Start of recording ¶
00:00:00 Mayor Wilkie: I declare the meeting open at 8.30am. I'd like to acknowledge that we're meeting on the traditional lands of the Kabi Kabi people, pay my respects to their elders past, present and emerging, and reiterate their continual invitation for us to join them as joint custodians, respecting and caring for this beautiful place that we all love, and respecting and caring for each other. And today's special meeting is to consider the Noosa Plan 2020 proposed amendments number two. Finally, post-public notification for final state government ministerial approval. And we have Director Kim Rawlings and Strategy and Sustainability Manager Anita Lakeland here for this report, as well as other supporting staff. Would you please give us a summary of the report, Anita? Speaker 1: Sure. I'm bringing this report to you on behalf of the strategic planning team, so I just want to acknowledge the huge... amount of work that everyone's done to contribute to this report, and the attachments, and as you know, it's a 167-page report, so I'd just like to acknowledge Tara, Rowena, Glenn, and Michelle in contributing to this report, and Rebecca, of course, and Richard and the DA team as well, and anyone else from across Council.
00:01:00 So, Councillors, this report seeks Council's endorsement of changes to proposed amendment number two to Noosa Plan 2020, known as the proposed amendments. Following an extensive public notification and community engagement process and receipt of public submissions, you'll recall that last year in January and in April 2023, two reports were brought to Council proposing the amendments on the back of implementing the recommendations of the short-term accommodation monitoring report and the housing strategy, both of which were endorsed by Council, as well as a review of the Tourist Accommodation Zone review, as well as a review of the Tourist Accommodation Zone review, as well as a review of the Tourist Accommodation Zone review, as well as a review of the Tourist Accom and other planning matters. Council endorsed those reports and the proposed amendments for the purpose of public, for per state interest check.
00:02:00 They were forwarded to the State and underwent a really lengthy process with the State, quite a protracted process, and we finally got ministerial approval to publicly notify in April this year. Following that, Council, at its meeting in May, endorsed the proposed amendments for public notification. We commenced public notification in late May for a six-week period. It was then extended another two weeks, so the consultation period went from late May to late July. We undertook a very comprehensive public notification and engagement program. We had public notices, media releases, radio interviews. We had dedicated Your Say page, web page. The Your Say page had Twitter. We had the world, fact sheets, facts and Q&As. We had all the draft amendments on there in track form, as well as mapping changes, as well as a range of other explanatory material, including how the provisions of the extra story for affordable housing might look in the graphic form.
00:03:00 We had undertook seven pop-ups throughout the Shire, and we spoke to hundreds of people at those pop-ups. We had an open-door policy, so people came in, spoke to us, phoned us, emailed us, asked for meetings with us, and we engaged with a lot of people through that process. We specifically notified by letter anyone with a proposed zone change, as well as all the adjoining owners, as well. We also notified all the community groups, industry groups. We had an industry stakeholder briefing, and a housing board meeting. We had a stakeholder briefing, as well, a group briefing. So the range of engagement was quite extensive during that eight-week period, and we know we had thousands of hits on the Your Say page and many downloads of information, so it was quite extensive.
00:04:00 So as a result of that, we've received 475 submissions, many of which addressed multiple issues. We also had one online petition with 600 signatories. All the submissions have been summarised in Table of Submissions in Attachment 1, and that table has a summary of the submission, as well as a response, and then a recommendation as to whether a proposed change is recommended or not. There was a huge range of issues, but we have synthesised it into really ten key issue areas, some of which have resulted in recommended changes, some which have not. So the ten key issue areas are the Noosa Junction Hospitality Precinct, in terms of hours of operation extension and amplified music definition.
00:05:00 The Noosa Business Centre. Short-term accommodation. As an inconsistent use in medium and high-density residential and centre zones. The tourist accommodation zone review, with specific sites being proposed to be re-zoned. Dwelling houses becoming inconsistent in the medium and high-density residential zones. The size of small dwellings. Mandatory small dwellings in the medium and high-density residential zones. And dual occupancy becoming inconsistent in medium-density residential zones on lots 600 square metres or greater. And, of course, housing. The affordable rental premises. Definition and proposed provisions, associated bonus provisions, including the additional height on certain sites. The environmental conservation and management zone changes resulting from voluntary conservation agreements and the setbacks associated with that.
00:06:00 And community facilities zone around affordable housing. There are some of those issues have resulted in recommendations. Recommended changes. They're outlined in the body of the report, as well as in attachment two, where they're itemised and numbered for reference. There's an additional attachment three, which is minor clarification and errors and miscellaneous stuff that we've identified either through a submission or just ourselves. Which have no policy implication, but are also listed there. It's an opportunity to make those changes as well. So, following, in terms of process, following Council's endorsement of the revised amendments, a consultation report will be prepared, which will be made available for the public on Council's website. And every submitter will be notified of that. And they can search their submission number and see how their submission has been addressed and what the recommendation was and what Council's decision is today.
00:07:00 This, together with, you know... Some other formality reports will be submitted to the State Government and for ministerial approval for adoption. So, following a ministerial approval, a further report will be submitted to Council for final adoption. So, I guess that's an overview in terms of going through the changes. We could go through the changes listed in attachment two and have a discussion around that, if you like. Cool. Director Rawlings: Frank, do you want more detail on the changes in attachment two, or do you want to...? Mayor Wilkie: Oh, look, we'll add it up to questions. There's probably councillors who would like... Director Rawlings: So, just before we do that, then I might just add to that. Yes. Thanks, Anita. Just to remind Council about the stage we're at. Anita has talked about the process, but I just did want to emphasise that we are at the stage of Council's consideration.
00:08:00 We follow a very clear and strict legislative process that is governed by the ministerial rules that guide an amendment process. And this is the stage where... It's Council's consideration at this stage. We've been through extensive community engagement. This stage is not about further community engagement. This stage is about Council considering all of the information and the submissions and weighing up all of those information. It's Council's consideration of those issues in terms of how you would like to move forward. Mayor Wilkie: I'm glad you clarified that. There seems to be some confusion about whether this is an opportunity for further submissions from the public. Director Rawlings: That's right. It's not. It's not. That's not the purpose of this stage. We did extensive community engagement, and it was extended. This is very much now, as specified in the ministerial rules, that Council is now required
00:09:00 to consider those submissions. Consider any changes in response to those submissions, and consider how they would like to move forward, how Council would like to move forward, and submit that to the State for then consideration. That is what this stage is about. So, you know, it's really important for you to remember that. You know, you've also been involved in hours of workshops. I think we've had just under 15 hours of workshops going through each of the issues. You know, this is not... This has not been a rushed process. We've had months and months of considering submissions. You can see how many people around the table have been involved in reading all 450 submissions, hours of discussion and analysis and consideration about how best to respond to those submissions and the changes we will make. We've taken you through all of those changes step by step over a series of workshops. And, you know, just to, I guess, reinforce the very strategic nature of this amendment.
00:10:00 This amendment has a number of things in it, but strategically it is about advancing your housing strategy. It's also about strengthening, you know, maintaining your commitment to strengthening your approach to managing short stay. You know, two very important aspects for our community. And this package of amendments advances those. So, you know, I would also say that the amendment process has been in train for three years. And there is a lot in this that is necessary to advance for our community. We need to obviously consider all the issues that the submitters have raised. But we also need to ensure that our planning scheme continues to be a framework. That guides the future. And provides a strong framework to guide our development going forward.
00:11:00 So I would urge you to consider how long these amendments have been in consideration in information. As you consider, you know, this really important package of amendments today. Mayor Wilkie: Karen. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Thank you, Shire. We'll see. A question through the Chair to the CEO. Given the number of emails I've received with regards to notification of this meeting. Can you just let me know at what date was it posted that this special meeting was to happen? Speaker 2: That's a good question for her, isn't it? So we're, sorry, thank you, through the Chair. We're obliged to give two days notice for special meetings. But this has been officially, we notified on Monday, I believe.
00:12:00 Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Look, to get the ball rolling and move the process along, I'd like to move a motion. It's the staff recommendation along with a technical amendment to correct an error, small error that was detected in there. So I'll read the change, which is just section C. Under section 19.1 of the Minister's guidelines and rules, endorse the changes proposed to amendment number 2 to Noosa Plan 2020, as outlined in this report, and summarised in attachment 2 and attachment 3, and authorised the CEO to make the changes, and any other consequential changes as required prior to submitting to the State Government with the correction on an error, in attachment 2, page 3, item 7, second dot point that should read optional development bonuses, including an additional store of 2 metres in height on key sites, and additional storage of 2 metres in height on key sites, and additional storage of
00:13:00 the total of the total city, if providing 20% of the total GFA as affordable rental premises. The error had it at 10%. May I have a seconder from this please? Thank you. Councillor Wegener. Look, Councillors, I think we're at the pointy end of what may perhaps have been the longest planning scheme amendment process in the Noosa Council history. There are elements that were beyond our control with the amount of time that these programs took. We also willingly extended the consultation period and there was the caretaker period also with the state government. There was the number of submissions that staff went through, also the time that they spent engaging with counsellors through a series of workshops, 15 hours of workshops where every element was clearly explained.
00:14:00 So these amendments to the planning scheme seek to improve housing choice and affordability for residents and key workers. I thank the community and the industry for their patience over this unusually protracted process. Today we finally can give industry and residents some certainty about short term accommodation, provision of affordable housing incentives and dwelling supply. These amendments take on board the impacts of short term accommodation as recommended in the short term accommodation legislation. Monitoring report and Noosa housing strategy in 2022 to further limit short term accommodation in medium, high, rural, rural and residential neighbourhoods and business centres. Incentives are proposed for landowners to provide affordable rental accommodation in conjunction with community housing providers as well as amendments to promote the construction of a range of different dwelling sizes to suit a range of budgets.
15 minutes in ¶
00:15:00 The amendments help ensure all residential neighbourhoods work as intended. Having taken on board resident feedback during consultation. Changing the amendments to permit houses and duplex on small lots and medium density zones up to 500 square metres and 1,000 square metres respectively for houses and duplexes. Council sent these proposed amendments to the State Interest Review in April 2023. They were with the State until earlier this year and were not available for public consultation until May 2024. When a six week consultation period two weeks longer than required was extended for an extra two weeks. The State have signed off that these amendments are in the line up. They are in alignment with and comply with State policy which includes providing for adequate lands to support housing to meet the needs of our community and economic considerations which they also meet legislative requirements. Now there is some confusion in the community that this is also another consultation period and that submissions are to be taken on board in this phase.
00:16:00 The submissions have been taken on board during the extended eight week period. The feedback from those submissions during the formal consultation period have been worked into the final recommendations of staff and we are now in the decision making phase. I thank the staff for their patience and their enormous amount of work that has gone into this and the community and industry for their patience during this protracted period. And I endorse the recommendations as contained in the report. Any other questions or people who wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Phillips: Questions please. Questions. Councillor Phillips. Thank you. Good morning. Thank you very much for the reports. I just want to clarify something because I spent up to 2 am going through submissions again. With what I see in the attachment, does that include the 300 people from pop ups and the additional 80 public inquiries over the phone all through that document?
00:17:00 Speaker 1: Through the Chair. No. Unless it was a written submission, it hasn't been captured in that. So a lot of people came to us and discussed some issues and some may have put that into a written submission which is considered in that document. Others felt their answers had been, that they got their answers throughout the engagement and chose not to make a submission. Councillor Phillips: Another question then to follow that up. So we have a question from the audience. As a councillor, I can't have, can I get that information at some point around what this, what was discussed out of those 300 pop ups and the 80 phone calls or is that? Speaker 1: Through the Chair. No. They were informal discussions and we advised them if they wanted to take it further, they could make a written submission. So it was more an inquiry based discussion a lot of the time.
00:18:00 Councillor Phillips: Okay. Thanks for clarifying. So then my follow up question around the. The 475 submissions that I was trying to read through last night, how many was the outcome being that the recommendation from Council that we will make changes? Does that make sense? No. Okay. So when I was reading through it, we've got recommendations on the column that says, I think the first page, that no change be made to the proposed amendments as a result of this submission. Out of the 475 submissions, how many changes did we make? Director Rawlings: I couldn't give you that number off the top of my head, Jess. We'd have to go through and. Speaker 5: Attachment two has the changes. Director Rawlings: Yeah. So attachment two lists the ones that we've made changes to and then says which ones we haven't. So it's in that. It's in that. But off the top of my head, unless any of you know what that number might be. I don't know what the split is.
00:19:00 Okay. You will see in the attachment two that there are a number of submissions around the same issue. So we might have got 80 submissions around a similar issue and there's been a change made in response to that. So table two is very clear about where the submission has resulted in a change and where the submission hasn't resulted in a change. In terms of the exact numbers, I couldn't give you that, Jess. I'd have to go through and count them. Okay. Councillor Phillips: Well, I tried to count them just given that I went through each one and then highlighted where we changed and where we didn't. And I don't want to quote this number because it might not be right. I was hoping you would. But I had 18 changes. So I guess my follow up question to that is would it be common out of 475 submissions that we would only make such a small change from the community's voice? Yeah. Director Rawlings: Like I just said, we had about, you know, on some issues, 18 issues resulting in
00:20:00 changes. Fairly substantial changes. It's not like there's just 18 changes. There's a group of changes. So there's a number of changes through the scheme. And we may have had 80 submissions on one of those change. So 80 submissions could have resulted in one change. So it's not accurate to say we've made 18 changes in response to 18 submissions. We've made 18 changes in response to 450 submissions. Mayor Wilkie: Just to clarify, that's because there are similar themes that arise through the 400 submissions. Director Rawlings: That's exactly right. Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Lorentson. Just in terms of the attachment with the list of submissions. I might have missed it. But that was the first time that that came to my attention. Was it the first time that the councillors were privy to it? Was it the first time that the councillors were privy to the submissions? The 136-page submissions?
