MENU

waves splashing up against rock

SCEC News

Back to SCEC News

Coochin Creek Tourist Park development application

Limited window for submissions on developer Information Response

Summary of Key Concerns – Proposed Development at Coochin Creek

This document is intended to increase public awareness and to inform submissions to the Minister for State Development, Infrastructure and Planning with a deadline of 17 November 2025. 

It consolidates issues re the 14 October ‘Other change to Development permit for Material change of use to establish a Tourist park and Development permit for Operational work - stormwater, earthworks and access’ by Coochin Creek Property Pty Ltd for a Tourist Park at Coochin Creek adjacent to the Ramsar-listed Moreton Bay Marine Park within the Pumicestone Passage and within the Northern Inter-Urban Break (NIUB).

Following a court decision, approval already exists for a less extensive Nature-based Tourism 100-site proposal on the same site by the same proponent. 

The current proposal for a Tourist Park expands the development from 100 camping sites to 75 camping sites and 75 cabins, doubles the limit of people from 300 to 600, and adds ‘ancillary recreation facilities’ including a 1000 sq m building, a waterslide and fire pits. 

The Hon. Jarrod Bleijie, Deputy Premier, Minister for State Development, Infrastructure and Planning and Minister for Industrial Relations, ‘called in’ the development application mid assessment by Council claiming ‘in State Interest’. This means that he, as Planning Minister, will decide the outcome of the application.  There is no right to appeal his decision. 

Ministerial Call-In Powers

The Minister may exercise a power under this part in relation to a matter only if the matter involves, or is likely to involve, a State interest.

Under the Queensland Planning Act 2016, the State Assessment and Referral Agency (SARA) found that there will not be significant adverse economic, social or environmental impacts on the community if the proposed tourist park is not developed and that there is not an overriding need in the public interest for the proposed development. 

Destination 2045 states that Queensland will provide:

• Low-impact, high-quality responsible ecotourism opportunities in suitable protected areas, including through partnerships with the private sector.

This proposed development is not low-impact or responsible, is not ecotourism and is definitely not located in a suitable area. It is located on the Pumicestone Passage listed on the Directory of Important Wetlands in Australia (DIWA), adjacent to a Ramsar Wetland of International Importance. The site is situated in a particularly sensitive area of the Passage – adjacent to the Narrows and could impact threatened ecological communities, threatened species and endangered migratory species.  

State Planning Regulations

SARA’s comprehensive assessment concludes that the tourist park development does not comply with relevant planning legislation and is unable to achieve compliance with these provisions through conditions.

The development is inconsistent with Part 4, Division 6, Section 41B (2)(b) and Schedule 10, Part 16B, Division 9, Table 1, Item 4(h) of the Planning Regulation 2017. In summary:

  • There will not be a significant adverse economic, social or environmental impact on the community if the development is not carried out;

 

  • SARA found no compelling reasons why the proposed development must be located within the Northern Inter Urban Break (NIUB). There are other locations for tourist parks outside the NIUB and there is nothing about this proposal that requires it to be located inside the NIUB; and

 

  • SARA is of the view that the proposed development is not consistent with the Rural Landscape and Rural Production Areas (RLRPA) designation and conflicts with the expressed core values of the NIUB identified in ShapingSEQ 2023, the Queensland Government’s 25-year strategic plan to guide the future growth of South-east Queensland.

We support this conclusion and consider that:

  • The proposal does not warrant State-level interest;
  • Ministerial Call-Ins are to be used only in exceptional circumstances; 
  • the Ministerial Call-In powers are an overreach of authority given the scale and type of the proposal; and
  • the assessment managers at the local and state level have fulfilled their duty and represented the standards and policies (established in consultation with the Queensland community), and the proposal does not meet those standards.

Environmental and Ecological Impacts

Internationally significant ecosystems are at risk as the site borders the Ramsar-listed Moreton Bay Marine Park.

 

The Ramsar Convention is an international inter-governmental treaty that came into force in 1975. Australia has obligations under the Ramsar Convention to halt and, where possible, reverse, the worldwide loss of wetlands and to conserve those that remain, through wise use and management.

 

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act)

Development which has the potential to significantly impact matters of national environmental significance must be referred for assessment under the Commonwealth EPBC Act. The EPBC Act and regulations protect and manage nationally and internationally important plants, animals, habitats and places. 

