Public consultation closes 8 December – Your voice matters
A controversial festival site proposal at Coochin Creek has united ten community and environmental organisations in opposition, with implications that could affect communities throughout Queensland, including our own. The development application seeks ministerial approval for a massive outdoor music festival and exhibition venue, bypassing standard planning processes. A related tourist park proposal on adjacent land has already drawn over 1,000 public submissions, with that consultation having closed on 17 November.
The Proposal
The development application seeks approval for a festival venue spanning 150 hectares of rural land near Coochin Creek, equivalent to 150 rugby fields. The scale is staggering:
- Up to six major events annually, including festivals of up to six days each
- Maximum daily attendance of 35,000 patrons
- On-site camping for over 15,000 people
- Parking for 4,357 cars and 108 buses, plus 2,180 camp-with-vehicle sites
Why Blackall Range Communities Should Be Concerned
While Coochin Creek may seem distant from the Range, this development poses direct threats to our community and sets a dangerous precedent for all hinterland areas:
Planning Protection Precedent: The Blackall Range relies on the same types of planning protections being overridden at Coochin Creek, Rural Zones, Environmental Management and Conservation Areas, scenic amenity protections, and green belt buffers. If a Minister can bypass professional planning advice, local council decisions, and state department recommendations for a coastal site, the same ministerial discretion could be applied to developments in the Range. Our hard-won planning protections would become meaningless.
Tourism Character at Risk: The Range’s tourism economy is built on low-impact, nature-based experiences, local character, boutique accommodations, and environmental values. Approval of mega-festival developments in environmentally sensitive areas changes the regional tourism brand and opens the door to similar proposals throughout the Sunshine Coast hinterland, directly threatening the unique character that makes the Range attractive to residents and visitors alike.
Regional Planning Integrity: Both the Range and Coochin Creek sit within critical green corridors. The Northern Inter-Urban Break serves the same function for the coastal plain as our hinterland green belt serves for the Range – protecting environmental values, rural character, and community amenity. If one green belt can be compromised, all are vulnerable.
Environmental Connectivity: Our catchments and ecosystems are interconnected. Damage to the Pumicestone Passage catchment affects water quality, biodiversity corridors, and ecological health throughout the broader region, including systems that flow through and around the Range.
Traffic and Access Impacts: Six major events annually, each bringing up to 35,000 patrons, means massive traffic flows on the Bruce Highway and connecting roads – the same routes Range residents use for coastal access, business operations, and emergency services. Event-related congestion could severely impact our community’s connectivity and economic activities.
The fundamental question is this: Will Queensland’s planning framework protect environmentally sensitive communities, or will political discretion override professional assessment whenever convenient? As Dylan Daley, President of the Northern Inter-Urban Break Integrity Association, warns: “If approved, this development would set a precedent for this internationally renowned green belt to be carved up and buried under asphalt, steel and concrete.”
The answer determined at Coochin Creek will directly affect the Blackall Range’s future.
Ministerial Override Despite Professional Opposition
While this development isn’t in our immediate area, the precedent it sets is deeply concerning. The State Assessment and Referral Agency (SARA), the government’s own assessment body, recommended refusing this development in September, citing no overriding community need and inconsistency with state planning frameworks.
Despite this professional recommendation, and despite opposition from the Sunshine Coast Regional Council, State Planning Minister Jarrod Bleijie MP has called in the application and now holds sole decision-making power with no right of appeal.
“If the state planning minister continues to override council planning advice as well as his own state departments’ advice, then it opens the state to inappropriate developments,” warns local community advocate Geoff Noble. “This isn’t just about one festival site, it’s about whether proper planning processes and environmental protections matter anymore.”
A Structural Planning Flaw
The approval process reveals a fundamental flaw in Queensland’s planning system. Environmental protection responsibilities, including biodiversity conservation, ecological planning, and sustainable tourism, sit within one ministerial portfolio. However, land use planning decisions and major development approvals fall under a different portfolio with the authority to override environmental recommendations.
In practice, this means comprehensive environmental assessments identifying significant risks can simply be set aside when planning decisions prioritise development. When SARA recommended refusal based on ecological evidence, including risks to 101 threatened species, 75 migratory species, and five threatened ecological communities, that scientific assessment was overridden by ministerial call-in. The environmental evidence didn’t change. The risks to koalas, dugongs, migratory shorebirds, and Ramsar-protected wetlands didn’t disappear. They were simply deemed less important than approving the development.
Environmental Risks
The proposed site sits within the Northern Inter-Urban Break (NIUB), the vital green belt separating Brisbane from the Sunshine Coast. It’s adjacent to internationally significant habitats including Pumicestone National Park, Ramsar-listed Moreton Bay Marine Park (a wetland of international importance), and the Pumicestone Passage catchment.