00:21:00 Director Rawlings: Yes, as a consolidated lot, yes. That is the first time you've had those submissions. Obviously, many of you were forwarded many of the submissions. Many of you forwarded us many of the submissions. So you have had some of them. And we also went through the submissions at each of the workshops. Okay. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. And just for clarity, workshops are not decision-making forums. Is that correct? Director Rawlings: Yes. That's absolutely correct. Yes. Councillor Lorentson: And again, for clarity, and only because this is always brought up in community where councillors have workshops and there's an implication that we, the reports that come in front of us are endorsed by us, the level of detail that is in front of us today, that often gets provided in the reports. Is that correct? Director Rawlings: Yes. The reports do often contain a lot more detail because they've got a lot more attachments
00:22:00 things. Councillor Finzel: Yes. Director Rawlings: I absolutely have not suggested or meant to infer that workshops are decision-making. They are not. But what they are is an opportunity to take you through the range of issues that have come up, take you through the issues that have come up through submissions. Put a range of options and workshop them, which is exactly what we did. Mayor Wilkie: Any further questions? Anyone who wants to speak to the motion? Move an amendment? Councillor Wilson. Councillor Wilson: Can I move a procedural motion to defer the matter? Mayor Wilkie: You can. Councillor Lorentson: Can I have everybody present? Yes.
00:23:00 Councillor Wilson: Is there a seconder? I'll second. Mayor Wilkie: Seconder, Phillips. Councillor Phillips. Councillor Wilson, you have the floor. Councillor Wilson: Thank you. Our standing order is 4.2, state that agendas should be made available to councillors as early as practical, to allow councillors to have the opportunity to make decisions on the agenda. When we had the workshops, our final workshops on this matter, I did request that we get more than two days to be able to read the report. And at that time, I had no idea how extensive that report would be. We have worked through workshops on summaries of the submissions and the issues and the proposed recommendations. But this was the first time we actually got to read those submissions in detail. And I feel like I'm not able to do my duty as a councillor without being able to read those more thoroughly. So I've spent a lot of time in the last two days reading those submissions, but I'm
00:24:00 still not sure I can really hand on heart say whether all of those submissions have been addressed in the report, and therefore whether I agree with some of the recommendations made. I have made... Raised concerns before about... About having special meetings and only having two days' notice, and partly because councillors do have other commitments in the diary, and that makes it very difficult to actually drop everything and read 167 pages thoroughly and really understand them. So, yeah, I really feel like I'm not doing my due diligence as a councillor if we to vote on these matters today. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll give the alternate view. The alternate view is, in reading the report... Councillor Stockwell. ...and looking at the attachments, I have no new information that I didn't receive as part of the 15 hours of workshops. The staff have accurately portrayed verbally what the key issues are.
00:25:00 The staff have clearly articulated what the issues raised in the 457 submissions were in a clear and concise way. The report is clearly set out as to what the key issues are. What are the substantive changes from that which was advertised, and the reasons for it. As a councillor, we sit here as a board making strategic decisions. I'm of complete faith in the strategic planning team that they have accurately and fairly assessed all the submissions as a result of the community's input, which has been stated, was the extensive opportunity. There is nothing in this report or the attachments... Councillor Stockwell. ...that are at variance to what has been verbally advised to councillors in the several workshops, and nothing in terms of what's been recommended change that has come as a
00:26:00 surprise. What this vote will come down to is clear, some councillors have identified just a few issues where they would like to see a different approach. That's what we should be discussing today. The need to read every word. The need to read every word of the large submissions table is a choice you make. The ability to assess those, to rapidly look at those submissions, to check what the applicant or the submitter has said, and to look what the response, and to see if that's consistent with what's in the report is something that didn't take me many hours. It's something perhaps I've got fair bit of experience with, that I could do within a reasonable timeframe since this agenda came out. Thank you. I believe, as staff have said, we've had an extended period, and now we're looking at what are the key changes as a result of submissions, and I think that is something that should be...we should take time today in analysing and determine at the end of the
00:27:00 proceedings whether it is necessary to defer, because from my understanding, I think most councillors around the table are very clear about what they do and don't support it. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: I have a technical question. If this procedural motion lapses, are we able to...and we have an open discussion, and all questions are asked and information can be shared at this opportunity, is there an opportunity to move another procedural motion to the third at the end rather than the start of this? Yes. Okay. So I'll speak to this motion at this stage. I think for us to...I think for us to move another procedural motion to the third at the end rather than the start of this, I think we need to shut the meeting down now and move it to another date before all councillors have an opportunity to ask all the questions they want to ask in an open forum with a gallery and live audience.
00:28:00 I think it's a missed opportunity, and it's akin to gagging debate, and it will be a missed opportunity. So if at the end of today's session there is still appetite for deferring, I think that would be the time to move a deferral motion. So at this point, I'm not willing to support this procedural motion. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. This was the plan today, as my understanding was, to go through...we have our fantastic staff here today. We've got plenty of time. Let's just go through and ask our questions before the deferral. We all have some questions to ask. Let's move through this. Okay. Let's take advantage of this opportunity instead of just deferring it for a few days. Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Lorentson. I also agree. We've already flagged that there will be a deferral motion up for debate at the end of
00:29:00 the meeting. Again, I think let's not waste this really good opportunity to discuss and understand better the decisions that we're postponing for next week to make. This is an opportunity I think we all need. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Any other councillors wish to speak to the motion? I just have a question. Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: Just to clarify, is there an opportunity to suspend the standing orders while we do the discussion and the questions? So that we... We want to. We don't need to. Okay. Mayor Wilkie: Just checking. Just in answer to your question, Councillor Finzel, standing orders allow questions to be asked as part of the formal debate as well. Any number of questions that you have, you're free to ask. Councillor Finzel: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just seeking clarification on the process. Mayor Wilkie: Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Any other councillors wish to speak to this procedural motion?
30 minutes in ¶
00:30:00 Councillor Wilson, do you wish to close? Councillor Wilson: Yes. The reason I raise it now is it seemed like we were about to start putting through a motion. I didn't feel equipped for that part of the debate at this point, and so I'm still seeking time to actually keep on reading the submissions that we've had, and therefore I've had questions answered by email satisfactorily, but I don't necessarily see the benefit of having questions through a debate when there's still information that I'm trying to read and absorb. Okay. Mayor Wilkie: We'll put it to the vote. In favour of deferring? That's Councillor Wilson. Those against? That's Councillor Finzel, Stockwell, Lorentson, Wegener, Phillips and Wilkie. Motion's lost. So we go back to questions or amendments. If any councillors wish to test amendments. Councillor Lorentson.
00:31:00 Councillor Lorentson: I will. I'll test an amendment. Which one do you have for me, Cathy? Thank you. That item C be amended to read C under section 19.1 of the Minister's Guidelines and Rules. I might just read my changes if that's okay. With proposed changes in response to public submissions identified as 1.1 and attachment 1 to be replaced with the following. A. Attain the current. This is in regards to Gleeson Junction Precinct. Operation of hours and definition of ambivalence. by music. So with proposed changes in response to public submissions identified as 1.1 and attachment 2 to be replaced with the following wording. A. Retain the current hours of operations in the hospitality precinct for food and drink outlets until investigation have been undertaken
00:32:00 into suitable precinct management frameworks as per the notice of motion endorsed by Council on October 2024. B. No amplified music is to be considered on site, indoor or outdoor beyond 9pm unless treated acoustically to appropriate level until investigations into precinct management framework are complete. And C. Once these investigations have been completed, consider any recommendation including changing operating hours for food and drink outlets in the Noosa Junction Hospitality Precinct as part of the program. A. The proposed amendments will be the basis of a future planning scheme amendment to the Noosa Plan 2020. Councillor Wilson: Is it supposed to have the word no amplified music? Is it not to be located in the report? No. Okay. Mayor Wilkie: We have a seconder for Councillor Lorentson's amendment please. I'll second. Councillor Phillips? Councillor Lorentson?
00:33:00 Councillor Lorentson: The proposed planning amendments have caused some concern across the Shire. I just think what I've put in front of us is a more balanced approach that considers both the interests of residents and business owners. Residents have come, made deputations, submitted feedback and have expressed concerns about potential noise and disturbances. From extended operating hours of food and drink. Maintaining the status quo until or allowing time for thorough investigations or in suitable management frameworks I believe is the better forum to address the possibility of extending the hours. I think we need to really understand the real impact of the proposed changes.
00:34:00 That needs to be fully understood. And there's lots of other things that we need to understand. I think I sort of started when I read this. I needed to understand where's the data, what are the implications? If we do extend the hours, what does that mean in terms of how many more restaurants? And part of my research, I discovered that a lot of these businesses have interchangeable use rights. And these interchangeable use rights mean that you can have an adult shop or an office or a healthcare service that can vary their business types at any time. And what I was concerned with, if we allowed operating hours until midnight, does that mean that we may have healthcare services open until midnight?
00:35:00 We may have adult shops open until midnight. So I really wanted the opportunity to unpack that. Also, in terms of the amplified music, that also raised a bit of concern with some of the small businesses. In specifically, the requirement that the sites have got to be acoustically treated to appropriate levels. Again, my amendment requests deferral. And to revisit this when we look into... I believe that we're not adequately consulted with the small business owners, particularly with this part C, sorry, part B, in terms of acoustically treated levels. I think including a provision like this without thorough consultation may present, you know, sort of onerous requirements on small businesses.
00:36:00 I just think that we risk just causing a bit of division in the community and creating just angst amongst the business, small business owners. Small businesses need our support, and I think that support must include a thoughtful understanding of how these sorts of conditions can impact and potentially jeopardise their operations. So what I urge is a deferral, and that we look at this, and we talk, consult with stakeholders, residents, and business owners as part of our investigation into precinct management frameworks. Thank you, Councillor Lyons. Mayor Wilkie: Just to move things along, I really appreciate what Councillor Lyons is trying to do in terms of investigate further what needs to happen down there.
00:37:00 But I think deferring just adds to... Deferring is going to... Deferring is going to... ...drag out an inequitable situation that's existing down there that we're trying to address and add to the confusion. So, currently, the inequity we're trying to address is that some businesses can operate to midnight, others cannot. This amendment seeks to make it 12 midnight, seven days a week for all businesses in the junction. Also, it also seeks to give some certainty about amplified music down there, because the current hours of what... ...in the current planning scheme, there are a little bit of... ...a little bit ambiguous, hard to understand. Now, if we ratify the amendments today, that does not preclude further investigations being done. There will be some certainty until any changes that need to be done as part of future planning scheme amendments to the Noosa Plan 2020 are done. So, invest... If we ratify it today, we can have some certainty, address an inequity, we can do the investigation, and make any future changes that come out of that.
00:38:00 ...investigation as part of future planning scheme amendments. So, I'm not supporting this amendment, because I believe it will allow an inequity and confusion to continue to exist in the junction. And it doesn't stop future investigations taking place and future planning scheme amendments. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I can just ask a question. There was some changing in what was on the screen, and the whole motion wasn't read out. And I suppose it has to be to staff, because I know you assisted me. The item refers to the proposed changes in response to public submissions identified as 1.1 in attachment 2. In attachment 2, item 1, there is a 1.1, a 1.2, a 1.3, and a 1.4. The way Councillor Lorentson was speaking, I...
00:39:00 ...I... ...I presumed that she was thinking that... ...that items 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 are also being amended, but that's not how the motion reads. Can you clarify, please? Director Rawlings: Yeah, that, Councillor Stockwell, you're correct. That is what the intention of what Councillor Lorentson was hoping to achieve, is my understanding, Councillor Lorentson? Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Director Rawlings: So, that would need to capture in A, 1.2. 1.2. 1.3. Just that, 1.2, 1.3. Thank you. The move is happy. The second is happy. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The council has to be happy with that being... Mayor Wilkie: You're happy with those changes, Councillor Lorentson? Thank you very much. Yes, that is... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, the whole council has to agree. Okay. Under the standing orders. Okay. Mayor Wilkie: All right. All right there. All councillors happy with that technical amendment to make it more accurate and correct?
00:40:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think it's about... I just agree. Mayor Wilkie: I agree. Just in consensus. Councillor Phillips: I'd like to seek some clarification, maybe, from the Chair. Just when I think about the Junction Precinct, I feel like there's two elements to that. There's the amplified music and then it's the trading. The... Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Phillips. Yes. Yes. Yes. Are you addressing the question about changing the amendment to 1.1, 1.2, 1.3? No, I think I'm just thinking... Councillor Phillips: It probably will relate to that because I want clarification around whether this amendment will seek to bring... Let me get there. Sorry. And then I'll... Sure. Yes. The question is around the current proposed amendment to bring everyone on path with the music. Does Councillor Lorentson... Do you have a question? It's probably a question to you. Does this bring the music, amplified music, on... Is this to address that every site should be on an equitable playing field?
00:41:00 Is that... No. Just... Yeah. Can I clarify? The music and the hours of operation are two separate things. Can you... Two separate things. Can you clearly tell me how this motion defines the two, please? So that... Director Rawlings: That... That... That Councilor Lawrenson is seeking to address two things. One is the hours of operation, which is the level playing field that the Mayor spoke about, and then two is how amplified music is treated going forward in the junction. This motion seeks to pick out both of those. There's two separate amendments in the planning scheme and defer them until precinct-wide management considerations are done. Okay. And that both of those things, hours of operation and how amplified music is treated, are dealt with at a later stage. Councillor Phillips: Thank you for clarifying that. Mayor Wilkie: So are you comfortable with 1.1 and 1.2 and 1.3?
00:42:00 Councillor Phillips: I am, yes. Thank you for the clarity. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: Yes, thank you. Just for clarification around the process, and I guess it's a question, I guess, through the Chair to the CEO or it could be staff. In our readings it says any change to the extent the hospitality precinct would be considered a significant change and require further public notification. And therefore cannot be considered as part of this amendment process. I'm just concerned, like, I like where Councillor Lorentson's going with this, to, like, get clarity on a complex issue. Which would also include going back to community consultation. And we need to do that in a meaningful manner. So is this part of the process that we should be, like, debating this matter today? Or is it too significant and it should be deferred to another time?
00:43:00 Director Rawlings: Thanks for the question. Good question. Just for clarification, the reference to the change to the hospitality precinct being a significant change was about a submission that requested an extension of the boundary of the hospitality precinct to be included in the hospitality precinct. That was considered a significant change. So it actually refers to a different issue. Councillor Finzel? Thank you. Yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Stockwell? Further clarification. In summary, table two, we have, as I mentioned before, 1.1 to 1.4. On the left-hand column it says, introduce a new definition of amplified music to enable application of the same provisions as live music. Does this amendment, in your opinion, affect whether that definition goes in or not? Director Rawlings: No. I don't think so. I think it's still necessary to have clarity around the definition.
