As a councillor, every decision carries weight, especially when it has the potential to reshape our community’s future. After extensive deliberation, countless conversations with residents, reading every submission and a commitment to my community, I made the decision to vote against the recent planning scheme amendments.
As someone who has lived and breathed the essence of Noosa for nearly four decades, I did not make the decision to vote against the planning scheme amendments lightly. I know the challenges we face with housing. I’ve seen families struggle, and I’ve heard the stories from those who just want a chance to call Noosa home. This issue is deeply personal to me, but so too is my commitment to fairness and protecting the fundamental rights of property owners in our community.
At the heart of my decision was a simple but crucial question: “Are we doing this the right way?” For many, their home or land is not just an asset; it’s their future, their dream, their stability. Taking away their ability to decide what happens to their property, especially without clear evidence that these changes will achieve their intended outcomes, felt fundamentally wrong.
As someone who is raising young kids and trying to build a life in this community, I can’t help but think about families in similar situations. What happens to the person who bought a modest home, dreaming of building a bigger one for their family down the track, only to find that option taken off the table? What happens to the small investor trying to contribute to Noosa’s housing market, only to face insurmountable barriers? As an ex-first responder, I’ve seen the struggles of families firsthand, and I carry that empathy into my role as a councillor. I know the need of essential housing in our community to provide stability and opportunity, and I’m committed to finding solutions. But solutions must balance community needs with fairness and respect for the individuals who make up that community.
The reality is that we need housing, but we also need a process that brings people with us—not one that pits other goals against the dreams of our residents. While I understand and respect the ministerial conditions tied to these amendments, I firmly believe there are better, fairer ways to meet them, and my decision reflects my unwavering belief that Noosa’s strength comes from its people—from their ability to trust in fairness and to see themselves in the decisions we make.
Another critical concern was the reliance on private investment to deliver the housing outcomes we desperately need. The proposed requirements, such as a high percentage of smaller dwellings, risked making developments economically unviable in Noosa’s high-value coastal areas. Without clear incentives or practical market considerations, we could see a reduction in private investment rather than an increase in housing stock. This approach, in my view, puts the entire goal at risk.
For me, the answer was clear. These amendments, though well-intentioned, are not the right solution. I want to reiterate that I support the goal, the effort, and the need to address housing challenges in our shire. I commend the staff for their hard work and dedication to these complex issues and I respect the decision of Council.
Noosa is a special place, defined by its character, its people, and its unique way of life. These amendments did not meet that mark for me, and I hope my stance encourages future conversations about achieving our goals without compromising our values.
( The opinions expressed here belong solely to me and do not represent the position of Noosa Council)
