Noosa Truth

10/06/2026

𝗣𝗔𝗨𝗦𝗘 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗥𝗘𝗩𝗜𝗘𝗪 – 𝗨𝗥𝗚𝗘𝗡𝗧!
𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗡𝗼𝗼𝘀𝗮 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗹 𝗺𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗖𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗔𝗱𝗮𝗽𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗟𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝗢𝗳 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲 𝗜𝗣𝗖𝗖 𝗦𝗰𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗼 𝗥𝗲𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀
𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘕𝘪𝘤𝘬 𝘏𝘭𝘶𝘴𝘻𝘬𝘰

A 19 May 2026 letter from Noosa Council to a local community association makes no mention of the recent Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) paper – the International Panel of Climate Change’s (IPCC's) official update that retired the extreme RCP8.5 scenario as no longer a plausible reference pathway. That paper was published earlier the same month.

This is not an accusation of bad faith. But it is a question that needs answering: has Council considered what the new IPCC scenarios mean for Noosa?

I have spent the past several weeks reviewing Council's decade-long climate adaptation journey – from the 2016 QCoast2100 application through to the 2025-26 Budget. I have reviewed the IPCC's own literature, including the May 2026 ScenarioMIP paper.

The conclusion is unavoidable. Noosa Council built an extensive planning and infrastructure framework on a scenario the IPCC no longer considers plausible. Ratepayer money should not be committed to projects designed for scenarios the IPCC has moved beyond.

This post summarises the key findings of my white paper ‘Pause and Review’. The full document is available via this link.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/9ni603qnme9j9putoouv4/PAUSE-AND-REVIEW-Final.docx?rlkey=r7r0qehso3jd74gxyy25jsinw&st=1prr260x&dl=0

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗱
In May 2026, the IPCC's ScenarioMIP committee published its new framework for Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 7 (CMIP7). The committee stated that RCP8.5/SSP5-8.5 has "become implausible" based on:

Falling renewable energy costs
Expansion of global climate policy
Recent emissions and energy transition trends

The new "HIGH" scenario is materially lower:

Metric Old (RCP8.5) New (CMIP7 “HIGH”)

Emissions by 2100 ~128 Gt CO₂/yr ~71 Gt CO₂/yr

Central warming by 2100 ~3.7–4.8°C ~3.0–3.2°C

High-end sea level assumptions Up to ~1.6m ~1.0m

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗱
The 0.8m central sea level rise (SLR) figure used by Noosa Council remains within IPCC ranges. That is not the issue.

The critical change is in the high-end assumptions – the figures used to design major infrastructure and justify restrictive planning controls. Those assumptions now warrant reassessment.

𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐥 𝐛𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐭 𝐛𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐧 𝐑𝐂𝐏𝟖.𝟓
Between 2017 and 2021, Council and its consultants built an extensive framework on RCP8.5 and the 0.8m SLR figure, including:

Coastal Hazard Mapping Refinement (2018): Erosion distances, storm tide levels, permanent inundation mapping for 2040, 2070, 2100

Asset Register (2020): Over 11,000 assets identified within hazard areas

Risk Assessment (2020): Assets classified at "High" or "Very High" risk

Cost-Benefit Analysis – Eastern Beaches (2020): $239 million net present value for dune augmentation

Cost-Benefit Analysis – Noosaville (2020): $21.5 million net present value for levees

Coastal Hazards Adaptation Plan (2021)

Climate Change Response Plan (2021): RCP8.5 adopted as Council's minimum planning assumption

While the State required RCP8.5 for the CHAP, Council went significantly further, voluntarily adopting it as the "minimum" scenario for all decisions.
____________________________________

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘀 𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘆
Council's reliance on RCP8.5 has had real, negative consequences for Noosa residents:

I͟n͟s͟u͟r͟a͟n͟c͟e͟: Hazard mapping derived from RCP8.5 has been used by insurers to price risk. Local reporting (Noosa Today, 2025) states: "Household insurance is almost unavailable or completely unaffordable to many as a direct result of Council's disaster mapping."

P͟r͟o͟p͟e͟r͟t͟y͟ ͟v͟a͟l͟u͟e͟s͟: Coastal hazard overlays have added caveats to titles, triggered disclosure obligations, and reduced property values – particularly for beachfront and waterfront homes.

