The following is a submission by Noosa Parks Association on Noosa Council’s draft Destination Management Plan.

You can take part in the short Council survey here,

Or the longer survey here.

Or you can email a submission to dmp@noosa.qld.gov.au

Noosa Parks Association (NPA) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the draft Destination Management Plan (DMP) prepared by Noosa Council. NPA congratulates council on finally delivering a draft DMP for consideration, after what has been a somewhat torturous gestation.

The draft DMP on offer is like the curate’s egg: partly good and partly bad. Nevertheless, it is a welcome confirmation that Noosa Council intends to take the management of Noosa seriously, and further that council views itself as having the primary responsibility for destination management (as opposed to the destination marketing organisation, Tourism Noosa, being responsible for destination managment).

From NPA’s perspective, overtourism is the single biggest issue facing Noosa Shire and will remain so over coming years. The draft DMP thankfully acknowledges the widespread concern evident within the Noosa resident community regarding tourism and its dominance. Without adequate solutions to existing and looming problems associated with overtourism, community concerns will continue to grow more fervent, as will associated issues including housing availability, cost-of-living, availability of key workers and community wellbeing.

The draft DMP contains many wonderful motherhood statements and some good ideas, but it is less of a concrete Action Plan than a plan to further consider possible responses. In other words, it has plenty of framework but few concrete commitments. NPA appreciates the dilemma faced by Noosa Council staff in presenting a document such as this for endorsement by the current council. That the document sailed through a Special Meeting with barely any disagreement amongst our elected councillors demonstrates the talents of the staff in drafting something acceptable to them all. Simultaneously, the lack of debate over the draft DMP contents perhaps indicates its failure to provide “transformational” solutions. According to the document, a majority of residents have called for a transformative set of actions. Transformative, from our position, should include visionary and perhaps even difficult strategies and actions. Transformative is neither simple nor uncontroversial. Yet we understand and hope that the final DMP will be transformative, perhaps thanks to a mandate provided by the submissions to this current draft.

NPA appreciates that the draft DMP acknowledges the impact of the tourism sector on residents, and that the “balance” may have tipped such that “the benefits of tourism are no longer being shared in ways that feel fair or sustainable”. We also support a DMP that “is a commitment to putting community first – protecting the lifestyle, environment and character that make Noosa special, while managing tourism in a way that respects and sustains our shared home.” We appreciate a DMP that takes into account the “community’s values”.

Although it hasn’t been included in the document, we note from a staff presentation that the highest priority theme from the feedback received to the phase 1 engagement was not “Environment” at 78% as stated on p15, but rather “Placing the Community First” at 86% of respondents. It’s a shame that the draft DMP chose to conceal rather than illuminate this.

In brief, this NPA response to the draft DMP points to:

1. The welcome emphasis on residents versus visitors.

2. However, the draft DMP fails to consider the impact of day visitors.

3. The draft DMP also fails to consider an acceptable carrying capacity of tourism numbers for the shire per se.

4. There are naive assumptions behind “regenerative tourism”.

5. There is a high likelihood that none of the transport measures currently suggested will reduce or control tourism numbers. NPA thus provides an alternative solution.

6. We harbour some concerns around the proposed Destination Stewardship Council

THE TWO GLARING OMISSIONS

1. No mention of Day Trippers.

From our point-of-view, there are two glaring omissions in the draft DMP document. One is the complete lack of reference to “day tripper”, “day visitor” or “drive-in tourist”. These words simply don’t appear, and so any solutions to the problem posed by single day visitors are ignored in the current draft.

According to Tourism Noosa’s 2023-24 Annual Report (the most recent available publicly), “day trip” visitors amounted to almost half (47%) of all visitors and totalled almost a million visitors (984,000), yet they contributed just 10% of the total tourism spend.

The impact on resident amenity and traffic congestion, not to mention public infrastructure, by tourists is largely a product of visitors who drive into Noosa and drive out again on the same day. With planned population increases across South-East Queensland as well as the southern end of the Sunshine Coast, the pressure being placed on Noosa by day trippers will only continue to grow. If Noosa needs a strategy to deal with overtourism, then day visitors must be considered a specific priority.

