Do you have an opinion to share? Submit a Letter to the Editor at Sunshine Coast News via news@sunshinecoastnews.com.au. You must include your name and suburb for accountability, credibility and transparency. Preference will be given to letters of 100 words or less.
- Read the story: Plan to lift hotel to 70m faces public scrutiny
Phil Dance, Mooloolaba: Is there any doubt that the council will approve this remarkable non-compliance with the planning scheme? Why do we even have a planning scheme? The foreshore works – which no-one wanted – were only progressed because the council needs to spend the COVID grant money the feds threw at them. Now, we will see a further prostitution of the planning scheme to help them cover their bums.
Gary Ryan, Caloundra: I note with concern the direction applications for changes to this development are taking. Aria has proposed to redesign and fully fund Stage 3 of the Mooloolaba Foreshore Revitalisation on adjacent public land at a cost of $9.1m, so as these public works do not “compromise the opening and operation of the hotel”. Sounds like a very, very generous public-minded offer, but it is also more than similar to the many dealings increasingly happening even in democratic countries to get government approvals. This redesigned public area will no longer have a children’s water play area (a feature that Kings Beach Caloundra has and that is very well patronised). Several mature trees are also planned for removal including Norfolk Island Pines and a Casuarina. Are there also other reasons behind this, maximise and control views from the lower levels of the hotel perhaps? If locals love and want to protect their “mature trees of significance” a focused campaign to council might help protect them from the chainsaws.
Is this offer to fund public works conditional on Aria receiving approval to alter building heights from 55m to 60.8m and 50 extra hotel rooms, with no mention of any additional car parking spaces?
Noela Coulter, Mooloolaba: If council allows the Aria Group to get away with their outlandish proposal at Mooloolaba, they are setting themselves and the local rate-paying residents up for environmental disaster. Not only does it smack of “money can get us anything we want”, but it also is very devious that they could possibly get away with it and make more money for the group. Let’s hope our mayor and councillors do the right thing.
- Read the story: Major music festival and exhibition site approved
Matt Stevens, Caloundra: The Deputy Premier and Planning Minister Jarrad Bleijie’s approval of the Coochin Fields Music Festival and Exhibition Centre is a disgrace. This and the BIG4-style tourist park (not eco-tourism as promoted when it was approved in January) were approved only because the minister called them in mid-way during the council’s assessment process – at the request of The Comiskey Group.
These call-in powers, allowing the planning minister to personally make the decision, do not have to take on board expert advice. The decision is not appealable, and is intended to be used only in exceptional circumstances.
Private developments in fragile and protected areas are not one of them! And claims that “it’s private land so should be able to do what they want’? No, they shouldn’t. Ordinary citizens can’t as there are zonings and development codes etc. Comiskey bought the land knowing it was zoned as rural, for good reason. The deputy premier has approved a very very, very, very substantial ‘material change of use’, which is totally unsuitable.
No amount of ‘conditioning’ (and who is going to ensure that all 110 of them are enforced) will prevent significant impact in this highly sensitive area. Is the taxpayer now going to foot the bill for major road upgrades when there is nowhere near enough money for all the critical transport (road, active and public) infrastructure the Sunshine Coast community is so desperately calling out for?
Burnice Starkey, Glass House Mountains: Last week’s edition ran this letter: (Paul, Mooloolaba) “It’s just such great news for everyone in southeast Queensland that the Coochin Fields festival site gets the green light and we don’t have to take our money over the border to Byron Bay”.
No, Paul, you could drive 47 minutes from Coochin Creek to the Sandstone Point Hotel, which hosts a range of concerts and festivals throughout the year boasting some the biggest national and international artists and stay at the BIG4 Sandstone Point Holiday Resort. Both venues owned by the same developers: The Comiskey Group, led by Paul and Rob Comiskey, who intend on doing the same to Coochin Creek. Or you could go to the Big Pineapple or Woodford Music Festival or they could build near the Aussie World and not in a mangrove area. As someone who regularly supports live music and frequents many festivals each year, I don’t need another venue. I do need to protect our diminishing wildlife, though.
Diane, Pelican Waters: It always astounds me that in some instances on the Sunshine Coast, people object to much-needed development and rave on about the impact on koalas etc. But with the redevelopment at Pelican Waters Golf Course, where trees were removed and the one waterway was filled in, just to put in housing, there was not one word said. There were many trees, bird life and animals that were breeding on the grounds and in the trees at Pelican Waters Golf Course, which were impacted by the building of units/townhouses on the golf course. Not one person put in an objection or complaint.
- Read the story: Future of rail land uncertain after track realignment
David Asbury, Buderim: Most definitely for developing the disused rail track into a rail trail for mixed use purposes (but traffic free) for walkers, cyclists and horse riders.
Such rail-trails in other States, including QLD, have a beneficial effect for both the local communities and trail users alike.
- Read the story: Councillor launches petition as data reveals e-mobility toll
Paul Wallace: In regards to e-bike riders disobeying the law and creating havoc right across the community, I believe it should be one strike and your out and bike straight to the crusher, how many times do these disobedient clowns have to be told.
Robyn Deane, Nambour: How many readers have observed the dangerous use of personal mobility devices? We have had a couple of close, heart-stopping moments and sometimes wonder why there aren’t more collisions. Mostly young, risk-takers speed around on our footpaths and roads either ignorant of road rules or with brazen disregard for the safety of themselves or others. Cr. Maria Suarez’s petition to the Queensland Parliament calling for urgent action to address seven issues “…to reduce community harm, support police, protect young people, and ensure safe e‑mobility use across Queensland…” is timely.
A government committee’s report on this issue will be tabled next month and then how long will it take for the government to act? Many other states are already implementing changes to address e-vehicle safety. Surely, the Crisafulli LNP government can consult with them and save time and possibly lives by adapting some of their legislation.