R͟e͟s͟t͟r͟i͟c͟t͟i͟v͟e͟ ͟l͟a͟n͟d͟ ͟u͟s͟e͟ ͟p͟l͟a͟n͟n͟i͟n͟g͟: The Noosa Plan 2020 imposes minimum floor levels, restricts development, and requires costly engineering assessments based on RCP8.5 assumptions.

P͟o͟t͟e͟n͟t͟i͟a͟l͟ ͟o͟v͟e͟r͟-͟e͟n͟g͟i͟n͟e͟e͟r͟i͟n͟g͟: Council's 2025-26 Budget includes millions in coastal infrastructure. Examples include:

Sunshine Beach slope stabilisation $3,166,981
Noosa Main Beach Levy (annual) $716,000
Stormwater drainage program $4,134,077
Noosaville Foreshore Masterplan $10+ million (total)

As high-end sea level assumptions have been reduced by IPCC from 1.6m to 1.01m, these projects may be over-engineered. Ratepayers may be bearing unnecessary costs.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗴𝗮𝗽𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗹'𝘀 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗮𝗰𝗵
My review identified several governance gaps:

No review mechanism for sea level projections. The Eastern Beaches Foreshore Reserves Management Plan (EBFRMP) requires vegetation reviews every 2 years and Bushlands Operations Assessment (BOA) mapping every 5 years. But nowhere does it require reviewing the underlying sea level assumptions.

No sensitivity testing for lower emissions scenarios. The cost-benefit analyses tested discount rates and tourist visitation – but never tested what happens if emissions follow a lower pathway. The $239m and $21.5m Net Present Values (NPVs) cannot be relied upon.

No announced review following AR6 or ScenarioMIP. Council's 2021 policy committed to reviewing its adaptation program within 12 months of new IPCC projections. Assessment Report (AR6) was finalised in 2021-2023. Council has not announced a review. The ScenarioMIP paper was published in May 2026. Council has not announced a review.

Council went beyond State requirements. The State required RCP8.5 for the CHAP. Council voluntarily adopted it as the "minimum" scenario for all decisions.

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗹𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗱𝗼𝗶𝗻𝗴

Sunshine Coast Council Review announced post-ScenarioMIP

Gold Coast City Council Adopted adaptive pathways. Well-positioned for update

Townsville City Council Review of CHAP pending

Noosa Council No review announced

Noosa's explicit mandating of RCP8.5 as the "minimum" scenario goes well beyond what other councils required. This makes Noosa more exposed than councils that maintained greater flexibility.

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗡𝗼𝗼𝘀𝗮 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗹 𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗼

I͟m͟m͟e͟d͟i͟a͟t͟e͟ (next 30 days):
Acknowledge the ScenarioMIP paper and its implications for Noosa's planning framework.
Pause any final approvals for new coastal adaptation capital works projects pending review. Ratepayer money should not be committed to projects designed for scenarios the IPCC no longer considers plausible.
Notify insurers that the high-end sea level assumptions used in Council's hazard mapping may warrant reassessment.

M̲i̲d̲ ̲t̲e̲r̲m̲:
Commission a comprehensive review of all climate adaptation strategies – CHAP, EBFRMP, Noosa Plan 2020 coastal hazard overlays, Noosaville Foreshore Masterplan, and Living Foreshores projects.
Recalculate cost-benefit analyses for major projects using the new CMIP7 framework.
Amend the EBFRMP to require that sea level projections be reviewed every 5 years, alongside existing vegetation and BOA reviews.

L͟o͟n͟g͟e͟r͟ ͟t͟e͟r͟m͟:
Formally request the State Government update QCoast2100 to align with CMIP7.
Review the Noosa Main Beach Levy and evaluate whether sand replenishment requirements may warrant adjustment.
Update Council's Climate Change Response Plan to replace RCP8.5 with the new CMIP7 framework.
Develop a community communication strategy explaining what these changes mean for insurance, property values, and development approvals.

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗯𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝘀𝗸𝗲𝗱
To be clear, this is not arguing against climate change adaptation.