2. No Consideration of Ideal Carrying Capacity of Tourists

The other glaring omission is the draft DMP’s complete failure to consider establishing a ceiling or idealised upper limit on tourism numbers. We believe this should be the primary focus of a DMP. Just as Noosa, via its planning scheme, idealises a carrying capacity for residents, so a DMP must consider the ideal carrying capacity for tourists. We note, for instance, that Tourism Noosa has recently been congratulating itself for hitting a record highs in international and overnight visitors, up by 35% and 20% respectively on pre-Covid numbers (Noosa Today, 8 August, 2025) with no mention by the DMO of increases in day visitors. Assumedly, all visitor numbers are up on pre-Covid numbers, and that would include day trippers. Even if day visitors remain proportionally less than overnight visitors, any increase in total day visitor numbers results in a greater impact on resident amenity as well as public infrastructure.

We note that under Action 2.1 it states, “Explore the use of new technologies (e.g. mobility sensors and real time APPs) to ensure visitor numbers and activities are sustainable and within an established carrying capacity of Noosa’s environment, waterways and infrastructure.” This appears to refer to Noosa’s “most sensitive areas” where nature may “need to rest”. The document doesn’t explain how that carrying capacity might be determined for these areas, nor, more importantly, for the entire shire.

If constant growth is the primary gambit of Tourism Noosa on behalf of its members, then it is essential for Noosa Council to establish an agreed target or carrying capacity for tourists. That way, residents and businesses can be made aware of what is meant by sustainable tourism. As many business experts attest, “effective management hinges on establishing clear and specific targets”. An acceptable level of tourism will depend on determining “acceptable limits”. No effort has been made by Noosa Council to establish acceptable limits, with regard to residents but also in respect of the visitor experience. There are methodologies to determine acceptable limits, and council would do well to consider the many examples available from around the world.

THE TOURISM GROWTH DILEMMA

NPA is also aware that council’s Economic Development department has a tendency to view all business sectors as opportunities for further growth. Plainly that includes the tourism sector. The problem is that, as tourist numbers increase, so new businesses crop up to capitalise on that growth. This becomes a pattern of continual growth that mitigates against sustainable tourism. Politicians, including local government councillors, are forever fearful of taking actions that impact negatively on economic growth or local businesses. In terms of tourism, this becomes a catch-22 scenario, where tourism keeps growing and politicians are at a loss to call “halt” even when overtourism is evident. (One can see this dilemma playing out across the world.) Yet the draft DMP clearly notes that we need to manage tourism “in a way that respects and sustains our shared home”. The draft DMP also acknowledges that “the impacts of increased visitation… are being felt across the Shire more widely and deeply than ever before.”

The take-home message is that Noosa has already achieved a degree of overtourism and further sector growth is unsustainable and detrimental to resident amenity and the natural environment. This dilemma generates both a conflict and an opportunity for council. The conflict, as stated, is a popularist one stemming from neo-conservative assumptions that all economic growth is inherently good. The opportunity is for council’s economic development team to focus more on diversifying the local economy and spending minimal time on the tourism sector. Put simply, there should be a shared understanding that tourism growth in Noosa has already reached an undesirable peak (even though it will grow even more when the 186-unit Calile Resort comes online).

Here are some interesting statistics. Barcelona has been in the news for some time because of residents fighting back against overtourism (see, for example, ABC’s Foreign Correspondent episode of 19 August). Protests, smoke bombs, and water pistols are being employed in the fight against tourism. In 2024, Barcelona received over 15 million visitors (15.6 m in 2023). The population of Barcelona residents is 1.73 million. That means there are 9 annual visitors to the city each year for every resident. In Noosa, we experience over 2.1 million visitors each year while our resident population is just over 59,000. That is a ratio of 35 visitors for every resident.

ON REGENERATIVE TOURISM

NPA appreciates the intent of the concept around regenerative tourism, being tourism that restores the natural, cultural and social systems of the destination. However, we feel that the draft DMP is enormously naive in its insistence that regenerative tourism is even possible. Indeed, we suggest that the overall impact of tourism will always be more deleterious than beneficial, particularly towards the natural environment.

