In this column I review the highlights of last Tuesday’s meetings of two Noosa Council committees – Services & Organisation and Planning & Environment – which discuss matters that eventually go up the line for final determination at the ordinary meeting nine days later. Yes, Council decision-making, like making a sausage, is a process. This report is a compendium of the critical matters raised at these meetings, none more important than problems surrounding Noosa River erosion.
Noosa Spit continues to erode as river fights back
Noosa Spit was built some 40 years ago when the mouth of the Noosa River was artificially moved north to create more land for the development of what is called Noosa Sound. Life since then has been a constant battle between the forces of Nature and the ambitions of Man. It’s a struggle Nature seems to be winning. Right at this moment, the Noosa Spit is experiencing serious erosion which is chewing considerable chunks out of it. This is not only an environmental issue; it could pose a major threat to many multi-million dollar properties on Noosa Sound. This would be a disastrous outcome both for the owners and for what is termed “the Noosa brand”.
Deputy Mayor Cr Frank Wilkie asked about dredging to help ameliorate the problem. A staff member replied that dredging is on hold, revealing that the Council has three notional lines signifying short, medium and long term erosion which would trigger a range of remedial responses. From what I observed, at least one of these lines has been passed already. The staff member said a storm would accelerate action. A staff colleague said he was concerned about the havoc a cyclone might wreak.
This all seemed a bit laid back to me. The staff seem to believe they “have time” to get on top of the issue but Cr Frank Pardon was not so complacent, saying that, if there was a cyclone, all the barriers to further river and ocean encroachment could be washed away. Upriver from the Spit, Munna Point erosion is also a concern.
Mayor Cr Tony Wellington vaguely commented that the river had “changed”. He said he was “troubled” about dredging and what was required was a new hydrological analysis. A staff member said it would take at least six to nine months to prepare a new shoreline erosion management plan. A breakthrough of Noosa Spit seems to me to be a clear and present danger. Yet I was witnessing prevarication, all the while thinking, ‘Get on with it; get on with it’. The matter was referred to the general committee scheduled for Monday 12 November for further discussion. Shore erosion of the Noosa Spit barrier should be a matter of great concern if not anxiety to Noosa. Action so far seems to have been slow or non-existent and it is looking like urgent remedial work is required to prevent an environmental crisis.
The drawn-out saga of Council infrastructure
It was in response to a corporate services department report that Cr Pardon admitted he was worried about the Council’s asset register, saying the Council didn’t know the full condition of some assets and that it had yet to assess stormwater drains and some bridges which are deteriorating. (A staff director made the interesting comment that these represented 75% of Council assets).
I got the impression Cr Pardon knows the Council is well behind schedule and he’s worried it’s going to get caught out. Cr Joe Jurisevic said the asset management plan should be complete by the end of the year (by my reckoning that’s at least 12 months overdue).
Cr Pardon had more to say, pronouncing that the stated goal of achieving 90% of the capital works program during the year would be a challenge. I think this could be achieved only by increasing committed funds or other accounting practices, but we’ll see. I don’t believe the current budget can suffice without deferring some significant works.
It was disclosed there had been a meeting with Main Roads personnel about the perpetual problem of Beckmans Road, which is said to be one of the top 10 road problems in Queensland. (I can confirm it is gridlocked from north to south most school mornings.) A staff director said a presentation had been made to the relevant Minister and local MP Sandy Bolton.
Urban consistency, integration & the Bounce Hostel
A development application for a 122-bed backpacker facility (seeking to do business under the glorious title of ‘Bounce Hostel Noosa’) triggered debate. The hostel is proposed for the busy retail and office hub of Mary Street and there was concern about night-time noise that might emanate from visitors frequenting the outdoor swimming pool area of the Bounce and also about variations in building heights of that precinct.
Cr Jess Glasgow asked why there was a 7pm close proposed for swimming pool, café and outdoor use. A staff member said Mary Street also had residential zoning and nearby properties needed privacy. Cr Ingrid Jackson said adjoining resorts had pools open till 9pm. A staff member said the planning scheme regulated 7pm for this property. Searching for consistency in the Council’s approach to such matters, Cr Jackson was clearly not happy with this response.
