At Thursday’s Ordinary Meeting, councillors voted on two significant planning matters.
The first was a notified motion I put forward to strengthen how Council communicates planning scheme provision changes. That motion received unanimous support. Later, councillors voted on Amendment No. 2 to the Noosa Plan. The amendment was adopted by a majority of 4:3. I voted against — because while I support the goals of housing choice and affordability, the provisions adopted in the Medium Density Residential Zone, in my opinion (imo), go too far, removing existing property rights, reducing flexibility for families, and putting Noosa out of step with the rest of Queensland.
Two different outcomes but linked by the same principle: the responsibility to protect residents’ rights and maintain their trust in Council’s planning process.
The motion on notification was born out of the issues exposed during Amendment No. 2. Too often, residents only discovered late in the process that their property rights were being affected. This is not a failure of staff or Council — it is a gap in the Planning Act. Under current law, only zoning changes require direct notification to landowners. Provision changes — such as restrictions on dual occupancies or limits on dwelling houses — do not. Yet provision changes can have just as much impact on what people can do with their land, and in some cases, on its value. Buried in long, technical documents, they are easy to miss.
That’s why the notified motion I put forward called for Council to adopt a more direct and tailored approach — so that landowners are made aware when provisions could affect them and given simple tools to understand the consequences. This is about closing the gap, improving transparency, and ensuring residents are never left in the dark again.
But improving communication was only half of the issue. The other was the substance of Amendment No. 2 itself. While the amendment is framed to increase housing choice, affordability, and sustainable growth — goals that are important and worth supporting — the provisions in the Medium Density Residential Zone, imo, come at too high a cost.
Under the adopted rules:
Dwelling houses are restricted to lots under 500m².
Secondary dwellings are capped at 65m².
Dual occupancies are limited to lots under 600m².
On lots 600m² or greater, dual occupancies are no longer permitted. The only option becomes multiple dwellings — three or more.
This removes the middle ground. Families on smaller lots are left with only a single dwelling, a granny flat, or a dual occupancy. Families on larger lots lose the option of a modest dual occupancy and are pushed toward bulky, multi-unit complexes. Across Queensland, dwelling houses are a basic right in residential zones, including medium density. Noosa will now stand alone as the first council in the state to remove the right to build a dual occupancy in Medium Density, while also limiting dwelling houses. That makes our shire an outlier — and imo not in a way that benefits local families.
Some have suggested residents can preserve their rights under the “old rules.” But under the Planning Act, that is only possible for 12 months to lodge an application and two years to substantially start building. In reality, unless families have $60,000 to $100,000 for architects, approvals, and finance ready to go, they cannot meet those conditions. Their rights will not be preserved. They will be lost.
And the community was clear on this point. Submissions, petitions, and countless conversations all carried the same message: “We don’t want this.” When I door-knocked in affected neighbourhoods, nearly every resident said they had no idea these changes would affect them — and when they did find out, they felt their voices had not been heard.
Planning should be about choice and flexibility. Families should be able to decide what works for them: a single dwelling, a modest secondary dwelling, or two independent homes on one lot. Taking that choice away reshapes the character of neighbourhoods, reduces options, and changes how families live and plan for the future.
As I said during the meeting, my role as a councillor is to protect residents’ rights, not voluntarily hand them away. And that is why I voted against it.
(The Notice of Motion was supported unanimously. A margin of 4: 3 adopted the Noosa Plan Amendment 2. I accept the view of the majority. What I have shared here is my opinion, and what I said at the meeting, and not the formal position of Council.)
