Noosa councillor Nicola Wilson was one of three councillors to oppose the Noosa Plan Amendment No 2 at council’s ordinary meeting last week. Here she explains why.
The report states the amendment seeks to facilitate improved housing security, choice, diversity and affordability and establishes a pathway for affordable housing.
I don’t believe the amendments can deliver on that promise, as key provisions can’t be implemented due to financial viability, therefore if the housing outcomes can’t viably be achieved, I don’t think adopting this package is in the public interest.
I have three major concerns. Dual occupancy on 600 square metre blocks, dwelling houses being inconsistent on 500 square metre blocks, and the bonus provisions for affordable housing.
My first concern is the minister’s condition that dual occupancy be inconsistent on lots greater than 600 square metres. This was originally proposed in the version of amendments advertised for public consultation, which resulted in strong opposition. Council officers responded as follows in December 2024:
“The scheme amendments were drafted nearly two years ago and were based on a 600 square metre site relatively free of constraints. However, construction costs have increased exponentially since 2021 as has land costs.”
And
“Making dual occupancies inconsistent requires a minimum of three dwellings … This would now most likely not be feasible, possibly rendering these sites undevelopable individually … it is now recommended that Dual occupancy be inconsistent on sites of 1,000 square metres or more.”
How can the minister ignore community feedback and officer recommendations? What is the point of community consultation if it can’t change the outcome? How can a minister condition a provision that staff determine can’t now feasibly be implemented and where no other council has this rule?
My second concern – if it is not financially viable to build three units on a 600 square metre block, is it viable to build two homes on a 500 square metre block? Restricting single dwelling houses on smaller blocks could mean that no development occurs and older homes won’t be replaced.
Community feedback was clear on this issue, with over 50 submissions and a petition of 960 signatures. And that’s just the people who knew about it.
Noosa is known for its low density, coastal laid back lifestyle, our fierce protection of our two and three storey limits and resisting overdevelopment. Yet today we could be the first Queensland council to make a dwelling house inconsistent on blocks as small as 500 square metres in favour of units. How is that different by nature?
Sunshine Coast council’s current planning scheme amendments propose a dwelling house as inconsistent in the medium density zone. But their medium density zone is characterised by buildings of 3-6 storeys, which we don’t allow in Noosa. They have also introduced a new zone, low-medium density, more akin to our medium density zone:
• Low-rise buildings mainly 1 to 2 storeys, up to 3 in some locations
• Diversity of lot sizes, including small lots.
• Dwelling houses and dual occupancy are expected land uses in this zone.
Not inconsistent – expected!
Gold Coast, Logan and Ipswich all allow houses in their medium density zone. Logan has had recent plan changes.
Noosa Council sought changes to the Planning Regulation 2017 to make houses inconsistent in certain zones, and this came to fruition in December 2022. But residents would not have been aware that this process was happening.
In these amendments, residents were not specifically notified because there was no rezoning. Just a significant change to the land use allowed in the zone.
I can’t support Noosa being the pioneers of a provision that I consider unfair to residents.
My third concern is the bonus provisions offered for development of affordable housing. In the amendments advertised last year, there were mandatory provisions around small dwellings, and a proposed redefinition to 75 square metres. Feedback raised doubts whether these provisions were financially feasible or acceptable to the market, and officers recommended retaining the current small dwelling definition at 100 square metre, and making the small dwelling bonus provisions opt-in rather than mandatory in Medium and High Density zones with the following justification in December 2024:
“The circumstances around providing affordable rental accommodation are no longer as favourable as they were when amendments were drafted. Therefore, to ensure a supply of small dwellings continues where it is financially and physically viable, it is now recommended that the provision of small dwellings remain optional.”
Essentially the path to affordable housing was less clear.
The bonus allows a potential fourth storey where the residential component is entirely small dwellings (<100sm) and a minimum of 20 per cent of residential gross floor area is affordable rental premises.
As another year has now rolled by, I have raised doubts whether these proposed bonus conditions can be met in this market, particularly using the gross floor area as the denominator rather than number of units (as the state does in the SFD (state facilitated development) process). I believe this needs to be reviewed and tested before adopting such a provision, otherwise the goal of providing affordable housing in the junction and civic can’t be met under the scheme.
If these three provisions don’t actually allow the intended housing supply outcomes to be met, I can’t support adopting the package, even though I support most of the other amendments.
If the answer is to make further changes through another amendment process, why adopt now if we know it will need to change?