00:44:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So just to carry that, the omnibus recommendation would still cover that definition. It's just it's not mentioned on the right-hand column. So I'm wondering if it is picked up as a recommendation. Yes. Speaker 1: It's not listed in column, the right-hand column, because there is no proposed change to what was proposed, which is a definition for amplified music. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That's why it's not listed. That was in the amendments that went out to the public. Yes. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Ryerson? So just a question. So if this amendment is in the amendments. If this amendment doesn't go through, my question is, what are the implications if we do allow businesses to operate till midnight, understanding that a lot of these businesses have interchangeable
45 minutes in ¶
00:45:00 use rights? And can I first ask two questions? Can you clarify what interchangeable use rights are, and whether what I said earlier, an office or a cafe that's open? That's operating today could potentially change its use to an office, an adult shop, health service store, without, my understanding is they don't need to come to council for approval. That interchangeable use right allows them to do it to provide flexibility, and I think that's great. But again, I think it's important that we understand the economic social implications. Excuse me. Yes. So my question is, can you give me numbers? How many businesses are we going to see in the next four years, or the next 12 months, that are going to be operating till midnight? Director Rawlings: I'm going to go to your previous question first.
00:46:00 Yes. Around what it means to be able to interchange business uses in a centre zone. In the NUSA Plan 2020, we made a substantial shift to enable flexibility for businesses. And I think that's important. It's important for businesses in centres to be able to change, over time, change tenancies. So if you originally opened up an office, and then over time wanted to change that to a cafe, you could do that without needing to apply to council again. In terms of hours of operation, that specifically relates to food and drink. So it doesn't relate to hours of operation to an adult shop, or a health food shop, or an office. So the hours of operation don't carry over if you change use. This is specifically to food and drink. Just also, I'm harking back to another question that was in what you talked about. In terms of what it actually means to change the hours, and Michelle, can I ask you to
00:47:00 talk to that? And then I'll loop back to the question of numbers, if it's still needed. Speaker 4: So through the chair. So. Sure. With the interchangeable use, obviously they don't come to council. But they do need to, it's called accepted development subject to requirements. And there's specific requirements set out in the table of assessment in the planning scheme. And they're acceptable outcome provisions. And they still have to comply with those acceptable outcomes in the planning scheme. So it's not just changing and then they can do what they want to. They really still need to comply with those acceptable outcomes in the planning scheme. Operation hours is one of those acceptable outcomes. So if they wanted to change from an office to a food and drink, and they comply with all those AOs in the planning scheme, they don't need to come to council. And one of those AOs would be that new change to operation hours.
00:48:00 So they could operate till midnight, seven days a week. But obviously they need to comply with provisions in the planning scheme under that AO around those noise conditions. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. That's a great explanation. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Sorry. One more point of clarification. I think it's the last. 1.3, which has now been deleted in terms of the submission recommendation read, amend amplified music provisions to apply to inside and outside the venue unless acoustically treated in appropriate levels. Can you explain to me what not including that in this amendment does in terms of, is there loopholes we're trying to address? What was the reason that amendment was put through? And what would be the implications of the change? Speaker 4: Through the Chair, that change would allow, currently under the planning scheme, the operation hours for amplified live music only apply to outside a venue and not inside. So this was ensuring that both inside and outside the venue, that operation hour would
00:49:00 apply. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just follow up. So the problem being addressed is the noise nuisance, and that noise nuisance can come just as much from inside as the doors open, and acoustically treated as a canton on the outdoor dining area. Is that what we're talking about? That's correct. Yes. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Can I ask, have the property owners, those that do have live music inside their premises, are they aware of this change? Speaker 4: Is it advertised? So this change was advertised? Oh, that wasn't advertised. I understand. So it would be an amendment. But currently, the noise issues are obviously through Liquor Licensing and Gaming, and they're the compliance authority. So in terms of the provision, they still need to comply with the Liquor Licensing approvals
00:50:00 today. So we're just saying that they need to comply to the Liquor Licensing rules regardless. We only look at operation hours. So the noise provision is still compliant. They still need to meet those requirements under Liquor Licensing in terms of noise. Councillor Lorentson: So is the inclusion then redundant? Do we need it? Speaker 4: I think through the chair, it just provides more clarity and certainty around what's in the plans. That issue we have with the confusion around Liquor Licensing and operation hours, and where an amplified music, I think it just provides clarity for people that, you know, amplified noise leaving the site, whether it's inside or outside, needs to comply with the Liquor Licensing provisions. Councillor Lorentson: Would deferring consideration of these changes to a future planning scheme, probably my question is, when is the next package of planning amendments going to place?
00:51:00 But that needs to be made clear because, again, I think there's a misunderstanding that we've got to wait for. The deferment could be till next year. Director Rawlings: Yeah, look, as councillors would know, this is a continuous process. We are always updating, reviewing, maintaining the planning scheme. So we already, even though this amendment package is not finished, we've already started the list of the next round of amendment package. So it is a rolling cycle. I can tell you that for the sanity of these fabulous people, we won't be starting that until this one's finished. But it's a roll. You know, it's not another four years away. The process will start next year. But this one's taken three years, remember. Councillor Lorentson: In terms of the notified motion, Kim, so we've endorsed, through council, notified motions
00:52:00 to investigate precincts. And we've actually done quite a bit in that space at the moment. In your opinion, would deferring these two matters and bringing them to, you know, a business framework discussion with all stakeholders, residents, business owners, small businesses, impacted residents, not impacted residents, would you consider that to be an appropriate forum? To tease out or at least understand the implications of what's been suggested? Director Rawlings: I'm not going to exactly answer your question. Okay. But what I will say is there are a couple of things to balance here. Yes, absolutely, looking at a precinct-wide approach for the issues at the junction is a great strategic way to look at the issues.
00:53:00 And, you know, looking at the issues at the junction is a great strategic way to look at the issues at the junction. The nature of businesses, noise, impacts, hours of operation, all of that will be part of that consideration. But balancing that, we have got some inequities and not a level playing field that is occurring at the moment for businesses in the junction. The original intent of this amendment was in response to business concerns. So this amendment seeks to be responsive to that. So deferring them could also have implications to businesses who currently say they can't actually properly function. For instance, businesses that are lucky enough and popular enough to be running two sittings, they can't actually do it functionally within the hours.
00:54:00 So there are a range of things that need to be done within the hours. They need to be considered here about, you know, which is the, which is the kind of best approach, you know. So these amendments would respond to that. And given we are, there's no certainty around the timeframe for this next phase of the process, around the precinct management approach and future amendments in terms of timing, I think, yeah, I'm avoiding the answer because you need to weigh it up. Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: Can I ask? I think we had an application to Council a few years back. One of the restaurants, Herbert, excellent restaurant. Unfortunately, no longer their excellent restaurant. But at the time they came to Council and requested extended hours. Can that still be given that even if we endorse the amendments today, there is still a process. So it still has to go back to state public interest.
00:55:00 Like there's a process before these are actually ratified. And there's still a process to go back to state public interest. Yeah. Director Rawlings: There's definitely a process still to go. It's got to go back to the state for consideration. Minister and then back here. So there's some months. Tara or Richard, do you want to talk about the process? DA process? Speaker 3: Through the Chair. There is obviously a process where anyone can apply to seek a variation or a change of use or a change to their conditions. Obviously, that has to be assessed on its individual merits in terms of what scheme objectives are being sought. Obviously, you know, it's in our view, it's better if the scheme is leading what those expectations are as opposed to, you know, specific sites noting that you've got to look at the wider context as part of that assessment. But it doesn't preclude any applicant lodging an application at any time. And we'll have to assess that on its merits. Mayor Wilkie: If an applicant wanted to take that course, wouldn't there be money involved?
00:56:00 Whereas if we gave them the certainties for the planning scheme, wouldn't they have to Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Sorry I did find another what I think was a consequence of the amendment that is something we need to think about and that in 1.2 has similar words to B except in 1.2 it talks about that applying from Sunday through to Thursday so is the if this amendment was to go through it would mean new businesses couldn't only operate to 9 p.m. seven days a week rather than the current requirements in the current scheme that allows extra operating noise and music after the hours of 9 p.m. on Friday and Saturday and would that be a reduction in any new business it'd be a diminution of what any other business set up to date would have. Speaker 4: Through the Chair the current operation hours for food and drink in
00:57:00 the hospitality precinct are till 10 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and then 12 Friday and Saturday so they would be the operation hours yeah yeah Deputy Mayor Stockwell: that would be applied. So the answer is yes this amendment in B actually would reduce they couldn't go to 12 p.m. Friday and Saturday because it says and only provided by music is located on site beyond 9 p.m. but it hasn't doesn't specify any different arrangements for Friday and Saturday night does it? No, that's correct. Councillor Phillips: That was pretty much my question at the very start because I was trying to clarify whether this changed the trading hours or the amplified music hours because of that exact I just didn't answer it the way I wanted it to after a late night reading amendment so sorry can I have some clarification around that Councillor Lorentson: please that's a big that's a big deal I think that wasn't the intent of the motion there was there was no
00:58:00 intent to reduce the hours so I think that was just little sleep communicating the middle of the night and this is the outcome and this is why a deferral motion and respecting what the Council Wilson said before that that we really need time to digest but no that's just an error that was supposed to be included. Councillor Phillips: I want to support everything that Councillor Lorentson said I just want clarity around the operation hours in it. That's all I'm asking because I think everything makes sense. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Can I ask through the Chair whether Council would make the changes the technical changes to catch up that there is no reduction in amplified music over the weekend that that status quo remains?
00:59:00 Mayor Wilkie: We'll pick up Councillor Stockwell, thank you. Thank you. Are we all happy? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm the one in turn that's changing a bit of the line but if that was the intent we'd better capture it. Speaker 2: Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Fine nods? Yep. Are you happy Tom? Thank you. Okay. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Thank you. I'm a bit uncertain. Speaker 4: It's just amplified music isn't it? Councillor Finzel: Yeah. I just want to make sure that if we're going to proceed forward with debate and discussion around this that we do have the wording correct. I do feel a little bit unsettled. I feel it's a little bit like on the hop. I feel personally more comfortable if we, yeah, we're respecting the proposed changes and responses to the changes that the Council's made and I'm happy to support that if we
60 minutes in ¶
01:00:00 I'm happy to move forward if people are happy with this wording. I just feel that, like Chris said, I feel like we're trying to address a broader complex issue around a precinct management framework that I personally feel could be better managed if it was offline and we were actually, you know, really taking on board what the public submissions have said about this, the complexities that even ourselves here at the table are going, is that operating hours, is that amplified music? I just feel personally that we're getting into, you know, real policy changes, looking at management precincts, which is a huge body of work, which includes consultation, meaningful process, again, so I just want to make sure that if we're going to continue this debate and questions that I'd like to see through the staff that they're comfortable with that wording,
01:01:00 that we have worded it correctly to continue the debate reasonably. Speaker 1: Can I just confirm that the proposed amendments relating to the hospitality precinct in Noosa Junction related to hours of operation and amplified music, I think what this is saying is that we retain the current provisions and we don't move forward with those changes until a precinct approach has been done. I think it might be just one alternate recommendation, which, yeah, is what I'm thinking. Councillor Lorentson: That's spot on. It's basically horse fun. Not that this is going to not happen. I believe in equity, so, you know, operations of hours, I would love to see that happen. But I just feel that, at the moment, the best course, okay, so, but I'm responding to the answer. That is the intent, Anita, so retain the status quo and give further consideration
01:02:00 and also opportunity to speak to the, potentially the affected property owners in terms of the acoustic treatment and in response to Council Finzel, respect what you're saying, but the, Thank you. Yeah, but what I proposed is actually a reflection of those very, very many submissions that are made in 136 pages for the adjoining residents that are concerned of impacts. And so, I think this is the balanced or more, the balanced approach. It respects feedback from the residents in the surrounding, surrounding areas. And it also respects property owners who, I've been notified in the last 12 hours. Any other comment you need to make? Thank you. Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: Yes, a question through the Chair to Councillor Lorentson.
01:03:00 Thank you for the clarification and the intent. That's made it much more easier to understand where we're heading. So, question, are you prepared to change this with the recommendation from the staff for the wording to make this, more succinct to represent your intent? Councillor Lorentson: Absolutely happy. Retained status quo and further consideration is the intent. And again, really making clear that future planning scheme amendments can, have already started. So, this can be included. Mayor Wilkie: Just to dispel any confusion that may be occurring here, is the staff's position that the planned amendments about music to 9pm on West O'Keefe Street Retreat and 12 midnight for all food and drink already responds to business and resident submissions. And this would defer implementation of an amendment that responds to residence and business submissions.
01:04:00 Director Rawlings: The staff recommendation is as per the report. Mayor Wilkie: And this is. To proceed. And this is saying. We would not implement the staff recommendation, we would defer the staff recommendation. Director Rawlings: That's, that's correct. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. Can I speak to the motion? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: What we have in front of us now is basically 1.2 and 1.3 just stated in different terms. Speaker 1: Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, the only substantive change that this amendment is 1.1. So, the substantive change now is that there is a change to the music requirements so that it's 9pm Sunday to Thursday. What's not changed is the increased operating hours from 10 o'clock to midnight seven days a week.
01:05:00 So, that is something that we did get lots of submissions on. And the. I believe a lot of the submissions were based on the thinking that that would also allow music to go from 10 to 12 at night. So, this is one that I hadn't made up my mind whether it's a good thing or a bad thing. The argument is if you have a nice quiet restaurant that's popular, they get to trade for midnight, which is a, you would want to put them through a large planning process. The reciprocal argument is. Even if they're acoustically treated, if they're getting out and getting in their cars after midnight, that does disturb the surrounding residents. So, I'm going to listen to debate.
