Sandy opposed the Housing Availability and Affordability (Planning and Other Legislation Amendment) Bill 2024 (HAAPOLA), which passed on 16 April 2024, as there were elements that are deeply concerning through lack of clarity. In addition, it created the capacity for the State Government to circumnavigate Local Government planning schemes via a State Facilitated Development (SFD) process.
Below is extracts from Sandy’s debate speech in Parliament, with the full transcript available at https://documents.parliament.qld.gov.au/speeches/spk2024/Sandy_Bolton-Noosa-20240416-739549726498.pdf:
As we have heard, the Housing Availability and Affordability (Planning and Other Legislation Amendment) Bill is designed to address housing supply with a primary purpose of amending the Planning Act to facilitate new housing. As we all know, social and affordable housing is desperately needed. This will be done by creating a state facilitated application process as an alternative development pathway for state priorities that overrides local governments. While there was support for this from the Planning Institute of Australia, Q Shelter and the Property Council, there were also criticisms, particularly from the Local Government Association of Queensland, which stated it is critical to maintain the autonomy of local governments to make decisions working with their local communities. My community would agree.
Noosa Council highlighted in their submission that under the new application process, the minister does not have to apply the local planning scheme for state facilitated developments and there is no appeals process. The question is: how much will the new power be exercised, and local councils overridden? We do not know because we do not have a definition of what a ‘state priority’ is within the bill. This is of central importance.
The bill also makes provisions for the planning minister to direct local governments to amend their planning scheme without giving notice to protect or give effect to a state interest. This is to apply where adequate public consultation has been carried out. Again, we ask about the definition of ‘adequate’ in relation to the subject matter of the amendment. However, as Noosa Council reported in their submission, this could include matters covered in the ShapingSEQ 2023 update consultation such as increases in height and density, and I have expressed considerable concerns about these. The reassurance I received from the state was that heights are set in the planning scheme and not the regional plan and that the powers are not intended to be used widely, but rather as a last resort after the state has worked collaboratively with local government.
This collaboration is vital given the realities in our communities where for five years—and it has been a really long haul—we have worked to source suitable sites for affordable community housing and now we are coming to the pointy end. Each project that utilises this process must be individually assessed with full community consultation. Yes, we need the housing, but we also need our community alongside us. Being backed into a corner to ensure our residents have accommodation and relevant medical services as examples is never welcomed. However, that is the only rationale as to why these powers would be supported by our communities.
The bill does not acknowledge the various matters that I have raised that have contributed to our housing shortfalls and crisis, especially in the realm of social and affordable housing. Such matters would include materials and labour. However, if I go over those again, I would just be taking up time and they have been well documented. In this cognate debate I am trying to be mindful of allowing other people to also have their say.
In conclusion, I would like to thank the minister and departmental staff as well as the committee, the secretariat, the organisations and Queenslanders who participated in the consultations for their examination of the bill. I cannot support it given the lack of clarification around the definition of ‘state priority’. In addition, local governments and communities should never be overridden without an identified need and rationale that is acceptable to those communities.
Following the Bill passing, consultation opened on the amendments to the associated planning regulations. These would set the circumstances in which local governments could be overridden and given that our communities were unaware of the consultation and the significance of these regulations, Sandy requested the Queensland Minister for Planning to extend the period for two (2) weeks to allow time for proper consideration and feedback, which would ultimately allow for better policy to be developed. This advocacy included a Question Without Notice (QWN) in Parliament, which is in full below and can be viewed in the official parliamentary record at https://documents.parliament.qld.gov.au/events/han/2024/2024_05_22_DAILY.pdf#page=24.
Sandy’s QWN
My question is to the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Planning and Minister for Public Works. Consultation on the draft amendments to the Planning Regulation 2017 was opened with no notification to communities and closed yesterday. Will the minister commit to extending the consultation period for at least another two weeks, as requested and needed, and give assurances regarding the concerns already raised?