Adaptation remains necessary. Sea levels will continue to rise. The new CMIP7 "HIGH" scenario (~3.0°C warming, ~1.01m high-end) is still serious.

What we are asking is that Council’s planning be based on the most current and credible scientific assumptions available – not on scenarios the IPCC itself has indicated are no longer considered plausible.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗹
Council's own Adaptation Principle #9 requires them to consider the financial burden on the community. Principle #13 requires flexibility and responsiveness to new information. The CMIP7 framework provides that new information.

The question is not whether Council can act – it is whether they will.

O͟p͟t͟i͟o͟n͟ ͟A͟: Continue with existing plans without reassessment. Risk continued unnecessary financial burden on ratepayers, potential legal challenge, and reputational damage.

O͟p͟t͟i͟o͟n͟ ͟B͟: Undertake a structured reassessment. Evaluate whether opportunities exist to reduce unnecessary costs, planning burdens, and insurance impacts while maintaining prudent climate resilience.

𝗣𝗔𝗨𝗦𝗘. 𝗥𝗘𝗩𝗜𝗘𝗪. 𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗘𝗧.
Noosa Council, the science has been updated. Will you be?

𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑐𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒: 𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑎𝑢𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑟 ℎ𝑎𝑠 𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑠𝑒𝑑 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑠 𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝐶𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑙'𝑠 𝑐𝑜𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑙 ℎ𝑎𝑧𝑎𝑟𝑑 𝑝𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑠. 𝑇ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑖𝑠 𝑎 𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑟𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑎 𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑧𝑒𝑛'𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑒𝑤 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑢𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑙𝑦 𝑎𝑣𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑑𝑜𝑐𝑢𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑖𝑠 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑠 𝑎𝑑𝑣𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑐𝑦, 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑎𝑠 𝑎𝑛 𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑠𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐 𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡. 𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑎𝑢𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑟 𝑖𝑠 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑎 𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑠𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑠𝑡, 𝑐𝑜𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑒𝑟, 𝑜𝑟 𝑙𝑎𝑤𝑦𝑒𝑟.

Shared with Dropbox

08/06/2026

Sir Humphrey unpacks how leading survey questions elicit pre-determined answers. Yes, Minister.

Sir Humphrey shows how to ask the same people, using different angl...

08/06/2026

Sir Humphrey unpacks how leading survey questions can be made to elicit predetermined answers. Yes, Minister.

Sir Humphrey shows how to ask the same people, using different angl...

08/06/2026

SUNSHINE COAST COUNCIL RATE RISE AND STAFF CUTS
Sunshine Coast News reports that Sunshine Coast Council’s 2026-27 rates are going up by about 9.7% and that over the past 5 years the council has been running its operational budget into deficit. In other words, each year they’ve spent more than their revenue.

Resulting from this, the Sunshine Coast Council CEO has announced that to reduce costs about 130 roles are “proposed for removal”. In plain English, that’s 130 job losses. (According to its 2024-25 Annual Report the council has about 1,980 staff.)

The 2026-27 rate rise has been communicated by Mayor Rosanna Natoli as an ‘overall rate increase of 9.7% for most owner-occupier ratepayers.” This means that many will experience an even higher rate rise.

Noosa Council has yet to announce when its special budget meeting will be held. Noosa Council has a track record of planning to run its operational budget in surplus, with the excess funds held as cash reserves. The operational budget consists of annual revenue (including rates and other income) and annual expenditure. Capital works are not paid for via the operational budget, but rather are funded out of the cash reserves.

According to the financial performance report tabled at Noosa Council’s May Ordinary Meeting, total cash on hand at the end of April 2026 was $146.7million, with $7.0million of this balance held in trust. Generally about a third of the cash is restricted for items such as unexpended levy funds, disaster management, waste management and future asset replacement.

You can read the Sunshine Coast News article here:

The Sunshine Coast Council CEO has spoken about the need for “decisive action” including proposed job losses to address the organisation's financial woes.