01:06:00 Councillor Lorentson: Sorry. Director Rawlings: Are you changing your amendment? We've given. Councillor Finzel: There's new words. Councillor Lorentson: Oh, with the new words, that would be great. Thank you. Do we have to change? Do we have to change? Councillor Finzel: I would have done that tomorrow. Thank you. I'm going to just put them up. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, we couldn't. We're so blind. We couldn't do that. Councillor Finzel: No, I don't think so either. What? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We couldn't change from that to that. Councillor Finzel: No, I don't think so either. No. Oh, we're going to debate it. So, you can move that again next. Yeah. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. If it's deferred to next week, then move it again. Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: We can just. Yeah. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. Councillor Lorentson: So, you're voting on this amendment? Speaker 2: Okay. Debate and vote. I'll speak to the amendment just real quick. Councillor Wegener: Yes. Councillor's looking up. It seems to be clear that going through the whole process, we want to iron out the lumps, the unequal playing field in the junction. This amendment actually, the original amendment, not the motion here, settles that. And I think that moving forward with what Amelia wants to do with the hospitality precinct,
01:07:00 well, you can base it actually on a structure of a level playing field. So, let's get to the level playing field, exactly what has been asked for by the community for years now. And so, that's what the amendment gives us. Just stick with that. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: So, just to clarify. Yeah. The amendment you're referring to is the staff. Councillor Wegener: The staff recommendation. Mayor Wilkie: You're not supporting this? Councillor Wegener: No, I'm not. I'm not supporting this. This is the motion. This is. This is in the room. This is the amendment. Mayor Wilkie: This is the amendment. Yeah. But not a planning. It's an amendment that relates to a planning scheme amendment. Yeah. It's an amendment. Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: Question, Councillor Lorentson. If that's all right. Mayor Wilkie: That's if no other councillors wish to speak. Yes, you may close, Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: So, Councillor Wigno. I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying. What I'm asking is that there is confusion still out in the community in understanding
01:08:00 what actually is being proposed. So, the amendment seeks to allow community residents to be able to stay in the community to understand what's actually being proposed. I don't think that that's been made clear. So, I'm not disagreeing with the equal level plan. Not at all. All I'm saying is can we just put it on post. We have another process underway, an investigation in the precinct management framework, where the intent of that is for every stakeholder to sit around the table and to discuss in a community way what's actually being proposed. The importance of live music, the importance of a good night's sleep and the importance of getting along. I just feel that by not supporting this motion, we're going to be creating division, uncertainty and fear.
01:09:00 And in terms of small businesses, what I'm so concerned with is that I have been notified that business owners are unaware of these changes and we're playing with their business. I know that it's encapsulated under the liquor and gaming regulations, but as it's worded, if I'm a small business owner, I'm thinking, isn't the role of council to support small business and reduce regulation? Are we, and I'm not saying we aren't, but I'm saying are we, through our wording, actually giving the misconception that... We're making it hard for businesses to operate, not easier. So the amendment is not that it won't happen, it's just can we put it on pause, look at it as part of the investigation precinct management plan, or just look at it as part of a future planning amendment, which starts next year. It's just putting it on pause for a few months, not that it's not going to happen.
01:10:00 Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. I'll put the amendment, those in favour. Councillor Phillips and Councillor Lorentson, those against. Councillor Finzel, Stockwell. Wilson, Wegener, and Wilkie. The amendment's lost. Do we have any other amendments? Councillor Wegener. Councillor Wegener: I have my little amendment, which is just concerning the, we'll find it up here, concerning the business centre up there. We discussed having the 10... Just looking for it up here, yeah, that item 2 be added to item C2, with the exception of the proposed change in response to public submission 2.5, in addition to attachment 2, that this proposal change referring to 7, to a 7-metre landscape buffer along Hofmann Drive be removed from the amendments.
01:11:00 Okay. And we've discussed this in the various meetings. Mayor Wilkie: We'll get you a signal again. Councillor Wegener: Oh, yes. Can I have a second? Mayor Wilkie: Can I have a second? Thank you. Councillor Finzel. Councillor Wegener: Yeah, just Councillor Finzel saw that and said, we don't think that that's actually what came out of the meeting, and so we just want to go back to the original amendment, because that's what we feel is always agreed around the table. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Phillips: This might be a bit quick, but I'm just going to show support for this, because I also agreed, and then that will move this one on a bit quicker. Mayor Wilkie: Just clarifying that no decision has been made? No. In the workshops? Councillor Wegener: Oh, no, yeah, yeah, yeah. Consensus. Mayor Wilkie: I understand that, and I'll just use my opportunity to speak to say that there was, my recollection was there was, among councillors, there was a variety of views around the table, and what we're looking at is the staff recommendation, not the consensus of the councillors.
01:12:00 I just think it's very important to make that clarification. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll take the motion. I'll take the motion. It's a complicated issue that currently relates to an application, there is a diversity of opinions about how to achieve the overall objectives in that area, but because it's subject to appeal, I think the amendment that Council proposes is probably the safest way ahead. Mayor Wilkie: We have, does anybody else wish to speak to the motion, amendment for Councillor Gwynne McLeod, you wish to close, Councillor Gwynne? No, thank you. Okay, I'll put the amendment to the vote, those in favour? That is unanimous. Do we have any more proposed amendments? Councillor Lorentson? Councillor Lorentson: I have another amendment in relation to meeting density residential zones, if I could have that up, please.
01:13:00 The items 2, 3 and 4 will be added to item 2, the proposed changes in response to public submissions identified as 4.1, 3.2 and attachment 2 and be replaced with 4.1, retain the current provisions of NUSA Plan 2020 that allows a dwelling house's accepted development subject to the NUSA Plan 2020.
01:14:00 3. The proposed changes in response to public submissions identified as 6.2 and 6.3 in attachment 2 to be replaced with 6.2, retain the current provisions of NUSA Plan 2020 that allows dual occupancy as code assessment in the NUSA plan 2020. These particular planning amendments caused widespread concerns across the Shire from Noosa Heads all the way to the Hinterland. There was a petition presented to Council with over 600 signatures and multiple deputations to Council highlighting strong community opposition to these changes, particularly in the medium density zones.
75 minutes in ¶
01:15:00 Residents feel that these changes have created confusion and fear and the economic and social impacts they don't believe, and I don't believe, are fully understood. What has been requested through submissions and deputations is for the status quo to remain that allows single dwellings or duplexes on their land, regardless of lot size, to remain. Residents have expressed and submitted feedback that there was lack of proper notification and they have also expressed that this amendment in particular, and I'm quoting, was an erosion of property rights and a threat to Noosa's character, a community character. They strongly oppose the restrictions on rebuilding single dwellings on medium density land,
01:16:00 a property right that has been held long in Noosa. Many believe that the changes unfairly shift the responsibility for addressing housing issues onto individual landowners. The residents also make clear that they do support addressing housing supply, they do support diversity and affordability, they just reject an approach that potentially undermines their property rights. So the amendment in front of us reflects what I believe the community are asking for, which is that Council preserve their property rights and achieve a balance by retaining the status quo and still allowing multiple dwellings in medium density as an option. We're really hopeful that Council and the council members will improve that in an additional right. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Question. Councillor Moniz is quite correct. We did receive a lot of submissions on this.
01:17:00 Could you? There were changes made to the proposal, and as a result of the submissions, could you please articulate what those proposed changes were in response to the submissions? Speaker 1: So there were two proposed changes. One was that we recognise that on lots up to 500 square metres are small, and it may So we indicated that all three or more dwellings as well. So the change that we're proposing is that dwelling houses be consistent on lots up to 500 square metres and be consistent beyond that. And with regard to dual occupancies on medium density zoned land, the proposed amendment was that dual occupancies were inconsistent on lots 600 square metres or greater.
01:18:00 The proposed change is that that increase to 1,000 square metres or greater in recognition that that was coupled with our requirements that you had to also have three or more dwellings and recognising that on some of the smaller lots it may not work. It may not work from a feasibility perspective. So we opened up the flexibility there. You can still do three or more dwellings, but it's an opt-in provision allowance, basically. So the purpose of the medium density zone is to provide for multiple dwellings. Mayor Wilkie: Just to clarify, if you own a lot up to 1,000 square metres, which is sizable, you can still have a duplex? Speaker 1: Correct. Mayor Wilkie: You can have multiple units? Correct. If you have a lot? If you have a lot up to 500 square metres in the medium density zone, you can still have a house? Speaker 1: Correct. Mayor Wilkie: And also in the high density zone, you can have up to 500 square metres, you can still have a house?
01:19:00 Correct. Okay. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: A question about the implications if Council was to agree to this amendment. We have targets set for us in the dwellings in the South Street SEQ regional plan. Our planning scheme amendments were, we have a frame to achieve those targets in a way that kept the loose character. If this amendment went through, would that put a dint in our ability to meet the targets? Speaker 1: So that's correct. We have modelled our dwelling supply based on the highest and best use to be achieved on these lots. The medium and high density zones are specifically to deliver that smaller dwelling supply. So if these lots were to be achieved on these lots, we would have a dint in our ability to meet the targets. So if these lots were to be underdeveloped, or one or even two dwellings, then it would ultimately impact on what we deliver to meet that housing supply target.
01:20:00 We have to report on that annually to the State. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm going to speak against the amendment. The overarching driver for these amendments is the housing crisis we have. The amendments were framed, The amendments were framed, to achieve an increase in housing choice and housing affordability. Because it would increase the supply of dwellings in proximity to where employment is. So that we can get unit accommodation for key workers. We know, from the state facilitated development process, that the last amendment, and I'm only going to say this, we know from the policies of the incoming government, that the issue of providing housing is a high priority. And we know, while we have gained good commitments from the current government,
01:21:00 as to the ability to use these key amendments in the consideration of state facilitated development, that there is a range of other proposals embedded in this original plan. The proposals that if local government isn't seeming to be carrying in this way, that the state will come in over the top. One of those proposals, for example, is, as the right due collectors throughout the low-income residential zone, up to 30 stories high. So, councillors, we do have to make our decision. If we just continue to make decisions so that we don't upset people, then other levels of government will make decisions that upset people. Speaker 5: Right. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And most likely, to a greater extent. The changes from what was advertised to what was proposed is a good middle ground. The suggestion that you can't rebuild a house if it's burned down, ignores the statutory right of all for existing use of house.
01:22:00 What the proposals are is a new development, a redevelopment, is that we're not turning the maintenance residential zone into a zone where people build new mansions. We're trying to turn it into a zone that is allocated to achieve the sort of housing that is in considerable demand in Noosa. The fact that one or two bedroom units to meet the demand for the majority of our households, which are one or two people, is where we need to address these amendments. This is about creating housing choice. It is about creating housing affordability. It is about meeting the housing crisis. And yes, it changes the zone. It doesn't address property rights. Your freehold property rights always relate to what the existing set of laws allow you to do. And the Planning Scheme has always faced certain limits. And Planning Scheme amendments always make some changes.
01:23:00 This, as proposed by staff, is a good compromise within what's advertised. It meets the objectives. And it is unlikely to make any significant change. And it is unlikely to make any significant change to meeting those targets that we are asked to do in the FDQ originally. Councillor Finzel: A couple of questions, please. Councillor Phillips: Firstly, I wasn't able to get this information, so if I could just ask. How many medium density sites exist under 500 square metres in Noosa? Speaker 5: How many medium density sites exist under 500 square metres in Noosa? I could find the exact figure, but I think it's 30-something from memory. Most of those are at Sunshine Beach. There's a historical subdivision behind where the Sunshine Beach shops are, where they are
01:24:00 very small lots. So most of them are in that area. And most of them are already, already subsisting. And most of them are substantially developed with a house on edge. There's a few others. There's a couple at Noosaville. There's a couple around Water. But predominantly, they're in Sunshine Beach. Councillor Phillips: Okay. So then I guess a follow-up question is, if these changes in the proposed amendments fail to incentivise development, then what's the projected economic impact on Council's revenue, including development in the future? Is that possible to answer? Director Rawlings: No, it's not possible to answer that on the spot. But as Rowena said, there's around 30 lots that we're talking about here. But no, that's not possible to provide you that information now.
01:25:00 Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: 30 lots below 500. There's a large number between 500 and 1,000, which would make three bits. That's right. There's a large number between 500 and 1,000, which would make three bits. Councillor Lorentson: Just clarity, the continued allowance of multiple dwellings in medium and high density residential zones is still allowed under this. So this is an additional, it's basically what we're doing for some of the tourist zones and I referenced, you know, my question is can I just seek some clarity that what has been proposed is retain the status quo plus the opportunity or the opt-in of building, extra, multiple buildings. It's not reducing the amount of stock as Councillor Stockwell sort of indicated, it's allowing residents rather than taking away their rights. Can you clarify? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I don't think you should continue because it's not a question.
01:26:00 Sorry, there's a point where you need to sit down. Mayor Wilkie: I'm sorry, what was your point? I'm sorry, what was your point? I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. It's not much certain that you're actually asking Councillor Ernst. So could you please just ask questions and you don't, this is your answer. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Through the Chair, can I also address the tone of voice of Councillor Stockwell. I would like him to understand that his tone causes stress amongst gallery people and also amongst councillors and I request that he speaks respectfully to staff, councillors Mayor Wilkie: The point of order was asking a question, not debating, so if you could stick to that and have an acknowledgement of that first please, and then Councillor Stockwell, did you mind following your tone?
01:27:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes, certainly, I apologise, I didn't get that. I did note that the statement was breached, and in the point of order it is appropriate for a councillor to sit down. While that point of order, the councillor didn't wish further attention to the standing orders. So, as long as all councillors abide by the standing orders, they have a key point of order to comply, and I've said nothing of the sense that I did in the last eight months. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Councillor Lorentson, could you answer your question? Councillor Lorentson: I will. Can I ask if you could just clarify that what's been proposed is an addition, not an erosion of existing property rights? Mm hmm. Director Rawlings: What's being proposed by the amendment is not an addition, it's reverting to the status quo, what currently exists in the Noosa plan. So it's not adding anything, or changing anything, it's reverting to the existing provisions.
01:28:00 Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. While I ask a question, during Councillor Stockwell's comments, speech, he referred to, to the SEQ planning process, and he mentioned that there were intentions to introduce, the proposal to introduce, two level 2 practices in medium density, sorry, in low-density residential levels, if we don't meet our planning targets. Could you, could you just sort of expand on that, in relation to what your experience with the state planners are, and what pressure they are putting in New South Wales, and what the community may face if we don't make our zones work as intended? Director Rawlings: Yes. We have been working with the state government for a long time around regional planning.
