There’s a necessary and (mostly) healthy debate going on at the moment as we discuss some proposed changes to the Noosa Plan – changes that I support, in principle, because all of us should have the opportunity to share in what Noosa has to offer.
While the submissions made to the draft proposals will be valuable to help us refine the amendments, I am taking this opportunity to provide the case for change.
In basic terms, we must protect the environment and lifestyle that are at the core of Noosa’s difference and success. And we must use the relatively small local levers at our disposal to rebalance our development to give our lower paid workers, struggling families and older residents a chance. Finally, with a State Government imposing targets for regional population growth, Councils seen to be in denial will be inviting higher level intervention. The implied threat is ‘Do your bit, or we will do it for you’.
THE REAL STORY BEHIND THE STOREYS
Let’s toss some facts and perspective into the debate around building heights. It was in 1988 in my first term as a councillor that I raised my hand to support the proposed scheme amendment to reduce the maximum number of storeys from six to four. The policy was based on maintaining the built environment below the tree line.
The look and feel of Noosa Shire is underpinned by the human-scale of its built environment. Controlling the height and bulk of buildings is quintessential to conserving the qualities of the place we call home.
So what’s proposed? Since 1988 tourism developments have been able to build to a maximum of four storeys in height in the Tourism Accommodation Zone (and its predecessors) in some areas of Noosa Heads. The amendments propose to offer an incentive for developers wishing to include a percentage of social and affordable housing in the Junction and the Noosa Business Centre to go up to that limit for residential development. The aim is to relieve the current critical shortage in small and affordable housing.
It’s essential we set building design parameters to achieve the sort of high quality outcomes we need for these areas.
If it’s OK for our visitors to Hastings St, why shouldn’t it be okay for developments suited to the 68 per cent of shire residents who live in one or two person households.
Also, the maximum building height, for what is likely to be only a handful of sites taking advantage of the incentive provisions, is proposed to increase marginally to 14m. This is about the same as the existing cinema complex in the Junction from street level. Surely if it is okay for entertainment facilities, it is OK to house our key workers and aging population.
This is not the ‘thin edge of the wedge’ in a process of ‘Maroochyfication’ of Noosa. The four storeys are already there, just not for our residents.
It is about intervening in one of the most unaffordable housing markets in Australia (and hence the world) to provide options for key workers as well as individuals and couples struggling to maintain a roof over their heads at current market rates.
We need to increase housing choice to meet the areas of highest demand.
Last year 81 per cent of Noosa residents on the social housing wait list were single people. 19 per cent were single people over 55 years of age. Single women over 55 are the fastest growing demographics in need of housing. For example, the Sunshine Coast/ Noosa based Housing Cooperative Coast2Bay report that 51 per cent of their existing tenants are 55 or older.
At the same time our working age population is decreasing. Many young people have been driven out of town to find more affordable housing. While we are not an island, Noosa’s working age cohort decreased by 7.4 per cent between 2001 and 2021 – a long-term threat to a sustainable local economy.
Employers have had to go to extraordinary lengths to attract and retain staff. For example, one local aged care organisation currently has a development application with council that proposes staff quarters for 28 people as well as expanding its offering for the aged. Our younger workers frequently fill the lower paid jobs that are so important for our health, aged and child care and in the hospitality industry. However, in 2021 we had half the state average of people in their 20s living in the shire.
As we age, we need more services to support our lifestyle and health needs. In 2021, 28 per cent of shire residents were over 65 years of age… nearly double the figure 20 years earlier.
Forecasts suggest this age bracket will form one-third of the shire by 2041. If we can’t create housing opportunities for key workers then we may face difficult choices when we are looking for home assistance or a local aged care facility in our 70s or 80s.
YES, THE POPULATION CAP STILL FITS
Noosa is renowned for what is popularly referred to as a ‘population cap’. While many think it relates to a specific number set down in the 1997 Strategic Plan, in reality it is a set of planning principles that we apply to manage growth. In essence what makes us different is our pursuit of an economy based on limiting land use and population to sustainable levels and ensuring social and economic infrastructure keeps pace with growth while protecting our conservation assets.
The Noosa Plan 2020 applies these principles in a far more sophisticated way than was available in 1997 and consequently increases the area protected for nature and food production, and has larger areas excluded from development as a result of flooding, bushfire, acid sulphate soil and landslide hazards. There is only one sustainable land use criteria considered back in 1997 which has exceeded the carrying capacity – traffic. We now see the capacity of our road network being exceeded. While some of this is from Noosa population growth, the increase in day tripping visitors from the growth elsewhere in SEQ is probably the main culprit.
The amendments include specific provisions to address the issue, in part, by reducing the need for private cars by increasing dwellings in highly connected centres. The proposed changes to car parking requirements are based on advice of experts in the field and reflect successful initiatives elsewhere in Australia.
THE MOUNTING RISK OF DOING NOTHING
While some may argue that avoiding the proposed changes will protect the fundamentals of planning in Noosa, I believe the reverse is true. There are potential perverse outcomes from inaction. For example, there is very limited unconstrained, cleared and undeveloped land within the statutory urban footprint. If we were to abandon plans to create new dwellings in consolidated urban centres, in preference for more greenfield detached dwelling development, it is likely to be at the expense of our forested and agricultural lands.
But more likely if we don’t meet the statutory targets set by the state government in the SEQ Regional Plan, then we are inviting their intervention. Even a cursory look will reveal how other states have usurped the planning powers of local government. This, in my opinion, is a significant threat to effective urban design and growth management in Noosa. We have already seen legislative change that allows bureaucrats in the Queensland Government to assess developments proposing only small amounts of affordable housing.
The statutory plan includes a dwelling supply target for Noosa Shire that requires an additional 5000 dwellings between 2021 and 2046, equating to 200 new dwellings per year. While the government’s ‘one size fits all’ model projected unrealistic population growth, these figures were not targets to be met. However, the state will be expecting each local government to show how they meet the dwelling targets set by the plan.
We cannot hold back the tide of population growth, but we must do what we can to contain it.
In my opinion we must take heed of the current external pressures and demonstrate how we can sustainably manage growth in a way that retains our community values without the need for intervention from higher levels of government.
Disclaimer:
These opinions are my own, not necessarily those of Noosa council. Council staff are currently assessing all submissions and we will need to consider their report and recommendations to determine the final make-up of the amendments to be sent to the state government for approval.