Eco-tourism has become a buzzword that seeks to greenwash tourism impacts by making them appear wholesome and environmentally friendly. Eco-tourism implies tourism that is supposedly low-impact and which respects nature. The truth is that wherever tourists drive, boat, fly or tramp through natural areas, they help to degrade local biodiversity. For example, a 2020 study published in the Australian Journal of Zoology considered the impact of so-called eco-tourism on the vocal behaviour of Eastern Yellow Robins. The study found that: “during peak tourism seasonal periods, robins sang fewer songs, and these songs were shorter.” What’s more, the impacts weren’t restricted to high tourism periods but also occurred during low periods when maintenance was being carried out. The study concluded that for eco-tourism practices: “tourist numbers as well as maintenance practices should be considered within the context of local wildlife conservation.” In short, eco-tourism is not eco-neutral.

Plainly bird song is just one small indicator of tourism impacts on natural systems. In Noosa, we are faced with the impacts of tourism everywhere. Vehicles that drive on Teewah Beach have a devastating impact on the creatures (worms, molluscs, crabs etc) that live in the sand, plus the higher order animals that feed on those creatures and also turtles and migrating birds that require frontal dunes for breeding. The Noosa Ocean Rider boat that gives tourists a thrill by travelling at breakneck speed across Laguna Bay arguably endangers and impacts on marine life. The promotion of Granite Bay’s Fairy Pools as a tourist experience has resulted in the complete decimation of soft corals and other marine life that once inhabited those rock pools. The enormous numbers of people now walking through Noosa Heads National Park are inevitably impacting on wildlife with many species in decline. The boat wash from powered tour boats heading through the Noosa Everglades and upriver is eroding the embankments of the river system. And so it goes on.

Eco-tourism is an oxymoron. Arguably, so is Regenerative Tourism. Note that we are not suggesting that visitors should be prevented from experiencing Noosa’s natural wonders. We are, however, asserting, that it is naive and absurd to pretend that there aren’t negative environmental consequences to tourism activities. It is even more ridiculous to imply that tourism can have a net positive impact on the natural environment.

The draft DMP includes an image depicting Tourism Noosa’s “Trees for Tourism” planting event. Whilst NPA appreciates the overarching intent of this initiative, we also view it as a form of greenwashing – an effort to try and present tourism as having an integrity and environmental consciousness that it cannot achieve. The planting of a few hundred trees does nothing to offset the massive carbon footprint and environmental impact of tourism in our shire. If one calculates the air travel and/or vehicle emissions from tourists visiting Noosa, then planting a few acres of trees will have virtually no compensatory effect.

In short, “regenerative tourism” may sound nice, but it is an unrealistic pipedream and should be treated as such. Real environmental gains require real accountability.

TOURISM NOOSA FUNDING

We are pleased that the draft DMP includes a category headed “Review Funding of Tourism” including an intention to “Review all elements of the Tourism Noosa Funding Agreement…” NPA believes that the current use of General Funds to subsidise Tourism Noosa is excessive. If Noosa Council chooses to continue funding Tourism Noosa, that funding must be contingent upon Tourism Noosa meeting the requirements of a DMP. Any marketing of Noosa must include Noosa’s environmental and cooperative participation ideals. Tourism Noosa must also begin marketing our destination with appropriate expectations: e.g. no more images of unpeopled beaches and streets, of lone couples wandering along a deserted Main Beach boardwalk or a lone individual doing yoga at Little Cove Beach, etc. Furthermore, it is high time that marketing of Noosa included elements of Noosa’s history, both indigenous and modern. If we want visitors to respect Noosa, they need to understand how Noosa came to be. Noosa didn’t just happen. It’s intrinsic qualities, particularly respect for the natural environment, were idealised and fought for by its community. It would be good for the final DMP to incorporate better acknowledgement of Noosa’s modern history, including NPA’s seminal role.

TRANSPORT ISSUES

Whilst the draft DMP pays lip service to being “transformative”, there is nothing amongst the transport initiatives mentioned that wasn’t considered by the 2016-2020 Noosa Council, including during and after the development of the Noosa Council Transport Strategy that remains in place. During that time, thorough deliberations occurred around improving public transport, getting people out of private vehicles, paid parking, park-and-ride services, dedicated bus lanes and so forth. At the time, council heard from numerous progressive and experienced transport experts. It also considered new technologies such as mobility sensors and real time APPs. All this is to say that not much has progressed since 2020 on the issue of transport improvements.