05/06/2026

𝗖𝗢𝗨𝗡𝗖𝗜𝗟 𝗚𝗥𝗔𝗡𝗧𝗦 𝗟𝗔𝗖𝗞 𝗣𝗨𝗕𝗟𝗜𝗖 𝗔𝗖𝗖𝗢𝗨𝗡𝗧𝗔𝗕𝗜𝗟𝗜𝗧𝗬
contributed by Nick Hluszko

𝐼𝑓 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑝𝑎𝑦𝑒𝑟 𝑚𝑜𝑛𝑒𝑦 𝑖𝑠 𝑏𝑒𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑛 𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑠, 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑝𝑎𝑦𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑙𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑠𝑒𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑠𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑠 - 𝑐𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑙𝑦, 𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑝𝑢𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑙𝑦 - 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑡 ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡𝑜 𝑙𝑜𝑑𝑔𝑒 𝑎 𝑅𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑡𝑜 𝐼𝑛𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑠𝑡.

My concern is that council should have a culture of accountability to every single ratepayer - at ALL levels. This is not about singling out any one grant recipient.

Noosa Council has a grants process that looks strong on paper.
• The Community Grants Program summary report claims it is administered through an "equitable and transparent process."
• The Environment & Climate Change Response Grants report boasts of "robust governance enhancements to improve defensibility, objectivity and transparency." Grantees must submit acquittals. Staff assess against criteria. Panels moderate scores.

But there is a gap that none of the staff reports address: internal compliance is not the same as external transparency.

The Environment Project Grants (Round 21) and Climate Change Response Grants (Round 6) alone are recommending funding for groups including Teewah Turtle Trackers, Noosa & District Landcare, Wildlife Noosa, the Noosa Biosphere Reserve Trust, Zero Emissions Noosa (ZEN), and the Noosa Integrated Catchment Association (NICA).

These are in addition to other community grants. The 2026-27 Community Grants Program will allocate over $930,000 across various categories.

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀

If ratepayer money is being spent on environmental or community outcomes - by anyone, at any scale, year after year - ratepayers are entitled to see the results. Clearly. Annually. Publicly. Without having to lodge a Right to Information request.

To be clear: this is not about the worthiness of any specific grant. Whether a group is a small volunteer outfit or a repeat recipient like ZEN, NBRF, or NICA is irrelevant to the core principle. The communication around grant transparency has been too narrow. Some of the most frequent recipients are the ones who should be most accountable to public scrutiny.

𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘄𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗼𝗹𝗱—𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘄𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘁𝗼𝗹𝗱

The staff report to Council recommending award of Environment Grants states that all funded initiatives must have "tangible and measurable outcomes." Assessment criteria include "monitoring and evaluation of project outcomes and targets" and "success in the delivery of past projects, including the provision of all reporting conditions."

The Community Grants summary notes that "all grants go through an acquittal process whereby the applicant reports on the funded project's delivery for approval."

That means the data exists. The staff reports to Council acknowledge it. But that information is simply not being shared with the people who paid for it.

𝗦𝗼 𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗽𝗮𝘆𝗲𝗿 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗯𝗲 𝗮𝘀𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 - 𝗹𝗼𝘂𝗱𝗹𝘆 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱𝗹𝘆

Are we, the ratepayers, getting value for money from year after year funding of the same groups?

With real, tangible, measurable result, does it all make a real difference, or is this all just "nice to do"?

Ratepayers should not have to lodge a Right to Information request to find out whether their money actually made a difference. And even if they do, the reality is that such requests rarely yield much assistance - most of the time the reply is: “Should you wish to pursue the matter further, you have the right to request an external review by the Queensland Ombudsman.”

That is not transparency. That is a runaround.

𝙎𝙤 𝙡𝙚𝙩’𝙨 𝙗𝙚 𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙘𝙞𝙛𝙞𝙘 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙬𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙬𝙚 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙗𝙚𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙤𝙡𝙙

• How will we actually know if any of these funded projects delivered?

• Will we see a public report showing what was promised versus what was achieved?

• Where did every dollar go?

• Which projects underperformed - and why?

• Did recipients receive other funds (State, Federal, community) for the same project?

And most fundamentally:
• After years of funding the same groups, what has actually changed? What measurable improvement can we point to?

The staff reports to the 9th of June General Committee list exhaustive assessment criteria - alignment, need, benefit, capacity, co-contributions, methodology, risk.

But nowhere is there a commitment to publish the results for ratepayers to see.