Cr Jackson was also concerned at the varying building heights approved by the Council. She had walked the area and produced a slide show of heights varying from 7.8 to 10 metres. The staff member said the differing heights were consistent with existing zoning limits. The planning scheme rules seem to lead to inconsistencies of various kinds. Definitely not helpful in developing an integrated and harmonious built environment. The Bounce Hostel was referred to the general committee meeting for further debate.
On matters that seem forgotten or are left undone
There was a long list of activities reported under the heading of ‘environment and sustainable development’ and councillors cherry-picked the ones on which they required further information or wished to make remarks. I’ll mention three of them here.
About this time last year, the Mayor announced a feasibility study to be conducted by CSIRO into establishing a ‘Sustainability Institute’ in Noosa. Funding in excess of $38,000 was committed for the initial scoping phase. The first report was due to be completed early this year closely followed by two other reports. Nothing has happened.
Cr Jackson asked why the delay. The staff director explained that CSIRO had delivered what council staff considered an inadequate report and the second iteration was also considered inadequate. It seems the delay continues because this matter, lauded in newspaper stories by the Mayor a year ago, is no longer a priority. Another Noosa thought bubble.
A question asked about the draft Noosa Plan secured an interesting response. The staff member said the Council was waiting for the State government’s final approval of the draft, so it was not yet possible for the Council to consult the community. There was no explanation of why the government has been so tardy. My guess is there might be some concern at State level that Noosa Council’s view of the future does not align with the South-East Queensland regional plan.
I don’t think the environment report got the attention it deserved. Too many notable projects were not discussed. It was clear councillors were privy to much information that did not make it into this meeting. Councillors have a duty to act responsibility and disclose fully at these public meetings. They should acknowledge prior in-house meetings and ensure important initiatives are disclosed so they can be publicly questioned.
In summary
These meetings began a discussion about shoreline erosion which in my eyes has moved into the realm of crisis management. There are threats now so severe that should have been foreshadowed and pre-emptively managed. The erosion is advanced and worsening and accelerating. One bad storm could trigger a disastrous outcome. Because the traverse of the river mouth was changed, the fix, or fixes, will be expensive.
Asset and infrastructure problems and slow-downs demonstrate very clearly that this Council lacks adequate resources to complete projects in a timely manner. It’s a situation that quickly renders plans and budgets as fiction.
Finally I must remark that the lack of media presence at one of these meetings was a slight on ratepayers and the public interest. It was also another reason why moves to ‘live stream’ meetings on the internet, and archive them for later viewing, must be accepted by this Council. We cannot have such an important public institution effectively operating in secret. (With the exception of this column, of course.)
Wow! I would like to see the day Council does actually care about ‘residential zoning and nearby properties needing privacy’. Noosa has had a long term laissez faire non-policy on short term lets in areas zoned as ‘detached housing’ (no ‘residential’ tag) which sees the privacy and amenity of residential dwellings eroded by short term holiday renters and all of their invited friends partying by and in the pool well into the wee hours on any day of the week. Maybe it would be quieter living next to a backpacker hostel.
So backpackers in a commercial district have a 7-9pm pool curfew, while accommodation providers in residential areas are allowed, effectively, no pool curfew?
Thats correct Rod you cannot impose a curfew on a pool on a private property regardless of whether it is a part time renter or not.This is how it should be.
Not sure if your question is rhetorical Rod, but yes, no regulations apply to short term lets except those that apply to any domestic residential dwellings. Noosa Council has historically, and in its planning scheme and local laws, not classed short term lets as anything other than normal rental properties, so they have had the position that they can’t and won’t control anything that happens there, including, of course, swimming pool hours, parking, noise levels, overcrowding, disability access, safety etc. (All the things businesses providing accommodation in other zonings need to provide and comply with at significant cost.) The only thing Council has done is seek the tourism levy from short term accommodation providers. That in itself seems to me an anomoly – if they are tourism businesses what are they doing in residential areas with no regulation? Even the industry proposing self regulation points to it being a business operating in residential zonings, but hey, it’s only struggling Mums and Dads making a little on the side isn’t it. No, it’s not.
Don’t agree Berns. If the house is being run as full-time short-term accommodation you can treat it like other such businesses and mandate a curfew. This would happen when Council gets up the gumption to signel out these properties for the submission of DAs. Other conditions would include parking spaces, fire safety fittings and the like. Many such properties would fail to get approval since they have been illegally set up in residential zones.