Of particular note is that many common assumptions regarding driver and human behaviour are wrong. For example, increased traffic congestion does not act as a deterrent to people using cars. Traffic jams don’t stop people from trying to get from A to B using their private cars. Furthermore, experience from Australia and elsewhere reveals that paid parking does not result in fewer vehicles on the road. Even London’s congestion tax has reportedly failed in reducing traffic congestion.

On the issue of paid parking, it is clear from abundant evidence that such measures serve largely to raise revenue for local governments, not regulate traffic. NPA opposes the introduction of paid parking or parking meters in Noosa. It has long been the case that Noosa has aimed to avoid “big city symbols” such as traffic lights, billboards, oversized advertising, neon lights, high-rise buildings and so on. We view paid parking as a big city approach that does not sit well with Noosa’s village atmosphere. Indeed, Noosa’s refusal to participate in big city approaches is a significant part of Noosa’s charm and its attractiveness. Notably, through Noel Playford’s terms as mayor in the late 80s and 90s, NPA played a significant role in establishing the current “look and feel” of Noosa. We therefore oppose measures that arguably undermine that look and feel.

The many failings of the state-controlled public transport system have been analysed for years. Without the leadership required to genuinely influence the state on making “transformational” changes to the status quo, we will be stuck with whatever they provide us. NPA supports efforts to improve public transport through lobbying the state, but we aren’t holding our collective breath waiting for genuine improvements to occur.

Consideration has been given by Council over many years to park-and-ride facilities. Noosa Council has offered a minor park-and-ride service with the free holiday bus service into Main Beach (paid for by ratepayers). The problem of generating sufficient park-and-ride facilities comes down to land use and land availability. There is a lack of available land on feeder roads that can accommodate the thousands of vehicles that might have a real impact on Noosa’s traffic congestion. Park-and-ride may be a small part of the transport solution for Noosa, but it is unlikely to have a significant impact on overall traffic congestion and will be very costly to implement.

Some individuals and organisations seek to instigate gross behaviour change amongst residents and visitors. This thinking idealises having car drivers swap their vehicles for alternative modes of transport – including walking, bicycling, scooters, public buses etc. This notion is enshrined in the Transport Strategy. NPA believes that, due to the geography and topography of Noosa, the limitations of public infrastructure, the age demographic of residents, the churn rate of residents, and existing cultural norms, it is completely unrealistic to assume that mass behaviour change is feasible. Behaviour change will only occur where there is sufficient reward to justify individuals making the shift. Even if some residents take up alternative modes of transport, it is unlikely to have a significant impact on overall traffic congestion, particularly given the hundreds of thousands of day trippers driving into Noosa.

NPA notes that a Parking Management Strategy will soon be released by council. We fear that decisions have already been made about actions regarding this vexed issue, including the mooted introduction of paid parking. Council would do well to wait until it has considered responses to the draft DMP before releasing a parking strategy.

Amongst “potential solutions” (draft DMP p17) is the investigation of a congestion charge, yet this doesn’t appear amongst the actions in the Action Plan (section 3). Again, a congestion tax, like a bed tax, will only serve to raise revenue, not limit vehicle or visitor numbers. The reason for that is “induced demand”.

THE PROBLEM OF INDUCED DEMAND

Any fees imposed on tourists will do nothing to reduce or deter visitors. The reason for this is that having to pay for an experience can actually make it seem more worthwhile. This is known as “induced demand’. Paying for something that was previously free can serve to make that something more attractive.

But there is another aspect of induced demand that is unwittingly generated when governments claim to be reducing traffic congestion. Where authorities seek to make roads flow more freely, they also instigate induced demand. Making a freeway wider inspires more cars to use it, and the congestion simply returns. London’s congestion tax led to people assuming that traffic would flow more freely, and so more vehicles became willing to pay the tax and enter the CBD. When journeys that would previously have seemed to be fraught are given a veneer of improvement or possibility, it makes them more attractive. By introducing measures that seem to be fixing the problem, one can simultaneously end up inviting more people to use those measures, thus increasing, not reducing, numbers.