The Minister’s response:
I thank the member for Noosa for the question. Our government is focused on building more homes faster. To do that, we have passed a bill in this parliament to reduce red tape and to make sure we can unlock more affordable housing supply. I appreciate the community’s interest in the consultation process on the proposed amendments. I am advised that that consultation process commenced on Friday, 19 April and concluded yesterday. It was open for a month. I will not be extending that consultation because my priority is making sure we get more homes up off the ground quickly. That is what these reforms were all about. I appreciate that might not be the position of the member for Noosa or some members of her community, but, as the housing minister in this state, I need to make sure we are delivering the homes Queenslanders need. While I have said that the formal consultation process has closed—submissions received after 21 May will not meet the statutory requirements—my department will still consider late submissions through that process. It will not be, as I said, part of that statutory process.
In terms of the amendment criteria, I remind the House that that criteria were for the new state facilitated development pathway, which provides the ability to impose development conditions for affordable housing, and the introduction of a build-to-rent definition, amongst others. Delaying the consultation would slow down these critical changes and, as I said, we need to make sure we are delivering more homes faster—the right homes in the right locations. That is what this bill was all about.
From the outset, my department has actively encouraged feedback from all stakeholders, including broad awareness and engagement through letters to key stakeholders—local government— social media, weekly electronic alerts and briefing sessions. Additionally, prior to the public consultation my department engaged with peak bodies including the Local Government Association of Queensland, the Planning Institute of Australia, the Property Council of Australia, the Housing Supply Expert Panel and the Urban Development Institute of Australia to discuss the draft amendments.
I am more than happy to provide a briefing for the member for Noosa about those proposed changes, but as I said our government is focused on delivering more homes faster. We are doing that through this new pathway. We are also doing it through our new infill fund. The opposition want to talk a lot about working with local councils, but when they were in government they axed funding to local councils. The Premier recently announced the Works for Queensland funding, which is millions and millions of dollars going to local governments to support them to deliver critical infrastructure. I am hopeful that some of them will use that to unlock more housing. We have an infill fund where we know there is a lot of underutilised land that we can use for housing. We are doing everything we can to speed up approvals and make sure we get homes off the ground.
The above response was not positive; however it did indicate the department would consider late submissions. It has been a very difficult time for even local planners to assess these amendments, let alone residents. The drafted regulations include the potential for significant negative impacts from allowing the private sector to access this SFD pathway without appropriate regulations or guidelines to guarantee the genuine affordable housing that our community has been seeking. This can only occur when housing is under management of government or community housing providers.
The provision that 15% of a private development be affordable raises the question as to whom will it be affordable? That the drafted regulations remove the definition of affordable housing as that which is rented at the rate of 30 percent of income, without specifying a replacement definition, is just one of several concerns which Sandy raised in her own submission below:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the draft amendments to the Planning Regulations 2017.
These draft amendments, amongst other things, implement the criteria to applications for State Facilitated Development (SFD), a process that allows developments to be exempt from local government development assessment and instead be assessed by the State.
The SFD was a hugely contentious part of the Housing Availability and Affordability (Planning and Other Legislation Amendment) Bill 2023 or HAAPOLA, as it contradicted the foundational basis for Queensland planning schemes, that is, planning controlled at the local level through local councils.
Noosa Council highlighted at the time that the SFD process not just takes the development decision making out of the hand of the Council, it also exempts the development from local planning rules. The Noosa Shire Residents and Ratepayers Association submitted that this would weaken the Noosa Planning Scheme and facilitate development incompatible with its strategic outcomes, which is not acceptable.
With such a power there is the potential for significant negative impacts on our communities, therefore the SFD criteria should be narrowly tailored to the specific goals the State intends to achieve with the SFD process.
The SFD criteria set out in the draft regulations are intended to provide for affordable housing, which is a worthwhile aim for these regulations. However, there are concerns, including details of how the affordable housing is specified and assessed, which are crucial to their success at providing affordable accommodation.
