa. And in the submission and in the report, what's mentioned is these iconic values. And when we stood to lose our council, what the state government at the time did is they
00:56:00 introduced the iconic legislation, the iconic Places of Queensland legislation. And this is what they listed for Noosa as the declared iconic values. They said, Noosa Shire community respects and appreciates its environment and has goals of environmental excellence, quality lifestyle, and economic well-being. As a consequence, the Noosa Shire community seeks, A, built environments which fit into and do not dominate the natural environment. It's one of the core values of our community, that you can go to Tim Beaver and you can go to Panorama Drive and you can look down over a population of 30 to 40,000 people and not see a roof. Not many from Tim Beaver, but certainly none from Panorama. And B, confidence that the population growth and associated change does not adversely impact upon the character, lifestyle, and environment enjoyed by its residents. Now, if that was true then, and the state government acknowledged it then, then this regional plan should acknowledge it now. That is at the heart of what our community has asked us to stand up for.
00:57:00 What's the most important part of this resolution? The most important part is C. And it says to authorise the CEO to prepare and submit a housing supply statement. Why is that important? Because within the regional plan, there's a whole lot of things we wouldn't like to see happen if you don't have one. And I'll read them out. It talks about, Although voluntary for local governments to participate in preparing a housing supply statement, DSDI LGB are looking to amend the Planning Regulation 2017 to provide greater certainty for build to rent, set minimum lot sizes for zones, set dwellings per hectare density expectation for residential zones, implement diversity done well, gentle density model codes, introduce capped levels of housing. The way to keep planning controls within our Shire is to do a housing supply statement.
00:58:00 Otherwise we're going to be guided, and hopefully in some it may turn out to be dictated to, across codes developed by state government. Now we've seen this in local government in other states, and it was part of a process of gradually taking away the planning powers of councillors. So we've seen this in local government in other states, and it was part of a process of gradually taking away the planning powers of councillors. In some states, you have one councillor who sits on a board to review planning applications. So it's really important that we get this housing supplied, and we demonstrate we can meet the dwelling targets, not the fictitious, smodelled population target, which has been shown in this report to exceed the high growth target of the government's statistician. It's likely the model did exactly what our infrastructure project did. It modelled the maximum capacity for every dwelling, whether it's in residential or tourist
00:59:00 zone. And it said if it was developed for its maximum capacity, and we know that doesn't happen, and the report outlines why it doesn't happen. We know that's important if you're developing long-term water and sewage plans, but it is not realistic, as we heard, you know, a 3% growth rate until 2026. It's not going to happen. So it's important that these things are stated, but it's also important that we say, here's the bone that the state government has given us. Our bone is the Housing Policy Statement. We can use the amendments we've already proposed to show how we can meet realistic dwelling targets to achieve the same outcomes. Because what's driving the state government in its review of the regional plan is exactly what's driving us in the review of our planning scheme. We just have to make sure that they align and that they understand that Noosa's iconic values are just as important today as they were when they were amalgamating us earlier
60 minutes in ¶
01:00:00 this decade, century. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Councillor Stockwell. Anyone has access to the switch? Speaker 4: Shut the gate. The horse has bolted. Oh, my God. They've run away. Why? Here we have the state government once again being reactionary rather than visionary. A lack of forethought, a lack of planning. Suddenly two million people are coming. How are we going to accommodate them? But there's already a housing shortage. There's already a worker shortage. There's already so many means that this state typically is 20 years behind in its process in planning and development. And once again, this is a reactionary statement with a very short time frame that was given and only extended after a lot of response from councils with regard to that short frame. And the general public to respond. I want to thank the staff for going through this as thoroughly as they have in the time
01:01:00 frame allowed and making such a detailed and well thought out submission to the state. Elements that are missing, the elements of land banking that I think we've addressed here that need to be acknowledged that this does occur. The state seems to deny that that occurs, but it does occur. And I believe studies have been done to undertake an assessment of how much available land is out there and approvals that have been currently done. It all seems that the blame seems to come back to council. But I don't see universities creating student accommodation anymore. I see student accommodation being put into the private sector. I don't see the state governments of most of the states of this country developing social needs housing at the level at which it needs to be developed anymore. I see them subsidising rentals in the private accommodation. In the private rental market. All of this drive and all of this push to the private rent, I don't see hospitals building nursing accommodation anymore. All of these things were, you know, were commonplace.