We are not opposed to Noosa Council introducing a user-pays approach to tourism that may raise funds to help manage tourism. Congestion taxes, visitor levies and the like are fine, as long as council isn’t asserting that they are a means of managing tourism or vehicle numbers. People won’t stop coming to Noosa if we make them pay more nor if we pretend to have alleviated traffic congestion. The only methods for dealing with day visitor vehicles are by way of limiting access through a permit system or, as occurs on the Amalfi Coast, where odd and even number plate rules apply (which effectively halves vehicle numbers).

DEALING WITH DAY VISITORS

As noted, the draft DMP fails to consider day trip visitors. NPA believes that a primary focus of a Noosa-based DMP should be on reducing, deterring and managing single day drive-in visitors. Failing to grapple with this issue is tantamount to avoiding dealing with overtourism. Simply marketing Noosa to high-yield, overnight visitors won’t deter day trippers. In broad terms, day trippers generate the most visible problem for residents and make up almost half of all visitors to Noosa while contributing just 10% of the total tourism spend.

We note the many similarities between the draft Noosa DMP and Byron Bay’s Sustainable Visitation Strategy 2020-2030, but at least the Byron Bay document delineates and takes account of domestic day visitors. It also refers to the pressure from population growth in SEQ, another omission from Noosa’s draft DMP.

Evidence from across the world shows that when destinations become very crowded, the tourism spend diminishes. Not only do you end up with a different type of tourist, but the overall ambiance (lack of relaxation in the tourist experience) militates against spending. What Noosa Council and the tourism sector need to accept is that increasing gross numbers of day trippers does little for the overall tourism spend but has a big impact on both the visitor and resident experience of Noosa.

The best solution that NPA can find for this problem is to institute a permit system that establishes maximum numbers of day visitors on any given day. A fee and fine system will not only cover establishment and operational costs but may also provide additional revenue that can be used to offset tourism impacts on public infrastructure. There are just five feeder roads into Noosa’s coastal areas, and number plate recognition technology has proven effective for many years (e.g. Brisbane’s toll tunnels). The implementation of a permit system for cars has added benefits. It will reduce illegal overnight campers in the coastal areas (management of this problem is a cost to council and thus ratepayers). It will also force currently hidden and unregistered STAs to identify themselves as they will need to register their guests for access permits. Details on how this system might work are detailed in Appendix 1.

NPA recognises that the introduction of a permit system for sections of the shire will generate considerable debate and media interest outside of the shire. We do not believe that will cause damage to Noosa’s reputation as a tourism destination, but rather, will increase the likelihood of induced demand. We do, however, recognise that it will take significant political courage to champion such a move. We point out that there are strictly limited numbers of tour operators and thus visitors to the Great Barrier Reef. Permits are required to travel and/or camp on K’Gari and Teewah Beach. In other words, there is already a section of Noosa Shire that requires a permit to enter.

SHORT TERM ACCOMODATION

NPA is pleased that the draft DMP includes repeated mention of the impact that short term accommodation (Airbnb, Stayz etc.) has had on Noosa. Impacts clearly include negative consequences for: resident amenity, housing availability, housing affordability, availability of key workers (including council staff), traffic congestion, on-street parking, plus community cohesion and resident wellbeing.

We are also cognizant of the limitations placed on local government to deal with STAs without the willing support of their state government. We certainly agree that council should do all in its power to “manage and mitigate the impacts of short-term accommodation” and “advocate to the state government for a state-wide register of STA properties and seek legislative changes in relation to STA use rights and capping STA numbers in residential zones.” Ironically, this is exactly what began under the 2016-2020 Noosa Council, with the support of the LGAQ and a reference group established by then Queensland Minister for Tourism, Kate Jones.

Given the current Queensland Government’s Destination 2045 agenda, and its desire to massively increase tourism in Queensland, combined with the state’s ongoing refusal to establish tourist limitations in sensitive locales such as K’Gari, we do not hold out much hope of Noosa Council achieving a considered position by the state on the matter of STAs. In particular, we note the difficulties that Noosa Council is having getting the current planning scheme amendments approved by the state – presumably the efforts to strengthen planning regulations around STAs are a major stumbling block in this regard. Certainly, any efforts to garner state cooperation in dealing with the STA issue must involve the Local Government Association Queensland (there is already a successful motion to this effect dating back to the 2017 LGAQ Annual Conference that was moved by Noosa Council).