01:29:00 As you know, a new regional plan was developed, or a review regional plan was developed last week. A major component of that regional plan was about housing, supply, diversity, and delivery. That was a key, really the key driver of that. And there was lots of to-and-throwing, and lots of pressure put on local governments to take more growth. And we, Noosa is not immune to that. We were, we were required to take our fair share, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, We had to demonstrate that we were able to meet the dwelling targets and we had to do that in a very comprehensive and rigorous way. We had to submit a raft of information including a housing supply statement to demonstrate that. As Anita had said, those dwelling targets then form a process of where we're monitored against those dwelling targets.
90 minutes in ¶
01:30:00 They are the things that we are monitored against. It was very important for this council and the work that we did that we were able to meet dwelling targets in a manner that was appropriate and of a scale intensity to Noosa. To Noosa's lifestyle, to Noosa's character and to how our community expects our Shire to develop. We were very careful and considerate. We were very careful and considerate in how we could meet the dwelling targets that worked with the zones we had and used the zones that we had the way they're intended to be used for medium and high density housing. We have some of those zones that are not utilised to their full extent and that's okay.
01:31:00 But over time, we are going to need those zones to meet what they're intended. If we are going to meet our dwelling targets. We were able to satisfy the government of the day that we had made enough changes. These amendments were part of satisfying the government of the day that we could meet dwelling targets. But there's no doubt that we have been given indications. That there will be future pressures. This new government has already made a statement that they will be reviewing a regional plan. That will happen in the next two years. So there will be more pressure to take more growth. I have no doubt. We need to continue to be able to demonstrate that our planning scheme in all its provisions
01:32:00 encourage the best, most efficient utilisation of the zones in a manner that is appropriate and considers noose of design, noose of character, noose of lifestyle. Mayor Wilkie: And just further to that, what were some of the proposed solutions by the State Planers that could take place in low density residential areas? Director Rawlings: Yeah, there was a proposal. There's a range of things put on the table. Local governments were given the opportunity to either do a local response or there would be a state response. One of the state responses was that they would allow dual occupancy to occur in all low density, potentially up to three storeys. As a bit of a one size fits all approach. Obviously local governments, not just us, but many of our local governments have been objected to that approach and said, let us demonstrate that we can actually cater to the dwelling
01:33:00 targets, but within a manner that works for our community and is responsive to local needs and expectations. So to date, we've been able to do that. Again, these amendments are important in that demonstration. Yeah, those are the sorts of things we'll need to face in the coming two years. Mayor Wilkie: Just to clarify, you also mentioned that if these amendments are passed regarding the median density high density residential zones, residents that own a house in those zones, if it burns down, they can replace it, they can build life alike, or they can build something larger under the superseded pruning scheme, apply under the superseded pruning scheme. If it's up to 500 square metres, they can build a house regardless. If it burns down, they can replace it. And up to 1000 square metres, under these five members, they can still have a sheet
01:34:00 of land. Councillor Wilson: That's correct. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Wilson: And a question, please. In, I believe, I understand that in this round, we are actually upzoning any lots to median density residential zones, or not very much? Speaker 5: There's a few. There's a couple of sites in Cooroy, which are a couple of sites that are not upzoning. Some of them are already used as duplexes, community housing, and there's a strip in Ben Laxton Drive, Sunshine Bench, which is going from light density to medium density, but they're the only ones. Councillor Wilson: In the original 2020 plan, I believe there was a more significant platform between the density then. Would you give me an idea of what was happening then?
01:35:00 Speaker 5: I couldn't give you a number at the moment. In 2020 we had a whole suite of new zones, so we had to do a translation of what the 2020 planning scheme zones were. Because with legislation we were given a suite of zones that we had to use. We could only choose from these, and we had to translate from what the zones were to what the new zone would be. At that time, there was sort of a default position that certain zones would translate to that default. If anything was not of the default position, then obviously we did consultation with the owners at the time as well. So I couldn't give you a number at that time. But more significant?
01:36:00 More significant, but still not overwhelming. Councillor Phillips: Thank you, Tom. I will just give some context before I ask my question. So I will get to my question, but when I talk about the submissions, there's themes. And the themes are around, I don't think anyone does understand that the impact of growth in the state. I'm not giving those numbers. But the one common thing that I tend to see, and I would like maybe answered, is how do we respond to the many property owners that feel that their land will be devalued in this process of being switched over?
01:37:00 Director Rawlings: Look, it's an issue that is often put on the table when you make changes in a planning scheme. In the past, we've made changes to the planning scheme and the issue of property values has been a concern. As time has gone on, the concerns haven't played out, haven't impacted property values in the way that people might have thought they would. We have, as part of these amendments, we have tested feasibilities. What's being proposed is feasible. They've been tested. So, you know, against contemporary market rates. So, you know, what I would say is that, you know, that's the process both that we've experienced in the past and that's the process that we've, you know, undertaken in terms
01:38:00 of the changes that we're recommending in response to those sorts of concerns. There were concerns about, you know, feasibility and things like that, and we did work to test those to make sure. And, you know, there's been quite a bit of a shift from what was advertised, you know, to now what's allowable. You know, the other thing I would say is that there are existing use rights. People, you know, have existing use rights. There is also a process of superseded planning scheme. So, if any change is made to any planning scheme, anyone has the opportunity to apply under the previous scheme for top rights. So, yeah, that's the rough explanation. Mayor Wilkie: I'll speak to the motion. Councillor Wegener: I think that this is really the heart of all of the planning scheme amendments. This is the key issue.
01:39:00 And I want to support the staff amendment. And this is not something I would have voted for when I first became a councillor five years ago. I would have thought, no, this is a heavy hand of government changing. And since being a councillor, we've gone through this whole understanding of what planning is and how planning looks to the future. What do we want Noosa to look like in the distant future? And coming from, you know, I live in lots of different places in America where you have your mansions along the shore and then you go back a few blocks and then you have where the people live. And that's not the vision that I have for Noosa. And I don't think that's the Australian vision. Of course, that is the vision when you go to the east coast of the United States. So, I see that this is taking control of the vision for where Noosa is, what we want it to look like, the Noosa that we want for the future. And, of course, I completely understand the people that oppose the amendment.
01:40:00 And I'm probably going to lose some friends over it because they're going to say, my gosh, look what you've done. I've always wanted a big place right on the river. But now, when they buy the land, they're not going to be able to do that. You'll tear it up, house it down. They're going to be limited in the future, which is the vision for the Noosa that the majority want. I was really educated through the short-term accommodation monitoring report and the housing strategy and listening to and watching the questions go out, having the community come back twice and say, this is the vision. This is the vision of future, the future vision of Noosa that we have. And that's very consistent with the amendment. Yeah. So, that's, this is actually the moment, you guys. This is it. We know what it is. We've been talking about it for a very long time. We need to stand up for this. And, yes, some people will believe that it's not good for them in the short-term pocket.
01:41:00 But this is the moment. This is where we stand up for the Noosa that we envision and leaning on what the state wants us to do as well. I mean, my gosh, that's a whole other issue that we're dealing with. But I think that fundamentally, we look at the Noosa that we want to live in. Councillor Wilson: I'll speak to the motion in support. I know we need housing solutions. I'm very aware of the dwelling targets in the SEQ plan. I don't think we're going to be able to do that. I don't believe it's individual residents and property owners' responsibility to facilitate the dwelling targets of the SEQ plan. We have people who bought houses in the medium-density zone at a time when a single dwelling was consistent in that zone. We've had people rezoned in 2020 into medium-density residential zones.
01:42:00 At the time, a single house was consistent in that zone. I don't believe it's individual residents and property owners' responsibility to facilitate the dwelling targets. I don't believe it's fair to take away that right to increase or redevelop the size of their family home. I would ask councillors not to make loaded comments like Matt mentioned. If people want to develop their family home, then I believe they should have the right to do that. And therefore, I support this motion. Thank you. Councillor Phillips: I'll speak to the motion in support as well. But I probably can't trump that because that was exactly my feeling. But I'll talk about it from my heart, I guess, because I've lived here my whole life and I see pioneer families that have sacrificed so much to buy land and they've got this little quaint little house on it. And this will devalue their retirement and their kids and everything that I stand for in Noosav. So I support the amendment. Thank you.
01:43:00 Mayor Wilkie: I'm going to speak against the amendment. There is no evidence that this staff, staff members, staff members, staff members, staff members have proposed an amendment that will devalue any property. Property prices in Noosav have continued to increase despite negative comments after planning scheme changes. It will not stop property owners making an application on the superseded planning scheme to build a bigger house on the lot that they own. It will not stop them replacing like for like on their property. If they own a property that is up to 500 square litres in size, they are, they are going to still have a house in the medium and high density residential zones. If they have a lot up to 1,000 square metres, they can still have a duplex, which I believe is the centre of a very heartfelt letter, submission that we all received. This is responsible planning. It does not, it does not diminish, diminish what we're trying to achieve in the planning
01:44:00 scheme. It, it recognises the submissions. I think it's a very good little ground. I think it's responsible all the way forward. And I believe it will also prevent the state from leaning away on low density residential lots where people might have that, that house. A lot of single dwelling houses that Councillor Phillips talked about are currently in low density residential zones. Not medium density residential zones. I think it's a very good little ground. And if we don't have these provisions, responsible changes come in, the medium and high density residential zones, then they may not be able to do what they would like to do on the low density residential zones. So I, I can't support this in a conscious way. I do appreciate and respect the views that have been expressed because they're all entirely valid. Councillor Lorentson: Could I ask a question please? Councillor Wilkie mentioned you can build like for like. My understanding that is. Richard. I have a question.
105 minutes in ¶
01:45:00 Can you clarify if there was to be a significant change in the size and scale of the previous dwelling, would that trigger an impact accessible development approval, an MCU? So, so it's not as, my question is, is it as simple as knocking down a house and, and rebuilding? I'll just clarify. Mayor Wilkie: I did say you can replace like for like, but if you wanted to produce something larger, it would be an application of the superseded planning scheme. That's what I said. Director Rawlings: Sorry, can you just. Yes. You've got it. It'd be on the back there. Councillor Lorentson: Yes. So my question is, would an application under a superseded planning scheme require a material change of use application? Speaker 3: Yes. So a request under the superseded is a request to apply under the, the current planning scheme. Yes. So if it complied with the current provisions, no material change of use development application
01:46:00 would be required. If it was a superseded request. If it, if it complied with the scheme provisions, you'd still need to apply under the superseded planning scheme. Does that make sense? Councillor Wilson: Can I ask a question on that, please, too, that, just to clarify that, that channel of opportunity is there. It is only for 12 months. Speaker 3: That is correct. It's a 12-month provision that applies for all superseded planning schemes. Mayor Wilkie: Question to staff. Is it true that the vast majority of single homes are in the low-density residential zone and a small proportion are in the medium or high-density residential zone? Speaker 5: Do you want to put that on us? Yeah. Obviously, most of the single homes are in the low-density residential zone. There, the vast majority of land in Noosa Shire is in a zone, is in either the rural
01:47:00 zone, the rural residential zone, or the low-density housing zone, residential zone. That accounts for probably 80 to 90% of the shire. All of those zones allow for a dwelling house as accepted development. There are hundreds of properties in the medium-density residential zone, not thousands, but hundreds. There's 639 of them are less than 1,000 square metres. Mayor Wilkie: So they can have duplexes? Speaker 5: They can have duplexes. Okay. And only 165 are above 1,000 square metres. And many of those are actually over 1,000 square metres. Mayor Wilkie: So we're talking about a minimum of people then on the property that's being affected.
01:48:00 Before Councillor Lorentson closes, does anyone else wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Lorentson, would you like to close? Councillor Lorentson: Just to address a couple of things that have just been raised. Our vision for Noosa. I've got a different vision for Noosa. I don't believe what's being proposed is the vision for Noosa. I think we can work a little bit harder and find different housing solutions or better housing solutions. My vision for Noosa is, I look at Noosa Civic and think, let's throw the high density over there. Let's leave our low residential, medium residential areas alone. Let's not, I don't think we can do that. Let's not sacrifice community values. Let's not sacrifice character. Let's not potentially devalue property prices. Let's respect and preserve our residents.
01:49:00 Mayor Wilkie: Sorry. Councillor Lorentson: Let's preserve. Let's do the job that we were paid to do as councillors, which is preserve our residents' property rights. Not erode them. Let's do what we're paid to do, which is to preserve our residents' property rights. Let's ensure that democratic processes, social inclusion, and that the community agree with the decisions that we make. I understand, and I keep saying, we're all part of the solution and council is part of the solution, and no one is disputing that. But I just think we need to understand what are the social, economic impacts of our decisions. We need to unpack that. And what is the cost to our lifestyle? And have we had that discussion with our community? And I think unless we're clear, we're clear with our decision making, and clear that
01:50:00 who we work for. I just think, you know, we're rushing to make these decisions without proper consideration of the people that we, as councillors, were paid to represent. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, great comments, dear Members. Mayor Wilkie: I'll put the amendmenters in favour. Councillor Wilson, Morgan & Phillips, 캐� Administration jaid, Councillor Finzel, Stockwell, Wilma & Wilkie, the veggie amendment's lost. Do we have any other amendments to that? Councillor Wilson: Could we have a effect, could we have a break? Mayor Wilkie: There's been a request for an adjournment. shared both council is in favour to change Champs.
120 minutes in ¶
02:05:00 Councillor Lorentson: I do want to test one and I'm not sure whether it will get any support, but I want to test it. Can I put an amendment, deferred consideration? Is it a new one? Yes, it is. I threw it across and I was going to pull it out, but I just, like I said, I'm not sure if it will go up, but I do want a discussion about this at a minimum.
02:06:00 Deferred consideration of rezoning properties from tourist accommodation to high density residential until a thorough assessment of the... Councillor Wilson: Is this part of the attachment? The same thing, like going into, is it going into, like, an item under item C? Councillor Lorentson: It's in reference to the rezoning of... Councillor Wilson: Is it under item C, though? Like, are you adding an item to item C like the previous one? Councillor Lorentson: Can I ask for support from Kim, if you could just help me? I just want to play with this one, Kim. Director Rawlings: It refers to item C, issue 3. Councillor Lorentson: So, she's not adding anything to item C? No. So, it's... So, issue 3. There is no issue 3 that got lost, though. No, it's a new attachment. Recommendation. Director Rawlings: It's a new one, not relating to, not developed.