Having signed the councillor’s petition, I encourage other readers to do so. The link to the petition calling for urgent action to strengthen Queensland’s e-mobility safety framework is www.parliament.qld.gov.au/Work-of-the-Assembly/Petitions/Petition-Details/4418-26. Great to see Cr Maria Suarez’s positive action on this crucial issue before more lives are impacted.
- Read the story: Pedestrian walks in front of moving vehicle
Graham Lockey, Coolum Beach: This pedestrian appears, from the position of his arms on the dashcam footage, to be a ‘screen zombie’. When will these stupid, selfish individuals learn that you don’t need to be glued to your phone 24/7? Most of the near misses I see are pedestrians not looking where they are going. With the anti car driver lobby constantly pushing for ever lower speed limits how about councils and governments address pedestrian behaviour first, instead of constantly blaming motorists for the pedestrians’ lack of attention to road safety?
- Read the story: Health retreat seeks approval after council letter
Ron Turner, Montville: This business has now been in operation for a year or more. What is disappointing is all the structure proposed in the “development permit for material change of use”, has all happened under the light gaze of all relevant council officers and the mayor, seemingly granting approval for additional buildings and subsequent electrical, plumbing and drainage on the site.
I would now expect any further business entrepreneurs to follow suit and go right ahead with the full cognisance of any council personnel, knowing nothing and no-one will stand in their way. They can then apply to the Sunshine Coast Planning Scheme 2014, “requiring an impact-assessable development permit for material change of use”, and expect it will be granted.
C. llingworth, Montville: I wish to make comment on the so called “proposed development” for the health retreat now located on 13 – 15 Negus Road Montville. An application to formalize an existing mental health retreat in the Sunshine Coast hinterland has opened for public feedback, after the operators were issued with a compliance advisory notice by the council. This site has been operating for over 8 months with the full knowledge of council employees without proper compliance.
On the 30th of January 2026 a public sign was placed at the entrance of the health retreat asking for public comment on two proposed new cabins which were placed on site in March 2025. I feel it is a total hypocrisy that the public are requested to comment on this proposed development when the health retreat has been in operation for approximately eight months and the supposed two new cabins were put on site in March 2025, obviously with no proper development authority. Are we being taken for village idiots? The development board showed an old aerial picture of the location, a current picture as you have shown show the new cabins already in place.
The council was contacted on many occasions by residents, by telephone and letter advising the building development department and councillor about development issues, the response was nothing to see here!
I don’t object to the commercial development but through the proper development channels and council by-laws. There also has been no consideration or consultation by the council or the health retreat management on what impact this development will have on the neighbours and local residence around Negus Road.
The health retreat is located on a narrow dirt road, the operation of the health retreat significantly increases the traffic on Negus Road, increasing the dust factor.
Negus Road is also used daily by many residents for walking as Western Avenue has heavy traffic and no footpath. Negus Road is a narrow dirt road – many of the retreat staff and commercial service vehicles do not travel at reasonable safe speed, or consider other road users, this is an increasing safety issue. A request has been made to council for speed control humps to control vehicle speeds months ago but nothing has been done. The health retreat driveway exit is very dangerous.
The retreat driveway joins on to Negus Road at a very acute angle, any vehicles on Negus Road which could be approaching the retreat cannot be seen by the driver exiting the health retreat. On top of this, the vehicles exiting the retreat are traveling on a long smooth bitumen drive and tend to exit at a unsafe speed, not considering Negus Road traffic. At the very least there should be a minimum of two traffic-calming speed humps located on the bitumen drive exit of the retreat and additional two speed humps located in Negus Road located near the concealed driveways of the retreat neighbours protecting any vehicles exiting the private driveways.
The heath retreat owners also installed a large diesel emergency generator close to the exit of the health retreat. This is in very close proximity of two local neighbours and the noise pollution from the generator when operating is excessive. At the very least a noise shielding structure should be put around the generator. It is appreciated it only runs in an emergency, but the residents should not have to be subjected to any noise it all. The positioning of the generator is not acceptable & there was no consolation to the residence which has happened thru the total establishment of this retreat.
- Fines fair go
Gary Reynolds, Peregian Springs: Queenslanders value fairness and common sense, especially when it comes to road safety. But a closer look at our current traffic fines suggests that the balance may have tipped a little too far in places.
Driving an uninsured vehicle attracts a staggering $10,676 fine. That’s the highest in Australia. Driving unregistered will cost you $1,724. Yet having a hand or arm outside the vehicle is $301 and smoking in a car with children under 16 is just $200. Some penalties clearly serve their purpose. Others seem wildly out of proportion.
One of the most striking examples is the fine for travelling with a dog that allows any part of its body (other than the head) to protrude from the vehicle, or in a way that risks harm, the maximum penalty is $10,014. If the situation amounts to a breach of duty of care or animal cruelty, the penalty can escalate dramatically up to $22,500 or one year in prison for serious breaches.
Compare that with the penalty for an unrestrained human, which is $1,251 – the same amount for using a mobile phone while driving.
No one disputes the need for strong deterrents. But when relatively minor behaviours attract higher penalties than actions that clearly put human lives at risk, it’s reasonable for Queenslanders to question whether the system still reflects community expectations.
Perhaps it’s time for a calm, state-wide conversation about how these fines are set, what outcomes they’re meant to achieve, and whether the current structure genuinely aligns with fairness, safety and common sense.
Do you have an opinion to share? Submit a Letter to the Editor at Sunshine Coast News via news@sunshinecoastnews.com.au. You must include your name and suburb for accountability, credibility and transparency. Preference will be given to letters of 100 words or less.