VISITOR LEVY AND/OR CONGESTION TAX

NPA believes it is high time that the tourism sector pays for their impact on public infrastructure. At present, ratepayers pay for the impact of over 2 million visitors each year. That impact includes, by way of example: wear-and-tear on roads and bridges; provision, maintenance and cleaning of public toilets; impacts on parks and gardens; cleaning and maintenance of southern beaches; collection and disposal of tourist-generated rubbish; and following a recent decision by council, ratepayers must also now fund the promotion and management of large-scale events (previously a Tourism Noosa responsibility).

A user-pays approach is a no-brainer. It’s high time the tourism sector began to pay for their own impacts on the shire. We acknowledge that this may require state government approval.

A congestion tax could also be adjusted so that the levy was higher at peak tourism periods and lower during low periods.

Contrary to the suggestions made by one councillor during debate at the Special Meeting to endorse the draft DMP, we believe that such a tax will not do damage to Noosa’s reputation or brand. As can be seen where similar fees are applied across the planet, visitor excises generally enhance a location’s attractiveness (see “induced demand” above).

THE PROPOSED DESTINATION STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL

NPA has concerns about this aspect of the draft DMP. The make-up of the proposed Destination Stewardship Council (DSC) is unclear. Under whose set of beliefs is the group to include “changemakers and decision-makers committed to driving the implementation of the DMP”?

If the DSC is a “high-level governance and oversight body” with “authority and influence” including “matters governed by state or federal jurisdictions” then we wish to know how it can be authorised to make decisions.

The DSC will obviously be established and funded by Noosa Council, so any semblance of independence must be questioned. Without a clear Terms of Reference, it is difficult to understand how such a body will be able to separate itself from council, critique council’s actions, make determinations of validity, or influence the implementation of the DMP.

Furthermore, the recent Destination 2045 strategy promoted by the state government clearly demonstrates the disjunct between Noosa’s tourism ambitions and the state’s ambitions. Of course, the possibility exists that a DSC might be a gateway to presenting Noosa’s unique tourism direction to the state government, but we believe this is best handled through Noosa Council leadership and direct political engagement, not via a separate entity.

Whilst NPA appreciates council’s desire to have a reference body that can provide frank and fearless advice as well as keep track of the DMP’s progress, without more details on its make-up and authority, we cannot be sure that the DSC will be an effective body.

WHAT NPA WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN A NOOSA DMP

Here are the two main elements that NPA would like to see in the DMP.

1. Establish an ideal carrying capacity of tourists.

We call on Noosa Council to commit to establishing acceptable limits on tourism numbers, separated into overnight and day visitors. Just as Noosa once established a carrying capacity for residents (colloquially known as a population cap), so we need to define our maximum carrying capacity for tourist numbers. In doing so, everyone, both businesses and residents, will have a yardstick by which to measure tourism’s trajectory and the DMP’s effectiveness.

2. Establish real deterrents to day trippers.

We believe this can only be achieved through a preventative system such as permits or limiting vehicle numbers by way of number plate recognition. This is not a simple solution, but no truly effective solution is going to be simple. There are many existing tourist destinations across the planet that limit vehicle and/or people numbers. You can’t expect to drive into many US national parks nor some European towns without a pre-paid permit. Why shouldn’t Noosa become a boutique destination that guarantees a high-level visitor experience by using similar methods?

Thanks again for the opportunity to respond.

Tony Wellington

NPA President.

APPENDIX ONE

HOW A DRIVE-IN PERMIT SYSTEM MIGHT WORK

The aim of the permit system is to reduce the number of vehicles entering the coastal areas of Noosa, and in so doing also limit the number of day visitors to the area.

If you travel across Brisbane’s Gateway Bridge or drive through one of Brisbane’s tunnels, you are required to have a registered e-tag to pay the toll or else you can buy a pass and have your number plate registered with Linkt. If you don’t have such measures in place, cameras record your number plate and the vehicle’s registered owner is issued with a penalty fine. The Noosa system would work in a similar way. Instead of e-tags, vehicle number plates would be registered on a website portal.