Environmental assessments have identified extraordinary biodiversity risks affecting approximately 101 threatened species and 75 migratory species, including koalas, migratory shorebirds dependent on intertidal flats and wetlands, marine species including dugongs and turtles relying on seagrass meadows, ground-dwelling fauna sensitive to habitat disturbance, and waterbirds using coastal wetland systems.
Five threatened ecological communities are at risk, including coastal tidal wetlands (mangrove communities, saltmarshes, and Melaleuca paperbark-dominated swamps), Melaleuca quinquenervia open forests and woodlands, seagrass meadows critical for dugong and turtle habitat, intertidal flats and sand islands essential for migratory shorebirds, and subtropical rainforest remnants with unique grassy woodlands.
These communities are recognised as having state biodiversity significance under Queensland’s planning frameworks and form part of the internationally protected Ramsar Moreton Bay Marine Park. They’re already under threat from pollution, altered water flows, invasive species, and development pressures, making additional large-scale disturbance particularly dangerous.
Federal Law Concerns
Most concerning is the developer’s continued failure to refer the project to the Federal Environment Minister for assessment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, despite clear obligations when Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES) are involved. This includes the Ramsar wetland and numerous federally listed species and communities.
Safety Risks
Safety concerns are particularly alarming. The site has only one narrow, unlit rural access road (Roys Road East) passing through a 10-kilometre stretch of pine plantation identified as having high bushfire risk. The bushfire hazard assessment identifies a “fire risk catchment” surrounding the site on three sides, classed as “High Potential Bushfire Intensity.”
As OSCAR President Melva Hobson PSM asks: “Why would any Minister consider putting people’s lives in potential danger for a development where there is no ‘overriding need in the public interest’?”
Additional safety risks include flood-prone access road and site, unresolved evacuation and emergency management plans, severe traffic congestion likely due to high vehicle volumes on infrastructure not designed for such demand, and mass evacuation through a single narrow road in emergency situations posing unacceptable risk.
A Coordinated Coalition Response
This festival site is the second of two related developments proposed by The Comiskey Group. Ten community and environmental organisations have formed a coalition opposing both developments:
- Organisation Sunshine Coast Association of Residents (OSCAR)
- Sunshine Coast Environment Council (SCEC)
- Beerwah/Roys/Landsborough/Peachester Action Group (BRULPA)
- Caloundra Residents Association (CRA)
- Bribie Island Environmental Protection Association (BIEPA)
- Take Action for Pumicestone Passage (TAPP)
- Wildlife Queensland Sunshine Coast and Hinterland Branch
- Northern Inter-Urban Break Integrity Association
- Blackall Range Land Use Planning Association (BRLUPA)
Together, these groups represent thousands of concerned residents. Coalition spokesperson Narelle McCarthy from SCEC emphasises: “The region’s tourism appeal lies in preserving the natural amenity and integrity of our green belt and the Pumicestone Passage. True sustainable tourism celebrates and protects these natural assets through low-impact, nature-based recreation, not large-scale developments that threaten their character and ecological value.”
The coalition has launched a Change.org petition calling for protection of the Pumicestone Passage and greenbelt, demonstrating the breadth of community concern.
What You Can Do
Public consultation closes 8 December 2025. Even if you don’t live in Coochin Creek, you can and should make a submission if you’re concerned about ministerial overrides of professional planning advice, protection of environmentally sensitive areas, proper assessment processes being followed, or the precedent this sets for future developments.
How to make a submission guide
To submit your objection:
Email: deputy.premier@ministerial.qld.gov.au and industrialrelations@ministerial.qld.gov.au
CC: ministerial.callin@dsdilgp.qld.gov.au and SEQNorthSARA@dsdilgp.qld.gov.au
Or post to: Deputy Premier, Minister for State Development, Infrastructure and Planning, PO Box 15009, City East QLD 4002
Your submission must include:
- Clear statement of objection
- Your full name
- Residential address with postcode (no PO Box)
- Date
Submissions don’t need to be lengthy, but they must clearly state your concerns. The Sunshine Coast Environment Council (SCEC) has prepared detailed templates, and submission guides available through local community networks.
The Bigger Picture
This proposal tests whether Queensland’s planning framework can withstand political interference when professional advice, local knowledge, and environmental evidence all point in the same direction. The outcome will signal whether communities across the state can trust that planning protections mean something, or whether ministerial discretion can simply sweep aside careful assessment processes.
The deadline is 8 December. Make your voice heard.
Sunshine Coast Environmental Council
Disclaimer: The information provided in this article is for general informational purposes only. While we strive for accuracy and timeliness, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability, or availability with respect to the article or the information contained within for any purpose.