Noosa Chamber of Commerce president Ralph Rogers said it is little wonder the state parliament enacted a state-driven assessment process as an alternate pathway for decisions about development.
Noosa is a case example of how local governments put the brakes on local economies and important matters such as affordable housing, he said.
Mr Rogers said key strategies in Noosa such as the planning scheme, the recent draft Noosa Plan amendments, the draft Noosaville Foreshore Infrastructure Plan and the draft Destination Management Plan have not been underpinned by economic studies and business impact analyses.
The council is assiduous in hiring consultants to prepare reports about flood hazards, bushfires, coastal erosion, climate change, and the like, he said.
“Social and economic sustainability ought to be given the same weighting as the environment when it comes to planning and decision-making, but they are not,“ says Rogers.
“The housing needs analyses and the housing strategy are the exception, though these unfortunately have not translated into viable solutions and outcomes.”
“The Noosa Plan is treated by Council as a non-negotiable decree instead of being used as one input to complex decision-making. Rigid requirements and one-size-fits-all rules can never take into account all factors of each particular case or balance out the needs of the community,” said Rogers.
“There are many good values embedded in the Noosa Plan and Council’s Corporate Plan, such as conserving the environment, maintaining a village-like look and feel, Noosa style architecture, safeguarding heritage, protecting residents’ amenity.
“But when it comes to other important priorities, rigid planning rules end up being obstacles instead of facilitating resident wellbeing.
Residents’ livelihoods, local business sustainability, healthcare, and accommodation for low income residents and key workers, such as aged car workers, ambulance, fire and police officers, all end up being collateral damage, Mr Rogers said.
“A big leap forward would be to include economic impact analyses to underpin Council strategies and plans and to impose economic and social benefit assessment of DA applications by Council. Social, economic, and environmental considerations should be given equal weighting.”
While a large percentage of simple code assessable development applications are approved by council staff, proposed refusals and impact assessable applications for material change of use (MCUs) are complex and tabled for decision by Council. Rational judgement is required, he said.
“The planning scheme should be used as a directional document, a guide. Instead it becomes a straitjacket,” said Rogers. “Wise and well-considered compromises are needed to achieve the best outcomes.”
Some examples of council rule-based decisions with dysfunctional outcomes have included:
• Refusing Aldi at the Noosa Village Homemaker Centre, leading instead to constant traffic congestion on Weyba Road.
• Stopping tourist accommodation applications at Settlers Cove and the RACV resort, pushing visitors towards STAs in residential zones.
• Refusing a childcare centre at the Noosa Business Centre, impacting workers with children, particularly women.
• Refusing imaging services in Cooroy, so hinterland residents must drive elsewhere – more cars, more emissions, more traffic.
• Refusing expansion of Noosa Hospital, which has since been reversed after an appeal to the planning court.
• Refusing affordable housing proposals at Noosa Heads, Tewantin and Cooroy, instead of negotiating viable conditions of approval.
Another way that Council causes escalated property prices is through delays and expensive requirements related to assessing development applications, Mr Rogers aid.
“The State Government must also play its role. Under State planning legislation there is a set of Minister’s Guidelines and Rules relating to making planning schemes and planning scheme amendments.
These guidelines state that the Planning Department is committed to “leverage regions’ strengths to generate sustainable and enduring economic growth that supports well-planned, inclusive and resilient communities.“
And also that the Planning Department chief executive, in reviewing proposed planning schemes and amendments, “must consider… the risk of adverse environmental, cultural, economic or social impacts”.
This confirms the obligation of State Government to hold local councils responsible and accountable for assessing and considering social and economic impacts. Yet this is not evident when the Council submits draft schemes and amendments for State Interest Review, he said.
Noosa is not an island and it needs to play its part in addressing key issues such as affordable housing and housing supply. It is Noosa’s residents and local businesses that end up bearing the consequences of Council not prioritising such important matters, Mr Rogers said.
For more information about Noosa Chamber of Commerce & Industry and to join, see noosachamberofcommerce.com.au