The area requiring a permit to enter would need to have a name. Let’s call it the Noosa Blue Zone for now. That would include the coastal areas of Tewantin in the north down to Peregian Beach in the south. There are only five feeder roads into this area, so zone gateways could be established on each of these five roads. The gateways need to be positioned so that drivers can’t access backstreets or alternative routes to skirt around the permit system. Fortunately, with the way Noosa’s road network has been created, that is quite easy to design.

Just as people have become universally aware of the need to pay tolls on certain city roads, so there would be broad recognition of the requirement to have a permit to enter Noosa’s Blue Zone.

Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras are used across the world, such as for the congestion tax in London. All roads around the perimeter of the zone in London are monitored by ANPR cameras. It costs £15 (AUS$30) per day to enter the London zone if you pay in advance.

Buying or having a permit would not entitle a driver to a parking space within Noosa’s Blue Zone. However, plainly by reducing vehicle numbers, parking would become easier.

Noosa’s permit system could be supported by other measures including park and ride services, with shuttle buses ferrying people from sizeable out-of-zone parking areas into the Blue Zone.

WHERE WOULD THE GATEWAYS BE LOCATED?

1. Mckinnon Drive (Boreen Point Rd) near Yellowood Close and the Noosa District Sports Complex.

2. Cooroy Noosa Rd near Gyndier Drive.

3. Eumundi Noosa Rd before the Beckmans Rd roundabout.

4. Walter Hay Drive before Noosa Civic .

5. David Low Way just north of the Emu Mountain Rd roundabout.

The infrastructure would simply be a metal frame above the road to house the number plate recognition cameras. There would also be signage to explain that vehicles were entering the Noosa Blue Zone, and that permits were required and fines applied for non-compliance (just as there is signage at toll roads in Brisbane and other Australian cities).

There would not be boom gates nor card readers etc at the gateways. There would be no impediments to the free flow of traffic.

Just as for Brisbane’s paid roads, there would be warning signs situated some distance before the Blue Zone. These might read “Blue Zone Ahead. Permit required. Fines apply.” These warning signs would need to be positioned where vehicles could pull over or turn around if necessary.

WHO WOULD HAVE TO PAY AND WHO WOULD GET FREE PASSAGE?

All Noosa Shire residents would get up to two free passes. In other words, if you are registered with council as living at a verifiable Noosa address, you can go to the website portal and enter one or two vehicle registration numbers. If a household requires more than two vehicles to be registered, additional vehicles could be registered for a nominal cost. All shire residents, whether they live inside the Blue Zone or outside the Blue Zone, would have the same benefits.

People who work at businesses in the Blue Zone, but who travel from outside the shire by vehicle, would also need to be registered. Their place of work would need to register their vehicles on the website portal at no cost. Delivery vehicles etc would also need to be registered.

Visitors who have booked accommodation in the Blue Zone, whether at a resort or Airbnb, would need to have their vehicle registered, noting the number of nights they were staying. On the understanding that overnight visitors are “high value”, and their visit was contributing to the local economy, we’re suggesting they would pay no fee to drive into the Blue Zone. The accommodation provider, already registered with the council, would arrange the vehicle permits by using the website. The system would have the added benefit of capturing all the STA properties currently avoiding council registration.

If a resident living in the Blue Zone needed a tradie or other visitor to attend their property, they could go to the website and register the vehicle for one day only, with that vehicle registered against their home address. Similarly, friends and family visiting residents in the Blue Zone would need to have their vehicles registered. That would be a simple matter of the resident going to the website at least one day in advance to register the number plates.

Of course, emergency vehicles and the like would be pre-registered for free access.