 

It is the obligation of the development proponent to refer a development for assessment against Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES), as defined in the EPBC Act.

 

We are concerned, however, that

 

  • The proposal for development has not been referred under the EPBC Act, despite its proximity to Ramsar wetlands, and that it has potential impact on MNES;

 

 

  • A Protected Matters search for the site identifies the following MNES: 
    • Ramsar Wetland of International Importance, which could be indirectly impacted;
    • Five Threatened ecological communities, which could be indirectly impacted; 
    • 101 Listed threatened species, which could be directly and indirectly impacted; and 
    • 75 listed migratory species, which could be directly and indirectly impacted.

Regarding migratory species:

  • Pumicestone Passage is a 35-kilometre long, shallow estuary that separates Bribie Island from the mainland. It is an important ecological area known for its diverse marine life, including dugongs, turtles and dolphins, as well as abundant birdlife and fish. The Passage is a rich ecosystem of mangroves, seagrass beds, and saltmarshes. 
  • The area is a refuge for migratory shorebirds, and disturbance could contribute to global population declines. The proponent has not addressed any of the guidelines provided in the EPBC Act Policy Statement 3.21—Industry guidelines for avoiding, assessing and mitigating impacts on EPBC Act listed migratory shorebird species, Commonwealth of Australia 2017;
  • Human disturbance is a major threat to migratory shorebirds and can have a significant impact on the quality of habitat available to migratory shorebirds. Fuller RA, Clemens RS, Woodworth BK, Moffitt D & Simmons BA (2021) Managing Threats to Migratory Shorebirds in Moreton Bay: Final report to Healthy Land and Water. University of Queensland, Brisbane. The UQ team found threats occurring in Moreton Bay are significant contributors to population decline, particularly interruptions to shorebird feeding and resting through human disturbance, and habitat loss through development and vegetation encroachment.

 

  • Proposed associated activities for guests include sailing, boating, kayaking, stand-up-paddleboarding, swimming and fishing. In Pumicestone Passage these activities will disturb resting and feeding migratory shorebirds. The proponent is on record stating that he would like to see the ‘large holiday resort in Coochin Creek’ connected with the ‘10 storey hotel at Sandstone Point’ via the Pumicestone Passage and beyond and that he doesn’t ‘think it’s got anywhere near enough tourism activity on it’. Courier Mail Future Brisbane - Rachel Riley [https://www.couriermail.com.au/subscribe/news/1/?sourceCode=CMWEB_WRE170_a_GGL&dest=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.couriermail.com.au%2Fnews%2Fqueensland%2Ffuture-seq%2Fdeveloper-unveils-bold-850m-plan-for-seq-tourism-resorts%2Fnews-story%2Fd45238fe3c33a350194c392e22aad160&memtype=anonymous&mode=premium&v21=GROUPA-Segment-1-NOSCORE]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Additionally, the area supports biodiversity including other threatened fauna species identified in the Proponent’s Ecological Values Report v 4, which cites the Nature Conservation Act (Qld) 1992 [https://www.planning.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/106240/Appendix-K-Ecological-Values-Report.pdf], as well as the EPBC Act.

 

Acanthophis antarcticus (common death adder) – listed as ‘vulnerable’ under the NC Act;

Calidris acuminata (sharp-tailed sandpiper) - listed as ‘vulnerable’ under the EPBC Act;

Calidris ferruginea (curlew sandpiper) - listed as ‘critically endangered’ under the NC Act and EPBC Act;

Calidris tenuirostris (great knot) - listed as ‘critically endangered’ under the NC Act and EPBC Act;

Dugong dugong (Dugong) - listed as ‘vulnerable’ under the NC Act;

Gallinago hardwickii (Latham snipe) - listed as ‘vulnerable’ under the EPBC Act;

Hirundapus caudacutus (white-throated needletail) - listed as ‘vulnerable’ under the NC Act and EPBC Act;

Limosa lapponica baueri (Western Alaskan bar-tailed godwit - listed as ‘vulnerable’ under the NC Act and EPBC Act;

Litoria olongburensis (wallum sedge frog) - listed as ‘vulnerable’ under the NC Act and EPBC Act;

Numenius madagascariensis (eastern curlew) - listed as ‘endangered’ under the NC Act and critically endangered under the EPBC Act;

Pteropus poliocephalus (grey-headed flying-fox) - listed as ‘vulnerable’ under the EPBC Act;

Tringa nebularia (common greenshank) - listed as ‘endangered’ under the EPBC Act; and

Xenus cinereus (terek sandpiper) - listed as ‘vulnerable’ under the EPBC Act.