01:02:00 I see the state driving all of this and other states as well, driving all of this into the private market. Well, when you take up and saturate the private market with all of your responsibilities, guess what? Availability decreases. Affordability decreases. Rentals increase. You have housing stress, which is exactly where we're at. So to react in the way that the state is, is a response to the fact that there's been a lack of forethought and planning for the future. We talk about infrastructure. I mean, infrastructure in Queensland is miles behind and quite often as populations increase it incrementally, infrastructure fails to keep up. But I came, you know, I've seen the opposite. I've seen where planned development can actually work. And you put the infrastructure in place. First and foremost, and you ensure that, you know, bus services are available. So that when people move in, they've got services available. Not trying to play catch up as we are here. And as I said, we've been doing that with public transport for many, many years and
01:03:00 advocating the state for the number of things that don't exist for the residents of Noosa and the elements of value they are in control of. And the elements they are in control of, you know, you don't need to go and ram down people's straights to try and make change. Speaker 1: You need to be proactive, not reactive. Speaker 4: You need to be visionary, not reactionary and all those things. So I think the, so I commend the staff once again for their, for their report, the information within it. And I hope that the state actually sit down and listen and take note because the planning scheme amendments that we proposed. And have been held up by the state, addressed a lot of the issues that they want us to address. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: I'll speak to it, I'll be brief.
01:04:00 My question from the moment that the SAQ regional plan came out was, and this is in the Noosa context. Who are the winners? And who are the losers? Are the women over 55, are they going to be the winners of our vulnerable people? Are those on low income, are they going to be the winners, our essential workers, our lifeguards, our teachers, our doctors, our nurses, those in hospitality and retail? And does more housing equate to more affordable housing? Where has been the debate about? Density? Where's the debate about maintaining lifestyle? The debate about traffic congestion, about schools, about visitor numbers, about labour force? Where has been the debate about population levels? Where's the social impact study? What are we losing so that more people can come in?
01:05:00 And are we okay with it? What does that mean in terms of lifestyle? And more importantly, in terms of community? What happens after 2046? Do we shut the gate? And finally, do we have the right to say no? Do we have the right as a local council, with the mandate of this community, under our planning scheme, be allowed to be the authors of our own destiny? I'd like to acknowledge all the staff. And join them in urging the state government to work with us and not against us. Noosa has not just happened. And this council and this community will work together to ensure that it just doesn't unhappen. There's a saying, good policy making is a game of inches, not knee-jerk reactions. Meaning critical problems like our housing crisis requires careful consideration.
01:06:00 Therefore, detailed, well thought out solutions. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Wilson. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, councillor Walthy. mean, Karen, beg your pardon, Karen. Sorry I can't see your hands. Thank you, Karen. Thank you. Councillor Finzel. Speaker 4: You're on mute. Councillor Finzel: Yes, thank you. I'd just like to briefly say I'd like to echo everything that's been said around the table. I think we want to reflect the values of our Noosa community, fostering a rich and resilient community life, supporting iconic values, collaborating in a meaningful way with our community and we want to build thriving communities into the future with informed decision making that ensures that our most vulnerable and everyone in our community is included in the
01:07:00 opportunities afforded to our population in terms of access to services and education while valuing our environment and our social cohesion. Sitting at the heart of all we do is our people and I'd like to acknowledge the staff that have worked in this process. I'd like to acknowledge the community that have taken the time to engage with each of us and also like to just also thank all the councillors and CEO that have worked in this space. Together we strengthen communities and hopefully we can stand and work hand in hand with all levels of government moving forward to ensure that we have equity, good governance and provide a strong voice to our people when it comes to these critical issues facing us as we move into the future. Thank you.
01:08:00 Mayor Stewart: Thanks, Councillor Finzel. Councillor Wilkie. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, ma'am. Well, I guess we can add a shock state planning review to a gloomy day for us all. We've had a global pandemic, the rise of short-term accommodation, floods, fires and two land valuations in a row that we've had to adapt to very quickly and the staff have been at the forefront of responding every time. So I think the councillors have said it well. I'd also like to thank Rowena and Kin and the strategic planning team for responding so well to this disruption. Thank you. That does threaten what Noosa stands for and also the councillors who have been firmly behind the staff's submission on this. It's good that we're all united and we understand what makes Noosa different and what's important to this community. So thank you, Maggie, to the staff.
01:09:00 Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor Wilkie. I'll quickly close. I think it's all been said. Again, I want to thank staff for Kim and Rowena's great submission. I think this Noosa Council submission says two things. The draft South East Queensland plan is not acceptable to Noosa and we're not negotiable. What is in there, we will not negotiate on, as has been reiterated around the table time and time again. The values that have been fought for for so long to keep Noosa the way it is, to put our environment first, to put our people first, to put our residents, our community, our amenity, it's not negotiable. And we'll continue to fight if we have to on that. But this submission says very firmly and strongly, states our position, it's a position that is, as Councillor Wilkie said, we're united on it and we're united and we stand with our community on it. So thank you again to the staff. I will put the recommendation to a vote. All in favour?
01:10:00 That is unanimous. Councillor Finzel, thank you. I can see your hand. Thank you very much. Thank you, Kin. Thank you, Rowena. That brings us to the end of the meeting. It is 1.42. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thanks, everyone. Enjoy your holiday, Fran. See you. Bye, Karen. Councillor Finzel: Bye. Thank you, Madam Chair. Councillor Lorentson: Well done, Chair. Let me get the pick on both, Karen. Yeah. Thank you.