Nowhere is there an obligation to demonstrate, year on year, that cumulative funding has actually produced cumulative benefit.

𝙏𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙞𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙩𝙧𝙪𝙨𝙩. 𝙄𝙩 𝙞𝙨 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙖 𝙘𝙪𝙡𝙩𝙪𝙧𝙚.

A culture of accountability means that transparency is automatic, not fought for. It means that a small volunteer group and a large recurring grant recipient both know that their results will be public. It means that every Councillor and every Council officer understands that ratepayers are not adversaries to be managed - they are the principals to be served. And it means that "value for money" is not just a box to tick in an internal spreadsheet, but a public accounting to the people who earned and contributed that money.

𝙎𝙤 𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙞𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙖𝙨𝙠 - 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙤𝙛 "𝙗𝙖𝙙 𝙜𝙧𝙖𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙚𝙨," 𝙗𝙪𝙩 𝙤𝙛 𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙞𝙧𝙚 𝘾𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙘𝙞𝙡 𝙨𝙮𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙢:

Publish an annual Community and Environment Grants Outcomes Report which provides the acquittal outcomes for every grantee across every program. Include:
• Project name and grant amount
• Promised measurable outcome
• Actual result achieved
• Budget versus actual expenditure
• Any other funding sources received for the same project
• A cumulative summary for repeat recipients showing multi-year outcomes

No jargon. No spin. Just results.

For the small groups. For the repeat recipients. For everyone who gets a grant.

That is accountability. That is transparency. That is being responsible to all ratepayers - at all levels.

The recommended grant recipients to be approved by Council in June are listed in the General Committee meeting papers which can be read here (click on the agenda item headings to open each one)
https://noosa.resolve.red/portal/meeting/952

05/06/2026

Real Estate Institute (REIQ) figures show that Noosa LGA still the most expensive median house and unit prices relative to other key Queensland centres.

Tables are from Sunshine Coast News:
https://www.sunshinecoastnews.com.au/2026/06/05/coast-property-prices-climb-but-pressures-mount/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=2026-06-05&utm_campaign=Store+closures+Property+prices+Gambling+appeal

03/06/2026

E-BIKE LEGISLATION WATERED DOWN
The proposed e-bike legislation before Queensland parliament has been reduced. It is due to be voted on in Parliament this week.

As reported by the ABC, some of the amendments to the original bill, announced by Minister Brent Mickelberg on Tuesday, include:

•Allow those aged between 12 and 17 to ride an e-mobility device under parental supervision

•Those aged 16 or above who hold at least a learner’s permit will be able to ride without supervision.

•Parents can be fined if a child under 16 rides illegally

•An exemption for people who could not hold a license due to a medical condition or disability

•Instead of a 10 km/h limit, a 12 km/h speed limit to apply on footpaths and when passing pedestrians on shared paths. The speed limit on shared paths would otherwise be 25 km/h

•E-scooters and personal mobility devices will need to be limited to 25 km/h and e-bikes must comply with the European Standard EN15194

•Amendments regarding use of e-mobility devices on rail trails and mountain bike tracks.

The laws were expected to come in from July 1, with the ban on under-16s riding alone and licence requirements to start from August 31.
__________________________
AMA Queensland President Erica Gannon said walking back the ban felt like a betrayal of children’s safety.
__________________________
Minister Brent Mickelberg’s media release highlighted what the laws will deliver:

•“Police powers to seize and destroy illegal devices from July 1

•“Police powers to conduct random breath tests for riders in public places from July 1

•“Riders over the 0.05 blood alcohol limit will face fines of more than $500, with maximum court penalties of up to $6,908

•“E-bikes and scooters which can exceed 25km/h unassisted will be banned and 12km speed limits to apply near pedestrians, from July 1

•“Higher penalties for speeding, failure to wear a helmet, careless riding, illegally carrying passengers and riding Personal Mobility Devices on prohibited roads from July 1

•“Licensing requirements for riders, with exemptions for medical conditions and disabilities, and ability for 12-17 year olds to ride under parental supervision from August 31

•“Parental accountability for children under 16 riding illegally, from July 1

•"Those with a medical condition or disability who don’t have a licence will be able to use e-mobility devices under a medical exemption framework."