 

Further negative effects of the proposal include:

 

  • Runoff pollution from sediment, litter, and human activity;

 

  • Sewerage treatment system with a 2.43 hectare irrigation area (64,400 litres of effluent per day) poses risk to hydrological security of land and dams that drain into Pumicestone Passage wildlife habitats. The Queensland government wetland maps confirm that Coochin Creek land drains into the Pumicestone Passage;

 

  • Light and noise pollution disrupting nocturnal wildlife, migratory birds and pollinators such as flying foxes and night-flying insects;

 

  • Habitat degradation from increased traffic, waste, and human presence; and

 

  • Risks to fish breeding habitats and pollinators essential to agriculture and native ecosystems posed by chemical control of mosquitoes and midges (these insects are part of the natural food chain, and their removal could have cascading ecological effects).

Other concerns

The site is in a bushfire-prone area, surrounded by State Forest and pine forest with a real risk of entrapment due to limited access. Sole land access is within a 10-km pine plantation identified as a high bushfire risk zone. 

 

Emergency response strategies for the proposal are deemed inadequate by SARA and a more comprehensive management and response plan is required.

Conclusion

The proposed development should not be approved as it poses significant and wide-ranging risks to the planning integrity of the State, to the environment and the community. 

 

This development is not low impact and is in an area that is not suitable for tourism development. There is no State interest in the proposed development.

 

It is not just our members who want to see the protection of biodiversity and the environment. Community sentiment reported from the recent consultation program for the new Sunshine Coast planning scheme showed that 96% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that Natural habitat areas should be protected and restored.

 

Requirements for a properly made submission

 

  • In writing: Submissions must be written or electronic.

 

  • Signed: Each person making the submission must sign it (unless submitted electronically).

 

  • Time-sensitive: It must be received by 17 November 2025, which is set in the public notice.

 

  • Name and address: The full name and residential or business address of each person making the submission must be included.

 

  • Address for service: A postal or electronic address for service must be provided for each submitter.

 

  • Grounds for submission: The submission must clearly state the reasons for support or objection, supported by facts and circumstances.

 

  • Lodged correctly: The submission must be sent to the relevant responsible entity. 

 

The Hon Jarrod Bleijie MP - Deputy Premier, Minister for State Development, Infrastructure and Planning and Minister for Industrial Relations

 

PO Box 15009, City East, Queensland 4002

deputy.premier@ministerial.qld.gov.au

and

industrialrelations@ministerial.qld.gov.au 

 

copy 

 

SEQNorthSARA@dsdilgp.qld.gov.au 

and

planningassessment@sunshinecoast.qld.gov.au

 

Template following…copy and paste the following into an email to the above addresses.

 

We really appreciate your support to protect the Pumicestone Passage from unsuitable development.

 

Start with your full name 

and 

residential address including post code (not PO Box)

(this will not be made public and will be redacted)

 

Date     (must be before 17 November)

  

The Hon Jarrod Bleijie MP

Deputy Premier Minister for State Development, Infrastructure and Planning

and Minister for Industrial Relations

PO Box 15009
 CITY EAST QLD 4002

 Via Email:  deputy.premier@ministerial.qld.gov.au & industrialrelations@ministerial.qld.gov.au

 Re: Proposed Coochin Creek Tourist Park - 1807 Roys Road, Coochin Creek.

‘Other’ Change to development permit for material change of use of premises to establish a tourist park (comprising 150 sites [75 cabins and 75 camp sites] and ancillary recreation facilities) & operational work (stormwater, earthworks & access).

I OBJECT to the above Tourist Park Development Application for the following reasons:

 

LIST YOUR REASONS – SELECT ONE OR MORE FROM THE ABOVE LIST AND PLEASE USE YOUR OWN WORDS – YOUR OBJECTIONS ARE CRITICAL. THEY CAN BE SHORT AND TO THE POINT. 

 

Sincerely,

(If emailing, signature is not required – just type your full name. If you are posting your objection, please sign and include your full name)

Your Full Name

 

CC     SEQNorthSARA@dsdilgp.qld.gov.au & planningassessment@sunshinecoast.qld.gov.au

 

 

< Return