Judy is correct, the whole planning scheme has been ignored by these accommodation providers and just hitting them with a tourism levy which goes straight to Tourism Noosa for more visitor marketing is a further slap in the face for residents not on the Airbnb gravy train.
When is a business not a business? When it’s in a detached housing zone set aside for residential purposes, because Noosa Council defines home-based business (the only type ‘allowed’ in a detached housing area) as where ‘ the use is secondary to the residential use of the premises.’ That opens the door for accommodation businesses to operate under the radar in residential areas, because Council classes such a business as residential. Despite the fact they have the trappings of other businesses, ABN’s, income generation, sometimes employees, generate traffic, etc. (and Council expects them to pay the Tourism levy just like other tourism businesses) they operate without the restrictions placed on other accommodation providers or other businesses operating residential areas.
Council accepts in its home-based business guidelines that it ‘ needs to ensure that neighbours are able to enjoy a reasonable level of amenity in residential areas’, hence the concern about noise from a hostel pool.
Is it possible that all it might take to have some control over the regulation of short term lets is for Council to do some tweaking on the home-based business policy and put in a definition of ‘business’ that is more in keeping with the reality? If the whole of a property is a short term holiday let it seems to me it should be classed as an accommodation business and be subject to the same restrictions as other businesses.
Bernadette you are wrong about not being able to impose curfews on private property – Council (and State and Federal govts) can and do impose conditions and regulations, including curfews, on private properties, especially if that private property is running a business in a residential zone, but also just on private residential property – eg there are curfews on mowing and building work etc.
Ah guys, sometimes when dealing with troublesome neighbours you have to think laterally.Some years ago when I was a mere surburbanite, a family of four-Mum Dad and two kids moved in next door.Nicer people you would not find anywhere.Only trouble was they had this Maltese Terrier called Binky who would bark from the moment they left the house in the morning, to the time they got home.It was so bad we christened the bloody thing 7/11 because he never shut up!Decisive action was called for.Now I could have rung council and had Binky sent to the big house, and copped a couple of years of frosty glares at 40 paces over the back fence, but I am simply not a dobber.So I thought laterally.I got my very tech savvy son to record Binky barking over a number of days.We then converted the recordings to an MP3 file and burnt it to a C.D.I then set my alarm for 1.30 am and when the appointed hour came popped said cd into my very large stereo and pressed play, setting the volume just loud enough to drive Binky, who was now inside their house into a frothy yapping frenzy.Popping a set of foam earplugs in I then repaired to the spare room at the other end of the house.I repeated the dose for six days and – LO! On the seventh day Binky did barketh no more.I dont know what these people did to the pooch but ..problem solved.The rather convoluted point Im trying to make here is if you have a noisy neighbour you have plenty of options you can ring the police complain to the owner of the property or get on to air b and b directly,or….you can think laterally.I fully understand the need for some regulation, but the proposed levy is nothing more than a blatant cash grab by a severely underfunded council
Judy, are you listening up here. As per BM’s advice, record the noisy party into the wee hours then play it back on speakers once the party is over and when the thoughtless sods are tucked up in bed. Lo, the noisy neighbours should partyeth no more.
Yes, I’m listening up Rod, thanks for caring I’m not getting up to annoy ALL my neighbours (the permanents as well as AirBNB’s) by turning on massive speakers at 1.30 am for six days or more. Besides, in six days we’d probably have gone through several neighbours in the AirBNB and the current residents would probably not have a dog or even a cat, be the quietest neighbours we’d ever had and wonder what the heck was going on. On day seven just as we heaved a sigh of relief that Bernadette’s strategy had worked some eighteen year olds would hire the place for a party and drown out any speakers I might have handy at 1.30 am and sleep through any I might turn on a 5.00 am. Best to hope I go deaf before I go insane and forget about trying to annoy the neighbours out of annoying me.
Bernadette you might have the energy to devise lateral thinking strategies for an ever changing set of neighbours (three days average) but I fear you’d soon run out of steam and consider moving instead.
Excessive noise is becoming a community problem. One of the reasons for downsizing was moving away from noisy holiday houses. We now live near a council oval that is leased four times per week for nightly touch football activities – it’s not the lights, it’s the stereo music that’s the main irritant.
I now find there are two nearby houses engaging in short term letting. The final solution is the police, there are noise limits that apply at any time.