The criteria of providing fifteen (15) percent affordable housing in a development as a minimum is a good basis for the criteria, however, is then undermined by other criteria.
Fundamentally the regulations are undermined by the overly broad definitions of affordable housing, which would allow developments to use the SFD process without delivering much at all in the way of genuine affordable housing needed in our communities.
- The definition of the Affordable Housing Component (AHC) of a development provides that the housing must be provided by a registered housing provider or Government program yet is completely undermined by allowing the AHC to alternatively be “s43C(c) housing sold or rented below the typical market value on the basis of its type, composition, method of construction size or level of finish”.
This criterion does not set requirements for rental properties, does not specify how much below the market value is required, and does not set a maximum market value. This could be wholly met by a set of luxury multi-million-dollar apartments if one is priced 5 percent below the market value and has no place in these regulations as they do nothing for affordable housing and should be completely removed from the regulations.
- The regulations do not set a time frame for which affordable housing is to be provided. It is entirely possible for affordable housing to be offered for one year and meet the criteria, which is not acceptable. If we are to address this crisis, the affordable housing must be transferred in perpetuity to our Community Housing Providers (CHP’s) otherwise we will continue to have further crises.
- The requirement for fifteen (15) percent affordable housing component must be fifteen (15) percent of total floorspace, not number of dwellings, otherwise it creates an incentive to create tiny, often unliveable studios.
- The regulations remove the definition of affordable housing as ‘housing rented at the rate of 30 percent of income’. The new criteria do not specify a particular rental rate or definition of affordable housing, and the previous definition should be reinstated.
- Assessment of SFD proposals is to be undertaken within reduced timeframes with no referrals, public notification limited to 15 business days for making submissions, and no appeal rights. This is not acceptable and there needs to be an appropriate due process.
In closing, the regulations need to be tightened to ensure the provision of well-defined, genuine affordable housing as part of SFD developments in line with our communities needs and expectations. As they stand, they do not, and can lead to even further crises.
Additionally, given the lack of notifications on consultation regarding these regulations leading to my request on behalf of Queenslanders for an extension of time, I trust this will provided.
Sandy’s recent meeting with the state planners reassured that the concerns we raised would be addressed and clarified including through the Ministers Guidelines and that this is a reserve power for the Minister, and the SFD process is similar to the existing Ministerial Designation used for schools and community infrastructure.
Currently Sandy is not calling for fellow residents to raise ‘placards’, just to reiterate our stance that we require affordable housing for our workers, however, need to ensure that they are genuinely affordable, and not open to vague interpretations through broad definitions, nor outside of the expectations of our community.
Sandy will continue to work with Noosa Council and State Government regarding concerns, and encourages our community to send submissions, even though consultation has closed, via the department at planning4housing@dsdilgp.qld.gov.au and to copy our office in via noosa@parliament.qld.gov.au.
Potential changes like these remind us why it is so important to remain vigilant and independent of statewide political party agendas. This is what makes our community unique, beyond our natural attributes.
Further information
To contact the relevant Queensland Minister, email housing@ministerial.qld.gov.au. Please cc’ our office in via noosa@parliament.qld.gov.au and forward any response you receive to us.
For more information on Noosa Council planning and housing strategy, visit www.noosa.qld.gov.au/planning-development/home. To contact the Noosa Councillors, please find their information at www.noosa.qld.gov.au/downloads/file/927/contact-list-councillors.
For our previous Noosa 360 updates regarding the Shaping SEQ Plan, head to www.sandybolton.com/?s=Southeast+regional+plan
Updates on many local matters are available on Noosa 360 at www.sandybolton.com/noosa360. To receive information straight to your email inbox, please subscribe to our monthly newsletter via www.sandybolton.com/newsletters. This also ensures you receive any future Noosa related surveys or polls.