02:07:00 Okay. So, it refers to recommendation C. Councillor Lorentson: So, that item C be amended? Director Rawlings: Yep. Councillor Lorentson: To include or... To remove. To remove. To remove. To remove. Director Rawlings: Or to defer? Councillor Lorentson: To defer consideration... Of rezoning properties from tourist accommodation to high density residential until a thorough assessment of the economic impacts is conducted. Okay. Director Rawlings: Thank you. Can I suggest we just add after rezoning properties as identified in item 3 of attachment 2? Speaker 1: We're going to need a couple of changes. Oh, no. Sorry. Councillor Wilson: We're all going to take it out.
02:08:00 All of them. Okay. Yeah. We're sort of not really saying where... So, let's start with item 2. Speaker 5: This is item C at the moment. Councillor Lorentson: With a number 1. Item 2 under item C. Currently, we've got item C saying that plus that. Councillor Wilson: So, is this to be an item number 2 under item C? Speaker 2: Yes. Councillor Wilson: Yes. Yes. Okay. Yes. That's right. Right. So, item 2 be added under item C. Speaker 5: Can you... I'm sorry. I'm not sure where to put it. Councillor Lorentson: I'm just trying to work out where it's going. Director Rawlings: Okay. So, Councillor Lorentson, if...
02:09:00 Okay with you. If we could just say defer consideration of rezoning properties from tourist accommodation... To another zone. To another zone. Councillor Lorentson: To another zone. Yeah. Because if we could just say defer consideration of rezoning properties from tourist accommodation... Director Rawlings: We inadvertently pick up other high density zones potentially there. So you just want to defer any changes to the tourist accommodation zone. Thank you very much. Until? Until, yeah. Councillor Lorentson: An assessment of the economic impacts is conducted.
02:10:00 Councillor Wilson: Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Are we, is that an acceptable, is that clear in its intent? Councillor Lorentson: Yep. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. Alright, can we have a seconder for this please? Councillor Finzel: Happy to second for the debate. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you Councillor Finzel. Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: I'm denied and I'm denied about this one, but we talk about, you know, what keeps us up at night. The implications of the decisions that we're making today, if it's deferred next week. That's what kept me up all night. I've had very little sleep. So every decision we make, Councillors, have short term, medium term and long term implications.
02:11:00 This is, you know, every planning scheme change has those implications. What, what I'm concerned about is, have we... I've understood the impacts that, in particular, this rezoning change is going to have on resort managers, on local businesses. You know, what keeps me up at night, we make these changes, have we, in essence, with the stroke of a pen, rendered management rights of resort owners worthless? Have we disrupted? Have we disrupted the livelihoods of our residents and operations? What are the unintended flow on effects of these decisions? What does it mean to a business operator that owns, you know, boat operations or a restaurant owner or coffee owner?
02:12:00 Have we fully understood the economic impacts of these decisions? And I don't believe we have. We keep talking about, you know, economic and social impacts of the decisions that we make. We need to understand these. A lot of these properties that are being transferred or proposed to be transferred from tourist accommodation zoning to high density residential zonings, a lot of them are resorts. Resorts are built, purpose built to accommodate visitors. This is where we want our visitors to stay. So, again, what impact does this decision have? But what are the consequences of this decision for our tourism industry, our economy, and our community, our small business owners who are our residents?
02:13:00 What I'm asking is that we properly understand the economic impacts of these decisions before we proceed. I don't believe any sort of zoning changes. What we're putting at risk is economic stability of our economy. And again, potentially undermining or inadvertently destroying small businesses. People own management rights. All the guys that hire out jet skis, boat operators, restaurant owners, I just think we need to... Just be really, really considered and know what we're signing off on. Mayor Wilkie: Yes, Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I have a question. It is my understanding that the vast majority of all the properties proposed to go from tourist accommodation zone back to a residential zone, were those properties that were zoned
02:14:00 tourist accommodation only four years ago in the 2020 scheme, that all those properties that were subject to that change at pre-existing use rights, that there's been no development in that zone, in those locations in the last four years. So changing it back to a residential zone will have absolutely no impact on the pre-existing use rights. Mayor Wilkie: Was that a question? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes. I'm asking that question. Will it have absolutely no use? Speaker 1: Just in response to that, not all properties were previously in a residential zone that are proposed to go in a tourist accommodation zone. So under the previous 2006 somewhere. So that's not entirely correct. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Sorry, just a clarification. I believe the motion is targeting those that were in a residential zone, went to the tourism accommodation zone in 2020, and are now proposed to go back to a residential zone, rather than the other way around.
135 minutes in ¶
02:15:00 Speaker 1: So the proposed amendments aren't purely changing it to a residential zone. Some of the changes are actually going to a centre zone as well. So under the previous scheme, some of them, you're correct, were in a residential zone that moved into a tourist accommodation zone. Some were, yeah, and some are going back, but that's not the case in all sites. So yeah. But it doesn't impact existing use rights, existing approvals. They can continue. So it doesn't retrospectively. So you can't undertake short term accommodation or visitor accommodation at all. This is about future development of those sites, should they redevelop in the future. Councillor Phillips: To clarify, Councillor Stockwell, though, for the past four years. Yeah, my question is, could the reason why they haven't redeveloped, because we've just had a huge cost of living, decrease, increase in materials, less trades, like, would that
02:16:00 be the reason why redevelopment? Hasn't occurred in the last four years? Director Rawlings: Look, of these sites, unlikely. Then, you know, they're, they're, these, many of these sites will continue as they are for decades and not redevelop. So it's not like we, I can't think of any that would probably have developed and redeveloped or are due for redevelopment in the last four years. So I think that's probably unlikely. This is about, very much about the future. That if, if and when these sites redevelop, that we are preferring residential outcomes, because we need to continue to provide housing for permanent residents. It is not at all retrospective, and they also have existing use rights. Councillor Lorentson: So, so, clarify. So the current zoning already supports mixed use.
02:17:00 So both, short stay in permanent housing. Does that not achieve what we're seeking to achieve, which is housing diversity? So the question is, do we need the rezoning to achieve housing diversity? Speaker 1: Under the tourist accommodation zone, you're correct that multiple dwellings and short term accommodation are both consistent uses. I guess, the intent is that these sites provide an opportunity to deliver permanent housing. We've got a huge extent of land dedicated to short term accommodation. We've got interchangeable use rights that occur from pre-existing approvals from anything built pretty much prior to 2006. So this is about identifying opportunities for housing. And the short term accommodation report, and I guess the review of the tourist accommodation
02:18:00 zone, clearly identifies that we have a huge extent of land dedicated to tourist accommodation, and a huge extent of our residential zones that also allow for interchangeable use rights. So we have enough in terms of going forward of short term accommodation opportunities. This is about housing security, and ensuring that those sites develop for permanent housing and aren't interchangeable, so that we lock them in for permanent residents in the future. And these sites provide redevelopment opportunities on the whole. Director Rawlings: You'll also recall a strong kind of demand from the community that we're really clear about how our zones are used, so that there's not, oh, we can do it both in that zone anyway. We've been moving towards getting a lot clearer about residential zones being for residential uses, tourist zones being for tourist uses. So this advances that to become clearer about where short term accommodation and tourist accommodation
02:19:00 is encouraged, facilitated, wanted, and it should be able to develop freely there, and where residential development should occur. And that should be protected and managed for residential. Our community have and continue to demand confidentiality. And strengthening around both of those aspects. Mayor Wilkie: Question. Can you share a bit about how submissions, including those from the landowners and the tourist accommodation zone, have actually prompted some of these proposed changes? Speaker 1: So the proposed changes are specific to particular sites. So if you like, I could go site by site. So I guess an example is Hulse Lodge to Hulse Lane.
02:20:00 Well, that was just a realignment, so I'll think about another one. An example is 48 Noosa Drive, Noosa Heads, which is the Nomads Backpackers site, which is 12 individual lots, which is currently in the tourist accommodation zone. So under the current, just to give you an idea about under the current requirements, they could develop each individual lot for a house, a single house, underdevelop the site. They could also develop for, I guess, a resort, visitor accommodation, short-term accommodation over the site as well. And multiple dwellings are consistent under the tourist accommodation zone as well. So this site in particular, being a large key site of 12 lots, or one whole lot, its location right in the centre of Noosa Junction, was identified as, and with redevelopment potential, it's underdeveloped, it's got an old building on it now,
02:21:00 was identified as for future housing, high density, to deliver all those housing outcomes we want to see, in terms of small dwellings, worker accommodation, right on the doorstep of a bus interchange, all the services, work, the whole lot. So we had submission on that one, both from the tenant, as well as, a consultant on behalf of the owner, that, highlighting the importance still of low-cost accommodation to Noosa, and that the intent, you know, of the tenant was that hopefully the owner would redevelop it for backpackers, like as in re-establish the building, and there were suggestions from them about why don't you look at a mix over the sites, 12 sites, it's a big site. And yeah, so the importance of tourism was highlighted, and the economy. So in response to that, given its 12 large sites, we're proposing that it continue in a high-density residential zone,
02:22:00 because under our proposed amendments, it will stop houses being built on those individual lots, and under-utilising the site, and provides the opportunity for bonus provisions for small dwellings there as well. But in addition to that, allow additional use of the site, as well. So we've responded there by, you know, allowing a mix of uses in the form of backpackers and motel, in response to that highlight of the importance of low-cost accommodation to the local economy. So we've responded there by, you know, allowing a mix of uses and greater flexibility over the site. Mayor Wilkie: Which is what the landowner and the tenant want. Speaker 1: So there was a mix, there was a mix of responses, but what was being highlighted was that the tourism component, was also important over this site, and we've responded to that. But also, in the context of the bigger picture and outcomes that we want to see in terms of our housing outcomes,
02:23:00 and the size of the site, 12 lots, it could be developed under a master plan arrangement, where we've suggested that, well, no more than 40% of the site should be low-cost accommodation for tourism, and the balance of the site, we still want a housing outcome over that, but leaving it up to the owner of the property or the applicant to come to us and demonstrate how that could be achieved over the site through a master planning process. Mayor Wilkie: You mentioned that all these changes were ratified in the sign-off by the state. When the state is saying that they are okay with these amendments to proceed, what consideration do they leave to social and economic aspects? Yeah. Director Rawlings: So there's two state processes we've moved through the first state process which is the state interest check, and the state interest check is against state planning policy,
02:24:00 policies, and there's a number of those, and also that it meets legislative requirements in terms of process and structure and drafting. And there's a raft of state planning policies that means that the amendments need to meet, You know, significant ones for this are around livability, planning for growth, planning for housing, economic development, they're probably the key ones around this package of amendments, and the state, by getting us through a first state interest check, endorse that these amendments align and meet the requirements of the state planning policy. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Mr Stockwell, I'll speak against the proposal. The amendments are about adopting the change to achieve the housing outcomes and tourism outcomes that we have been planning for since well before 2022.
02:25:00 2022 was a housing new assessment. We also had the tourist accommodation room and the SDA review. The planning scheme sets a future-desired vision. The concept that changing the zone affects management rights and existing lawful use is a contratism. What the real economic impact of continuing to defer everything is, is we fail to address the crisis in housing, which means we fail to provide businesses, Just this week, we had a meeting with one of the Shire's largest employers to look at their sustainability initiatives.
02:26:00 But repeatedly what we heard is their biggest challenge is retaining staff. And they talk about how their base level hospitality workers travel an hour to get to work. But they also talk about how their executives stay for maybe only six to eight weeks because they can't afford the rent. The challenge facing our economy is one about keeping the balance right between permanent residents and tourism. We heard in the report that the estimate is we have a current accommodation for 30,000 visitors as we have did now. So if we were to be full house in tourism, there'd be about a third visitors, two-thirds residents. And we know that that at the moment, according to tourism news figures, is sustaining about a third of our gross regional product. So our economy is already supported. About a third of the gross regional product comes from tourism.
02:27:00 And the suggestion from staff was we have enough. And I think the suggestion from what we hear in the community is we have too much, particularly Tewantin. When we look at the specific changes, and I forgot about some of them, but the ones, I think the majority of them, were in that translation process from the old zone to the new zone in 2020, we put quite a few hectares of land that previously was both a mix of residential and tourism operations into the tourism accommodations area. A lot of these changes are rectifying what was probably over Zell's approach in 2020. And remember that amendment was based on conditions in 2018. The world's changed. We've had COVID. We've had a whole lot of growth in other forms of tourism.
02:28:00 This set of amendments is about looking at the long-term form of the Noosaville and Noosa Heads area and Sunshine Beach and saying, do we want to have residents who can walk to the river? Or should that all go to tourism uses? Do we want to actually encourage that housing choice at the top end so that perhaps the supply at the lower end can become freed up? Because if all we're doing is creating opportunity for tourism accommodation at the top end in the most desirable locations, then that has a triple-down effect on what's available to our residents. So some of these amendments are about saying, this is a great place to live, and long-term we think these are locations where we should have residents. There will always be a mix of residents and tourism, but we're looking at where we're heading. Now, there might be a case we'll lock here and then we agree with. We heard about the Nomex, and that's a classic case.
02:29:00 It is an excellent site for that key worker accommodation. And it's big enough so it can support a substantial redevelopment for the current use of backpackers, as well as perhaps other forms of accommodation if those backpackers want to stay for longer than three months and work in Hastings Street. That's what the amendments allow. To list a whole lot of potential implications of this zoning change that aren't really based in fact, is not a plausible argument. In my perspective, the decision as councils we make today is where we want our residents in the future. Is the extent of tourism accommodation zone justified? And, or is there a need to make it very clear where we want our residents in the future and to zone it appropriately? Councillor Finzel: Can you speak into motion? Speaker 5: Can you speak into motion? Sorry, I guess I'm in.
150 minutes in ¶
02:30:00 Mayor Wilkie: I'll speak. Against the amendment, this is a retrograde step. As we heard from the staff, before it even gets to this stage it has to pass interest checks. That takes into account social as well as economic development implications. To defer only adds to confusion and uncertainty. Industry and the community needs certainty. This process has already been retracted enough. I would be very disappointed if this was supported and we have to engage yet another consultant to do an expensive consultancy to tell us something that we probably already know and get back to this point where we are today. So, for those reasons and more, I cannot support the amendment. Councillor Lorentson: Ms Lorentson, you just close. I will. And I respect conversation around the table.
