As a councillor, my foremost responsibility is to protect the interests of the Noosa community, uphold democratic principles, and ensure the sustainability of our unique way of life.
Recently, I voted against the proposed amendments to the planning scheme. While I respect and accept the majority decision of my fellow councillors (4:2) to support these changes, I feel it is important to explain my reasons for opposing them.
I want to emphasise that I supported many elements of the proposed package. These included some measures to address the housing crisis by creating opportunities for more affordable and diverse housing options—goals I have consistently championed.
However, some critical aspects of the package raised significant concerns for me, which I felt could not be overlooked.
The proposed amendments were intended to address the housing crisis. However, I had three primary reservations: changes to property rights, insufficient consultation with affected stakeholders, and the lack of a comprehensive economic, social, and environmental analysis. I raised these issues during the Special Meeting.
I have consistently supported efforts to tackle the housing crisis, including the Mayoral Minute in 2020 and the Housing Needs Assessment in 2021, which highlighted the urgent need for affordable housing and a diversified housing stock.
However, solving this crisis requires more than simply increasing supply. We must ensure that affordable housing remains accessible to those who need it most and that changes to the planning scheme are balanced and equitable.
More importantly, we must have community support.
During the meeting, I highlighted alternative approaches worth exploring, such as increased densification in areas like Noosa Civic and TAFE, as well as better transport infrastructure to support affordable commutes for people living outside the shire. I expressed my concern that the proposed amendments, in my opinion, risked unintended consequences, such as driving up property values, altering neighbourhood character, and undermining long-standing property rights that residents have held for decades.
One of my key concerns, as discussed during the meeting, was the need for economic analysis. No evidence was presented to demonstrate whether these changes would meaningfully increase housing supply or improve affordability.
Moving forward without understanding their broader impacts on property values, local businesses, and the economy would, in my opinion and as I stated during the meeting, “be irresponsible.”
Regarding changes in medium and high-density residential zones, I highlighted the community’s response, which was overwhelmingly clear: “They did not want any changes.”
A petition signed by over 1000 residents and numerous submissions demanded that existing property rights in medium-density residential zones be retained and that the character and community of established neighbourhoods in places like Pomona and Noosa Heads be protected. Residents also raised significant concerns about the consultation process, with many property owners and businesses stating they were not notified or adequately notified of the proposed changes.
In response, I moved an amendment to retain the status quo in medium and high-density residential zones. Unfortunately, this amendment did not receive majority support (3:4).
As elected representatives, it is our duty to listen to the voices of our constituents. Yet, as I said in the meeting, these concerns were not (imo) adequately addressed and the broader economic and social implications of the amendments remain unclear. Moving forward without this critical information risks creating more problems than it solves.
The housing crisis is complex and requires thoughtful, long-term solutions. As I said during the meeting:
“There is no mandated timeframe to complete this. The Ministerial Condition imposes no deadline. Again, I repeat, what we are being asked to approve today is not just a set of amendments—it’s an entire package that will fundamentally shape Noosa’s future. This is not just about meeting housing targets; it’s about making informed, thoughtful decisions that respect our community, protect their rights, and preserve the lifestyle that makes Noosa such a special place.
Therefore, I cannot, in good conscience, support this package in its entirety. My vote is no.“
While I supported many elements of the amendments, I could not overlook these critical concerns. Moving forward, I remain committed to working collaboratively with my colleagues, stakeholders, and the community to develop balanced, informed, and inclusive solutions to the housing crisis that uphold Noosa’s values, character, and integrity.
(Please note this is my personal opinion and does not represent the position of Noosa Council.)