01/06/2026

WHAT YOU'LL PAY - COUNCIL FEES & CHARGES 2026-27
Fees and charges always implicit in Council’s annual budget. But this year Noosa Shire residents are being given a preview. At its June Ordinary meeting Council is being asked to approve fees and charges in advance of the 2026 – 2027 budget being finalised.

The Financial Services Manager’s report in the General Committee agenda says:

“Adoption of the fees and charges schedule prior to finalisation of the budget provides transparency and advance notice to the community and service users”.

“General cost-recovery fees and commercial charges are proposed to generate approximately $31 million in the 2026–27 financial year, representing around 19% of Council’s operating revenue.”

Here’s the link to the staff report and the proposed 2026-27 Fees & Charges Schedule:
https://noosa.resolve.red/portal/Meeting/952/9602?type=1&docId=2921

Have a look at what you can expect to pay for:
• Animals – impounds, registrations,
• Cemeteries – burials, monuments, plaques, leasing, venues
• Environmental Health – food businesses and services, caravan parks, camping grounds, pest management,
• Ferry Service
• Noosa Regional Gallery
• Local Laws – CITEC search, overgrown land, impounded vehicles, boats, trailers, goods
• Legal Services – leases, survey plans
• Noosa Aquatic Centre
• Noosa Leisure Centre
• Property Information services
• Parks and Gardens – permits, memorials, trees, vehicle access
• Property Management -holding tank cartage
• Respite Centre
• Road Reserves
• Right to Information / Information Privacy
• Streetlighting complaints
• Use of Public Space and Council Land – permits
• Events – bonds, facility hire, inspections, access
• Commercial filming
• Footpath dining / trading
• Street performers
• Weddings and Ceremonies
• Waste Management
• Waterways - access
• Digital Hub - membership
• Library services
• Holiday Parks and Campgrounds
• Development and Planning
And other things.

01/06/2026

WHO GETS COUNCIL GRANTS?
Next week at the June 2026 General Committee meeting at 10am Tuesday 9th June, there is a full set of new council grants on the agenda for Council to approve.

• Community Project And Signature Community Events Grants

• 2026-2027 Community Project Grants Program – Projects

• 2026-2027 Community Project Grants Program – Facility Development

• 2026-2027 Community Project Grants Program – Equipment

• 2026-2027 Community Project Grants Program - Events

• 2026-2027 Community Grants Program - Three-Year Signature Community Event Grants

• Environment & Climate Change Response Grants – Environment Project Grants (Round 21)

• Climate Change Response Grants (Round 6)

All the recommended grants can be viewed here on the council website – just click on the headings:
https://noosa.resolve.red/portal/meeting/952
___________________________________

The proposed new environmental grants are as follows:

ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT GRANTS 2026/27

$17,301.16 to Teewah Turtle Trackers Inc. for the Teewah Turtle Trackers Monitoring and Conservation Initiative

$10,870.84 to Noosa and District Landcare for the Protecting Pinbarren Project

$6,828.00 to Wildlife Noosa Ltd. for the Noosa River Hazards to Wildlife (Lines and Lures) Reduction Program

CLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSE GRANTS 2026/27

$14,820.00 to The Trustee for the Noosa Biosphere Reserve Trust [aka NBRF] for the Future Tide - 2027 Noosa Youth Climate Summit

$12,899.06 to Zero Emissions Noosa Inc. (ZEN) for the Swap the Drive: Supporting Modal Shift from Cars To Bikes program

$10,000.00 to the Noosa Integrated Catchment Association Inc (NICA). for the Get Climate ready with Noosa Native Plants project

$10,000 to Zero Emissions Noosa Inc. (ZEN) for the Solar on Low Income Homes project.
___________________________________________

It has been pleasing to find that, since a gap was identified by Noosa Truth, now Noosa Council's Environment and Climate Change grants webpage has been updated showing grants awarded all the way to 2026 under the heading 'Previous grant recipients'. In May we had found that only grants awarded up to 2022 were listed.
https://www.noosa.qld.gov.au/Community/Grants/Environment-and-Climate-Change-Grants