02:31:00 Like I said, I just wanted to tease this out. Probably, like I said, what keeps me up at night. I keep asking, you know, what are we endorsing today and where will we be in four years' time? Are we actually going to be delivering more housing to house our residents? Are we actually going to be providing affordable housing or is the... Or are we simply going to be just endorsing housing? And diversity. Appreciate the conversation around the table and I'll vote against this as well. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: The amendment to vote those in favour and those against. That's unanimous. Now move on. Any other amendments? Councillor Phillips: Yes. Okay. Thank you. I really wanted to bring that up. Our council mapping, could we? Is that possible to do?
02:32:00 Which side? Just with my amendment for 247 to 257. It'll be in the report, in attachment 2, Kath. Speaker 1: No, there was no change. I'll read this one. Councillor Phillips: I'll read this one. Well, that's happening. It's not in the report, sorry. Councillor Lorentson: We'll have to give it up on that. Councillor Phillips: Yeah, I had them all up last night.
02:33:00 I'll just start. That item 2, the added arm got item C, including an additional proposed change in response to public submissions to attach to as follows. A, 3.12, remove 2.7 to 257 King's Terrace, Noosaville from the proposed high density residential zone and the site remain in its current tourist accommodation zone. And B, 3.13, all proposed amendments referencing the site be reverted back to the existing wording. It kind of flows on from the discussions. Mayor Wilkie: That's my question. Councillor Phillips: Sorry. Yeah, go. Mayor Wilkie: Senator, you're welcome. I didn't. I'll sit. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Okay. Councillor Phillips: Yes, please.
02:34:00 I had it up last night. In fact, I went through every single address that is... Let me just bring this up for myself. With the rezoning from tourist to high density zone. I went through each specific address that we have here on our council mapping facility, which is a great tool, especially with the colours, so I really like that. And what it highlighted, if we can get that mapping up, please, because that will reinforce my point. Okay. Overlay of the map. Thank you.
02:35:00 You could even go out even further. Thank you. Okay. Councillor Phillips: Perfect. Thank you. So, Kimpy Terrace, a stretch of businesses relying heavily on tourist accommodation. Again, I don't know how many times I've said I've lived here my whole life. So, to reinforce, this stretch of Kimpy Terrace has always been tourist accommodation for the purposes of all the businesses and residents, because I frequent there a lot. If we all of a sudden shaded in one lot, I think it's this lot, to high density residential, I feel it is really inconsistent with the entire streetscape of Kimpy Terrace.
02:36:00 I support any residential where it would have access from Edwards Street, James Street. That all makes sense to me, because it's residential. Okay. Thank you. I can't understand why we would start changing accommodation along the road up to, and to reaffirm that I am about residents first, but our residents own businesses and they need tourists. It's been a tourist town for 39 years. I don't want to see those businesses start failing because we don't have tourists in the area. So, all those things, which, yes, residents do, from a short walk from Elizabeth, Edwards, and every other street where our locals live. So, again, I just, it does not make sense that all of a sudden I'll have mapping up
02:37:00 there and three lots will be red. For urban design purposes, from every other aspect I can look at, it just doesn't make sense. I can't. Okay. I would like to see that returned to tourism, because it makes sense to me. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I have a question. Can staff explain what was proposed for this site? Speaker 1: Yes. So, there is a proposal that from, on Gympie Terrace, from James Street down to the site that has been highlighted, which is the 247, that whole frontage, as well as what's coming down. This is the proposal. So, it's, I don't know. It's not an isolated site that's proposed for inclusion in the high-density residential. It's a strip and a precinct that was identified, particularly from James Street down to Edwards
02:38:00 Street, is all residential, permanently occupied buildings, and then from Edwards Street down to 247, Gympie Terrace. So, this is a mixed-use, allowed under the, sorry, they're mixed-use buildings, which have commercial ground floor, some second story, with a mix of uses, which are both office local services, as well as some restaurants and the like. So, the proposal is that that section be included in the high-density residential, and continue to allow for a mixed-use ground floor outcome, and a broader range of business types. But when it, should it redevelop, and quite a few properties there have redevelopment potential, it would be allowed to go to three storeys with permanent residential dwellings
02:39:00 above. Councillor Phillips: And if that was to work, our question, if that was to be redeveloped, does this kick in the 100 square metre? Speaker 5: Yes. Councillor Phillips: That's what we're proposing would be redeveloped there, to be affordable. Thank you. So, I understand. Speaker 1: As proposed by these changes, the small dwelling size was being reinstated at 100 square metres, and it's an opt-in in the high-density residential, if they want the bonus provisions. These particular sites of Fronting and Gympie Terrace do have a different gross floor area outcome that is permitted, which is high density. But it's not mandatory that they must be small dwellings. So, the intent here was that this, you know, to reinforce what was already happening there,
02:40:00 which is predominantly a permanent residence, to recreate that residential neighbourhood, along with that being a local centre, services visitors as well. But should it redevelop, that those dwellings be for permanent residents, and that permanent residents have the opportunity to also live in high amenity areas on the river as well. Thank you. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just, to clarify something you said, you said that it would retain the mixed use with a broader suite of uses permissible. Is that suggesting, like I know in the Tourism Accommodation there's a limited set of commercial, the way we set up to actually increase the different businesses that could establish areas that are redeveloped? Is that what you're saying? Speaker 1: I will have to check the detail, but that was the intent of all of these. And the same with the change of inclusion in district centres. So, you know, there's a range of commercial uses being broadened, because under, under the Tourist Accommodation Zone, the range of commercial uses are limited, and are
02:41:00 meant to focus on tourism outcomes, and tourism uses, and supporting visitors, as opposed to residents. Councillor Lorentson: Just out of curiosity, when I just Googled 247 Macy's Secret Restaurant, is that listed as, of some heritage significance? Yes. Yes, it is. Yes it is. It is of local significance. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: And, if councillors wish to speak to the amendment before councillor Phillips closes. Anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I think the staff, Councillor Foote's question was she expressed she would like to understand the reasons for the changes. The staff have given the answers. I hope that's been helpful. I support the staff recommendation that these changes allow our residents also to live permanently by the river.
02:42:00 I don't share Councillor Phillips' concern that the businesses along the river will have any shortage of visitors to buy the coffees. I think residents love buying coffees as well. And I don't think these changes will adversely affect the operation of businesses along the river. But I do thank Councillor Phillips for bringing her concerns to our attention. Councillor Phillips: I'll just ask a quick question before I close then. It's a good point. Thank you. The Mazeys being heritage, does that mean that ever can be redeveloped if it's turned into high density? Speaker 1: It sits at the front of an existing site that already is developed. So there is no development potential probably left on that site.
02:43:00 The change of its inclusion in the high density was about, I guess, from a land use planning perspective saying, well, this is for permanent dwellings because the majority of those dwellings are occupied by permanent dwellings. So rather than it being a redevelopment opportunity on that particular site. Mayor Wilkie: So just to clarify, this is an important point. You're saying this proposed change reflects existing use there. As well. Or that a lot of permanent residents do already live there. That's right. Correct. Councillor Phillips: I will close. And it probably came off the amendment that Councillor Lorentson had put in around the economic value. I can't, I'm just asking councillors to, like, hand on heart, can we say this, these changes aren't going to impact our businesses.
02:44:00 And I fully support residents. I know we buy coffees, I do. It's not, it's not just about that. It's about making sure that for longevity, we have a balance. And for that reason, I really feel that that particular site can be re-developed. And that's why we're going to stay in tourist accommodation, because it makes sense. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Phillips. We'll put the amendment to the vote. Those in favour? Councillor Phillips. Those against? Councillor Finzel, Stockwell, Wilson, Lorentson and Woodmark and Wilkie. The amendment's lost. Does anyone have any other amendments they'd like to? Councillor Wilson. Speaker 1: I do, yes. Relating to the Islander Resort, please. Councillor Wilson: Councillor Wilson. So, the... Oh, sorry, I don't need a seconder. So, I want to amend item 3.9 in attachment 2 to read lots 20 to 28, GTP 2026, and lots
165 minutes in ¶
02:45:00 1 to 3, GTP 2743, fronting Gympie Terrace. And now adding, and lots 1 to 5, GTP 2026, fronting Thomas Street at 185, Gympie Terrace, be removed from the proposed district centre zone and main street prison and remain in the tourist accommodation zone. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Could we have a... Oh, a second. Thank you. Councillor Phillips. Councillor Wilson: Councillor Wilson. This is an item where I would have liked more time to get into the... stuck into the detail here. An example of where, although we have talked about this one in the workshops and there was a change made already, so originally the recommendation was to put the lots fronting Gympie Terrace into the district centre zone as well, and then it was just... they were put back into tourist accommodation and now just five lots on Thomas Street are proposed. So the... I guess the reason I'm writing this now is because I hadn't actually read the full submission
02:46:00 on this matter before, so we've kind of talked about parts of it. I'll read a few parts out. So I've got a few extracts from that submission. Commercial lots along Thomas Street have common property areas, shared infrastructure, toilets, pathways, bin bays, and security gates. There is a new gate of access that cannot be redeveloped without all owners voting at an EGM. The commercial lots are already built to the three levels under the plan. There's no opportunity to add extra floor. The current approval on the site allows for both short-term accommodation and permanent accommodation anyway. We suggest it's uneconomical to introduce a district centre that opens the scheme to small dwellings for permanent residents. These redevelopments or uses are best left to the current zoning to give owners this choice. Over the years, many owners have chosen permanent letting over short-stay, and we will expect this will continue. And so, if I had more time to dig into this one, I guess I'd want to be thinking about the body corporate and the decisions that would need to be made, and whether it's really
02:47:00 worth singling out five lots from such a big resort, as it might just cause a lot of issues for the owners there. I don't really know. I don't think we have any questions yet. This is one I'd really like to spend more time talking about. But at this point, I don't think there's necessarily any urgency to take those five lots out of the tourist accommodation zone. Mayor Wilkie: To assist all councillors, could you give us an explanation on why we're striving to propose changes there, please? Speaker 1: The benefits? Sure. Part of the review of the tourist accommodation zone is that it's not just for the residents. It's an opportunity to create a true local main street, or district centre main street for Noosaville, which doesn't exist because it is a tourist accommodation
02:48:00 strip. With the extension of the district centre zone, which is over what is now, you know, you can call it maybe big box development, but to get a real main street outcome in Thomas Street. So, the intent there was that a district centre zone with a main street precinct over it would be applied to that area. And I guess the inclusion of these lots in Thomas Street. I guess if there wasn't a big resort there, they would be zoned district centre because that is the desired intent for that street. These particular blocks remaining. It was recognised in response to the submission that the lots fronting Gimpy Terrace were probably going to be zoned in Thomas Street. The main idea of the main street. It was kind of a little bit further on. They really are more integrated with the resort. The lots fronting Thomas Street are fairly standalone and somewhat removed from the resort.
02:49:00 They are ageing. It's not unusual for, for particular lots in a body corporate arrangement to be redeveloped. And there's plenty of examples in Noosaville where that's occurred. So, it was about if they were redeveloped that the outcome was achieving those main street outcomes we want to see and the district centre outcomes and that the residential component be for permanent dwellings in the future as part of that desired outcome for the district centre as being one of the key suppliers of our small dwelling supplies. Mayor Wilkie: Well, it would be possible to get this side up on the Macintosh. Just for clarity's sake. Yeah. Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. I might mention that this site was previously split zone like this under the previous plan. Under Noosa plan 2006 it had a split zoning as well.
02:50:00 And under Noosa plan 2020 it all came together under one, the tourist accommodation zone. So, it's not, it's, it's not unprecedented. Yeah. Mayor Wilkie: Shall I stop this? Yeah. Speaker 5: Yeah. Speaker 1: Those five are proposed to be retained. And it is. Yeah. Mayor Wilkie: So, they're the shops? Speaker 1: They're, they're, they're the commercial mix. Yeah. The shops. Shops. So, as you can see, the recommendation is that in response to the commission that yes, we do remove these and they can remain in the tourist accommodation zone. Because the main focus is, this is the main street centre here. And we've also responded to taking off the active budget requirement for that development in response to the submission as well. So, it's really just the edges of Pee Pee Terrace where that would be required.
02:51:00 These are quite isolated from the balance of, of the, of the resort. And they do front that main street environment. So, the intent was, should they redevelop, the intent would be that we, our desired outcome would be that it be for district centre and the residential component be for third street Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just a question, more so than the last example, a district centre zone would provide the owners with a much greater flexibility in terms of the tenancy of those commercial premises, is that correct? Speaker 1: That's correct. Mayor Wilkie: So it would be to the advantage of the owners? Speaker 1: There would be a great range of commercial uses, yes, but the short-term accommodation use would be inconsistent. And obviously there is an ability to apply for existing use rights or whatever it may be, but our intent is that the district centres deliver permanent dwellings to the residents and care workers.
02:52:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. So just a clarification on that. The permanent residence would be triggered by redevelopment, however the zone would allow some flexibility without redevelopment in the ground floor. While retaining the existing use rights in the ground floor, is that correct? Speaker 1: That is correct. They would be committed to continue their current use of short-term accommodation if that is what they're using it for. Councillor Lorentson: Just a quick question, you say that one of the key outcomes is to deliver housing for our key workers. Is that likely? Is units along Gympie Terrace actually going to be affordable? Speaker 1: So key workers are us. Key workers are our nurses, emergency supply people, teachers, not just hospitality workers. So yes, I do believe it's feasible. What this delivers is a range in dwelling sizes, so anything from a studio up to a small three bedroom dwelling in a range of affordability price points that we're lacking at the moment.
02:53:00 So we're not saying they have to be affordable under our affordability. I think that's the definition. But it certainly provides housing diversity in a range of affordability, so yes. Mayor Wilkie: Anybody else would wish to speak in the name of Councillor Wilson closes? Councillor Wilson. Councillor Wilson: Yeah, I will close. Just coming back to the fact that the submission said that the lots can't be redeveloped without all owners voting at an AGM. So at this point, I'm not clear of how this would actually impact owners and the body parts of the property. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. I'll put the amendment those in favour. Councillor Wilson, those against. Councillor Finzel, Stockwell, Lorentson, Wegener, Phillips and Wilkie, amendments lost. Do we have any more amendments?
