Proposal: “Other” Change to Development Permit for:
- Material change of use – Tourist Park (150 sites: 75 cabins and 75 campsites, plus ancillary recreation facilities)
- Operational work – Stormwater, earthworks, and access
Summary of Changes:
The original 100-site “eco-park” proposal has been expanded to 150 sites (75 cabins and 75 campsites), doubling the projected capacity from 300 to approximately 600 people. The addition of extensive built infrastructure—including a 1,000 m² recreation building, water slide, and jumping castle—transforms the project into a high-impact, Big4-style tourist park.
This development is not in the public interest, offers no proven economic benefit to the State, and poses significant environmental, safety, and planning integrity risks.
1. Environmental concerns
The site borders the Pumicestone Passage, a Ramsar-listed wetland of international importance, adjacent to both a Marine Conservation Park Zone and the Bribie Island Marine National Park. It lies within a protected greenbelt surrounded by Council and National Park reserves that were identified for their environmental significance. The
Sunshine Coast Council itself sought to purchase this land to ensure its protection.
Under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999, the proposal should have been referred to the Federal Department of Environment for assessment due to its proximity to Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES), including habitat for threatened flora and fauna. This referral has not occurred.
The area provides critical feeding and roosting habitat for migratory shorebirds, which are highly sensitive to human disturbance. Activities promoted within the development—such as boating, kayaking, and fishing—will disrupt these species and degrade essential habitat values.
2. Pollution and Ecological Impact
The proposed sewage system would release up to approximately 60,000 litres of effluent per day across 2.5 hectares of adjoining land, posing an unacceptable risk to groundwater, wetlands, and the hydrological health of the Pumicestone Passage.
Light, noise, and litter pollution would harm nocturnal wildlife, pollinators, and fish breeding areas. Domestic pets and foot traffic would contribute to habitat degradation, particularly across the fragile Esplanade ecosystems between the site and the Passage.
Chemical pest controls associated with maintaining the park grounds could also threaten aquatic species and pollinators, creating cascading ecological consequences. Waste removal and management would impose additional costs on Sunshine Coast Council and local residents.
3. Safety and Traffic Concerns
Access is limited to a single narrow, unlit rural road that traverses bushfire-prone and flood-affected terrain, crossing two creeks (one flood-prone). Heavy tourist traffic— caravans and large vehicles—will increase collision risk and impede emergency access.
The bushfire risk at this location is extreme. Surrounded by native and pine forests, the potential for rapid fire spread is high, and the single access road could trap hundreds of guests and staff. This is a life-safety hazard that cannot be conditioned away.
Flood mapping by Sunshine Coast Council shows the property and its access route are located on a floodplain. In moderate to major rainfall events, this road becomes impassable, as seen during the February 2022 floods when Coochin Creek inundation cut off the Bruce Highway. With increasing storm intensity and sea-level rise, these risks will only worsen.
4. Planning Integrity and Zoning
The site lies within the Northern Inter-Urban Break (NIUB)—a legislated greenbelt separating the Sunshine Coast from Brisbane—protected under the Recreation Plan and Rural Landscape and Rural Production Area (RLRPA) designations. These frameworks explicitly restrict intensive tourism and urban-style developments.
The developer, Comiskey Group, purchased the property with full knowledge of these restrictions and initially proposed a low-impact eco-resort. The current proposal represents a significant departure from those conditions and undermines both local and state planning frameworks.
The State Assessment and Referral Agency (SARA) conducted a thorough assessment and found that the proposal:
- Does not comply with relevant planning provisions;
- Cannot achieve compliance through conditions;
- Offers no significant economic, social, or environmental benefit to the community; and
- Is inconsistent with the core values of the NIUB and ShapingSEQ 2023, the Queensland Government’s strategic growth plan.
Despite SARA’s findings, the Deputy Premier’s call-in decision overrides the statutory process and consolidates final decision-making power in one office. This raises serious governance and integrity concerns and undermines community confidence in transparent, evidence-based planning.
This development is unsuitable for this sensitive location and inconsistent with the State’s environmental obligations, planning objectives, and public safety responsibilities. It offers no tangible economic gain to the region and poses unacceptable ecological and social risks.
Accordingly, the Coochin Creek Tourist Park proposal should be refused in full.