Anyone else visiting the Blue Zone and not staying overnight would be required to book a permit. On the basis that day visitors and their vehicles create congestion, parking problems, impact on local infrastructure, and provide minimal benefit to the local economy, they would be required to book ahead and pay. (Just as happens in many tourist locales across the planet.) There would be a limit on the number of paid permits issued per day. This could be, say, 500 permits each day, though that figure would need to be tested against traffic counts and could be adjusted for high and low season periods. Advance bookings would allow day tourists to determine which days were available and which were fully booked. The fee might be $30 or $50 for a day visit by vehicle. (This is really no different to people currently wishing to drive or camp on Teewah Beach, who are required to go to a QPWS website and book ahead plus pay a fee of $14.40 for the day.) To give a cost comparison, if you drive a car from Sydney’s M2 Lane Cove tunnel and exit from the M4 at Homebush, it will cost you $44.10 with a tag and $47.05 with a tag-less account. If you are driving a Class B vehicle, which includes a car with caravan, that same trip will cost you $134.85 or $137.80.

WHO WOULD OPERATE THE SYSTEM?

The Blue Zone permit system would be run by council. Bookings and permits would operate through a council website and database. A dedicated staffer would be appointed to take care of complaints, disputes etc. Staff and overheads would be paid for by the income from day permits and fines. Over time, the establishment cost of the system would also be covered by that income stream.

The system would require cooperation between Noosa Council and the Queensland Government. Some of the gateways and signage would be on state controlled roads. It may be that state legislature is required to establish such a system, although there are precedents such as Brisbane toll roads. Furthermore, Noosa Council would need to create a new Local Law, which detailed how the system would work and establish fees and charges. Such a Local Law would require state government sign-off.

WHAT ABOUT COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST NEXT TO NOOSA?

There are a number of communities of interest outside of Noosa Shire that regularly use Noosa as their base for schooling, shopping etc. Residents living within the suburbs of Peregian Springs, Peregian Breeze, Verrierdale, Doonan, and Eumundi (and perhaps Coolum) might be offered annual passes at a low fee. Plainly this is open to debate.

WHAT ABOUT ACCESS TO AND FROM TEEWAH BEACH?

There is one other gateway to Noosa, and that is Teewah Beach from Rainbow Beach via Noosa North Shore. Even now, very few vehicles access Noosa from the north via Rainbow Beach. (Most of the visitors to Teewah Beach and Cooloola hail from south of Noosa, especially the Caboolture area, according to QPWS statistics.) And it wouldn’t be economical, or make sense, for people to drive all the way up to Rainbow Beach and then travel back to Noosa via Teewah Beach just to avoid the Blue Zone fee.

People who wanted to travel to Teewah Beach via Noosa would have to pay both the Blue Zone fee as well as the QPWS fees. If this has a suppression impact on numbers of people smashing Teewah Beach with 4-wheel drives, and despoiling Cooloola with their human waste, then well and good. That’s a huge environmental win.

WHAT ABOUT PUBLIC TRANSPORT?

All public buses would travel in and out of the Blue Zone at no cost. The permit system is designed to reduce vehicle numbers, and to minimise day visitors, but not inhibit those day visitors who choose to travel by public transport. A park-and-ride system could still operate.

WHAT ABOUT THOSE WHO FAIL TO PAY FOR PERMITS?

The fines for non-compliance would need to be sufficient such that they worked as a deterrent. For Brisbane toll roads, there is a video matching/image processing fee, requested statement fee, toll invoice fee and demand notice fee. According to a 2023 Choice report, in Brisbane, on top of those fees charged by Linkt, “you may also be fined $201 by the Department of Transport and Main Roads or the Brisbane City Council for each unpaid day of travel if you don’t pay an overdue toll notice.”

The penalty fee for entering the Blue Zone without a permit is open to debate and would be subject to financial costings for installation and operation of the system.

The permit system would also reduce the numbers of campervans parking overnight across the coastal districts.

IN CONCLUSION

NPA hasn’t done any costings or feasibility studies. This is just the start of the discussion.

As with any system, there will always be some people who attempt to rort or abuse it. Such people would be a small minority and would not diminish the overall objective of controlling vehicles and limiting day visitor numbers.

If the council were to get serious about considering a permit system such as the one outlined here, I imagine it would take a couple of years to implement. But if something of this nature isn’t started now, then resident amenity and visitor experience will only continue to decline.

There are plenty of real-world examples across the planet where similar access zones are already in place, so there are no end of case studies on which to base a Noosa system. (No, we’re not advocating more overseas junkets for mayor and/or councillors.)