02:54:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I do have an amendment. It's a further amendment to item C and it's to add whatever the next number is. Please Cathy. And I'll read it out then. And it's to read with the exception that the proposed changes in response to public submissions identified as 2.5. Wrong one. I've got it this time. With the exception of clause 9.1 and attachment 2 and reword this clause to provide further clarity as follows. Removes 100 metre and 20 metre building setbacks for boundaries of lots that are joint privately owned properties that are proposed for inclusion in the environment management and conservation zone as part of these amendments.
02:55:00 The normal 10 metre setback will continue to apply for side and rear boundaries for buildings and structures in the rural zone. Mayor Wilkie: Can we have a seconder for that please? Thank you Councillor Lorentson. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So this doesn't propose a change to what's recommended. It's proposing, it's just, it's clarifying exactly what was intended. The wording that I read in the report was, I came with a different interpretation. So we've been in conversation with the staff who agreed that it would be better to really explicitly state what is proposed. As I said, it is exactly in line with the staff's recommendation just to say it's more, it's not to say it's significant but more really. Mayor Wilkie: Can we just get the staff to speak on that please? Director Rawlings: Yeah, that's exactly right. There was potentially room for interpretation in how it was currently written. So this just clarifies exactly what the intent of the change is. Just for context, you will recall that we have had a number of properties that have voluntary conservation agreements over them opt in to seek to want to provide further environmental protection to their properties.
02:56:00 So this has been an opt in by a number of landowners. So we are applying the environmental management and conservation zone to those properties with VCAs. With the environmental management and conservation zone, there are buffers. That come with those required to adjoining properties. So inadvertently by applying the zone to these properties, it has the potential to impact their adjacent properties. Which was never intended, not intended. It was raised through submissions to us and we were like, yeah absolutely, that was not in the intent. This is an opt in for that landowner to have environmental protection on their property. There is not intended to be off site. So this is just clarifying that.
02:57:00 Thank you. Any further questions? Mayor Wilkie: Any more questions from staffing? Speaker 5: I would probably like to be a bit more comfortable. But that last sentence, the normal ten minutes that they will continue to apply. Within the rural and the rural residential zone, there are so many different setbacks. Which are relevant to the specific thing you are setting back. Whether it is a building or an animal use or whatever. So I would feel a bit more comfortable if you just said the normal setback rather than nominate ten minutes. Councillor Wegener: I would be happy with that if the rest of the council is just taking out the word ten minutes or the number. Speaker 5: There is a lot of variance in those zones.
02:58:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And that would then make setbacks, setbacks. If the council is happy with it. Mayor Wilkie: Are all councils happy with that change to this technical amendment? Do you wish to close? Oh sorry, any further comments? Do you wish to close council Stockwell? I will put the amendment to the vote goes in favour. That is unanimous. Any more amendments? Councillor Phillips: Yes. Question. Oh is there any more amendments? No, no. Questions any time. Do you mind just with point seven. The mandatory small dwellings requirement in the medium and high density residential zones endure as inconsistent in medium density residential zones on lots 600 square metre or greater. I went over and over this just reading it. And can I just get some clarity. Because it could be my interpretation. But it feels like we are saying it could be interpreted that the 75%. Needs to be in the small dwelling, not the main dwelling.
02:59:00 And again it could be my tired. I just. Director Rawlings: Can you. Speaker 1: It's not clear enough for me. Okay. So, yeah, sure. So, the mandatory 75% of all residential gross floor areas is small dwellings was the proposal that was advertised. Okay. So, the right hand column 6.1, 6.2, 6.3 is what we're proposing the change to be. So, we're no longer requiring mandatory small dwellings in the high, medium and high density residential zone. We're going back to the current arrangement which is an opt in to small dwelling provisions and opt in for the bonus provisions. So, nothing is mandatory. So, we're removing the mandatory small dwellings. So, the left hand column was what was advertised. Yeah. The right hand column is the proposed change.
180 minutes in ¶
03:00:00 Director Rawlings: So, we've got a number of. Yeah. We've got a number of submissions around that issue. So, we're reverting back to the current provisions. Councillor Phillips: Okay. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Thank you, clarity. Okay. Councillor Launce. Just a question that's come from residents and myself. Why is low cost accommodation including short term accommodation being included in the STA as part of the rezoning package? Will this re or new definition to include short term accommodation, will that have the effect of increasing supply of STAs? And I'll quote the definition to now include additional consistent uses of low cost accommodation, short term accommodation with backpackers or motels subject to impact assessment over a maximum 40% of the site area and subject to impact assessment. Okay. Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you. So, the planning scheme or the definitions under the planning scheme which are regulated
03:01:00 by the state of short term accommodation includes self-contained dwellings as well as backpackers and motels under that definition. So, what we're proposing is that we limit the range of short term accommodation on that particular site to what we've termed low cost accommodation, backpackers and motels. So, not only do we limit the range of short term accommodation on that particular site, but we do not self-contain short term accommodation dwellings. It's just the way that the definition groups a range of visitor types of accommodation under the term short term accommodation. Director Rawlings: And it's specific to that site? Speaker 1: Yeah. And it's specific to that site. So, the only increase in visitor accommodation types on that that we're suggesting is for backpackers and motel. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Yeah. Just to clarify, I think the same or similar wording is used for the whole slide. So, another side where traditionally backpackers has been the main use. Speaker 5: Yeah. All right. Mayor Wilkie: We'll go back to the original motion.
03:02:00 Unless there are any more amendments to which only I have spoken. Does anyone wish to speak to the original motion? With the two amendments that were passed. Do you mind? With the two amendments that were passed. With the two amendments that were passed. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. No. Councillor Lorentson: I would like to move a procedural motion. Yep. And I would like to move a procedural motion that we defer the decision making until next Thursday. Thank you. Right. You can leave. Speaker 2: . Mayor Wilkie: So we've had advice from the CEO that the meeting will be adjourned until next... Councillor Lorentson: I'm happy if it achieves the same outcome. It's just a... Absolutely. It's just a... So that council note the report to the advice strategy and sustainability manager to the special meeting dated 5th December 2024 regarding proposed amendments number 2 to the
03:03:00 new supply in 2020 and adjourn the meeting to a later time should be determined by the chief executive officer to allow councillors further opportunity to consider the details and implications of the report. Speaker 5: Oh, thanks. Councillor Lorentson: And Councillor Lorentson? I don't think I need to really go on about it. I think we are all exhausted and sleep deprived. And I think, again, considering the significance and the impact of the decisions that we're going to be making. Today, I think it's in the... Our community's best interest that we're alert and fully informed. So I think this is just common sense. Mayor Wilkie: Any other councillors wish to speak to the motion to adjourn? Councillor Wegener: Councillor Wynne? I feel as though the questions were answered.
03:04:00 We're here. We've really gone through what needed to be done. And we are councillors. We need to make decisions. This is what we are here to do. And I think we have a very... We should make the decision right here and now. And not put off. Not... It just... It opens up a can of worms. But more importantly, we have gone through the process. And I think we've come to a place where it's time to make decisions. We all have. There are questions answered. We've been here in the morning. And if we have more questions, we have more time. Councillor Phillips: Councillor Wynne? Councillor Phillips? I'll speak on it. I had to write it down because I am tired. Sorry. As someone who's dedicated my career to evidence-based decision-making during my time in the police service, I firmly believe taking necessary time to fully understand all the facts before I can act. I've never just arrested someone without solid evidence. And I cannot in good conscience vote today.
03:05:00 Which is why I want to support just a few days to digest the amount of report and submissions that I would like to go through more. I did a bit of reflecting on the 2020 plan when I was thinking about this. And I had a toddler and... Well, I had two kids under four. And I did a bit of reflecting on the 2020 plan when I was thinking about this. And I had no idea the 2020 plan came out. And I've lived here my whole life. And I think I want to speak on behalf of just so many busy people. And I'm one of them. I'm juggling the job. I'm making really good decisions, hopefully, for a community's best interest. And I'm asking personally for just some time. I'm exhausted. As a councillor, I'm not just a councillor. I'm a mother of two. My phone doesn't stop. It hasn't stopped in the last week around Kin Kin, Cooroy last week, around so many foreshore
03:06:00 plan, which is out of consultation. My phone and emails haven't stopped. Our residents are balancing the same demands and probably more leading into Christmas. I just need more time. I can make decisions. I've made life-threatening decisions on the spot. So I can make a decision. And I can make a decision. And it's not about that. It's that I want to, with this, make a really informed, not tired decision on what we are potentially changing the future of what Noosa looks like. Mayor Wilkie: I think Councillor Phillips. Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Look, I thank you for bringing this forward, Councillor Lorentson. Given what's been spoken around the table, I think it is just a pause button. I think that just shows respect. Back to the councillors that have, especially the new councillors that have, you know, want to do their job with excellence.
03:07:00 We support that. I'll support the motion. I think it's important. And I think also given the amount of emails and uncertainty that community has not fully understand the process. We have the, you know, the benefit of being in here. We fully understand that. I think also it gives them time to go back today and look at the process. I think it's important that we get this filled. And then hopefully some of their concerns have been eliminated when they've heard the answers to the questions. I'm happy to support it. Noting also that we do want to get this moved forward because it is very imperative that we don't miss this opportunity to get this back to state in a timely manner. Given the years and the amount of time and work, it is critical that hopefully the CEO gives us that opportunity but comes back within a, you know, a couple of weeks. I think it's important that we have a reasonable timeframe to make sure that this decision doesn't impact those critical timelines.
03:08:00 Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Finstone. Councillor Wilson. Councillor Wilson: I'll speak to the motion as well. We've talked a lot about staff wellbeing lately. And looking at the faces of these very tired people around the room, you can see that this team has been through a lot in this process. And now also acknowledging that the wellbeing of councillors is also important. And making sure we make the right decisions. I don't think this gave us the best opportunity to make the decisions today. And so I would just also like a little bit of time. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Mr Stockwell. Yeah, when I came to the meeting, I was with Councillor Wegener. Certainly for myself, I haven't had that blow up long enough. But as I said, I'll probably deal with these sort of matters in a different way to other councillors who might like to get a very, very detailed review. And I think that's a great appreciation. What wasn't said in the debate that I ever heard this statement is, if we want council
03:09:00 role to be available to a diversity of people, we have to take account to their lifestyle like our mums. And I think that's probably the biggest decision is that we don't want to be saying just because it's okay for me that I have that same way to get my head around it. Does that make a difference? So I will support the amendment. And. Mr Speaker. Mr Davis, you're right. Mr Davis. Councillor Finzel: No, he's the chairman. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Mr Davis. Mr Davis. My bad. In full recognition, that there's going to be lobbying happening. And if they're lobbying, they try and influence certain council designs. I think all the decisions are resolved. I think the key issues for this amendment have been resolved. Thank you. There may be one or two areas of lots that some councillors may want to just get their mind around, but substantive decisions have been made.
03:10:00 And I want to make it really clear that adjourning it isn't for the purposes of community consultation. We were elected to make this decision. It's one of the most important decisions you make in a term of council. And to be fair and unbiased in our approach to community engagement, I think it's important to note that having certain more connected individuals or groups influence our decision post receiving advice on the sum of all submissions does threaten the process. So be aware. We're always up to being lobbied. But be aware that the process of community consultation happened months ago. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Mr Stockwell. Look, I think the tribe has spoken. I do really appreciate hearing from the councillors about the way this process has impacted
03:11:00 them. I think anyone watching today will get an appreciation that it may look easy, but it's not an easy job. And this is the job. I would also like to compliment staff, because if you think we're under pressure here today, or have been during the workshops, or during the meetings, or during the meetings, or during the meetings, I think you do need to digest and absorb all this information. I know you do have regard for the staff. You can read this for three years now. So I just want to acknowledge that. Councillor Stockwell makes a good point. The consultation process was extensive. The submissions have been addressed and reflected in the proposed amendments. We've tested amendments to those amendments, to those amendments, to those amendments Thank you all for joining us today, they've reflected some individuals concerns and they've been tested and we've dealt with them.
03:12:00 So I will support my fellow councillors in this procedural motion, but I just want to compliment you on the way you've worked through these issues today. This is the process, this is the work of the local government. It is difficult and it does have implications. I'd like to commend the councillors for wanting to take the time they need to get it right. We also have regard to the advice, the professional advice, written and spoken that we've received from the staff. It has been excellent from the second to none. That's why I have no problems with ratifying the planning scheme amendments today. But I can see where this is heading. I'm going to support the councillors for this adjournment. Councillor Lorentson: I will close. I want to recognise the complexity and the importance of the matter before us.
03:13:00 Decisions we make today, like I said, is going to have a profound impact on Noosa, its character, what it looks like, its liveability, what are these costs to our lifestyles. It's also going to have an impact on the trust the community places in us. As they're elected... Mayor Wilkie: We're just talking about whether we adjourn the meeting or not. Councillor Lorentson: I am. I am. I'm talking about why we should be adjourning. I need the time to ask these sorts of questions between now and when the adjournment happens. I want to ask, have we truly listened to the community? Have we really understood the impacts of these decisions in front of us? Um... Being ourselves. Are we truly going to ever achieve what we're seeking to achieve, which is affordable housing?
03:14:00 Um... Or are we just chasing an ideal? Um... Today and why the adjournment's in front of us is we're discussing process. Um... We've had three days to read and analyse and digest the information, the submissions for the first time. 136 pages of it. And as councillor Jess mentioned, whilst balancing our other responsibilities. Monday I think I had a 10 hour day. Um... We need to make fully informed and thoughtful decisions and we need to have sleep. This is not about avoiding difficult decisions. We understand our role as councillors. This is about respect. Respect for our community to ensure that they know that we have had time and we have the clarity to make the right choices for them. Um... Stakes are high and our community needs or deserves nothing but the best of us.
195 minutes in ¶
03:15:00 And that means we need to be alert. Mayor Wilkie: Put the procedural motioners in favour. That's councillor Finzel, Stockwell, Wilson, Lorentson, Phillips and Wilkie. Those against. Councillor Wegener. The procedural motion is carried. The meeting is adjourned. 11 o'clock. 11.45. Thank you everyone today. Speaker 3: Thanks guys. Speaker 2: For your work. Councillor Wilson: Thank you.