New resort? Your input urgently needed

1 day ago
7 min read

Updated: 10 hours ago

A Development Application (DA/2025/3908) has been submitted to City of Moreton Bay Council by Comiskey Group to build two 11-storey towers at Sandstone Point Hotel, creating an invasive and discordant tourist resort in an environmentally sensitive, internationally protected sanctuary for native flora and fauna.

There is a very short window for public consultation on this, so we are asking all BIEPA members to lodge a submission well before the looming deadline on 27th May 2026.

To help everyone submit their objections in time, this article explains how to lodge a submission and gives some tips on what to include in it.

This is a numbers game: the important thing is to get in as many properly made submissions as possible, to clearly demonstrate the breadth and depth of community sentiment. Bribie Island residents have a strong track record of making unusually large numbers of submissions — keep up the good work!

How to lodge your submission

Follow these steps:

Go to the DA Tracker page: DA/2025/3908
Under Application details at the top, click the link to Lodge a submission.
In the new page that opens, select DA/2025/3908 on the left.
Press the three-dots button and select Lodge a submission from the menu.

The three-dots button is tucked away at the top right, and you must confirm that you want to do the selected action (they are not making this easy).

Please be sure to meet the conditions for your submission to be accepted.

A "properly made" submission is one that:

is in writing and received by email, mail or in person
is signed by each person who made it (unless made electronically)
is received during the notification period, i.e. during the days stipulated in the public notice
states clearly the name and address (street number, street name and suburb) of each person making the submission
states the grounds (reasons) for the submission.

What to put in your submission

We recommend reading Council's information sheet before writing your submission. In particular, they recommend relating your reasons to Council's Planning Scheme, identifying the planning grounds for your submission.

Examples of planning grounds include:

consistency with the type of development intended in the local area
scale and design relative to the surrounds
traffic and car parking impacts
neighbourhood amenity and hours of operation
environment or character impacts.

Lyn Rushby, in the Sustainability Mission Team, has provided some excellent templates, guidelines, and talking points below, which include planning grounds identified as especially relevant.

It's best to prepare your submission in a document on your computer and then copy-and-paste it onto the submission form, so that you don't lose it all if the form goes wrong. If it's longer than the 1,000 character limit, put a summary on the form and attach the full version as supporting documentation.

Remember to select Oppose as the Sentiment Metric!

Submission templates

You may copy and adapt these for your submission.

Short form (993 characters) to copy, paste and edit in the form field:

I strongly object to DA/2025/3908 for a Sandstone Point Resort Complex. The environmentally sensitive Bribie Island and Pumicestone Passage ecosystems cannot absorb a development of this scale and intensity. The resort would be completely out of character with the existing low-rise coastal landscape.

It conflicts with many aspects of the City of Moreton Bay Planning Scheme and regional planning policies by introducing excessive urban development in an area affected by coastal hazard, flooding, and acid sulfate soils. The applicant’s own reports identify concerns including erosion-prone land, koala habitat, stormwater risks, and major traffic impacts. The site is also adjacent to wetlands protected by the international Ramsar treaty of which Australia is a signatory.

I am concerned about cumulative environmental impacts, increased traffic congestion and pollution, and permanent damage to the scenic coastal character of the area. For these reasons, the application should be refused.

Long form to download, rename, edit, and attach as supporting documentation:

General guidelines and structure

You don't need to be a planning expert or lawyer to make a valid submission. Council must consider all properly made submissions from community members. Personal observations, local knowledge, and concerns about the future of the area are important.

Guidelines

The most effective submissions are usually:

written in your own words—personal submissions often carry more weight when they sound genuine and reflect your own experiences and concerns;
respectful and clear;
refer to planning and environmental issues where possible;
focused on issues that personally concern you; and
specific rather than general—use local examples and personal experience.

Structure

State your position clearly; start by saying you object to the proposal and want it refused.
Explain why you are concerned.
Choose the issues most important to you; you do not need to include everything.
Personal impacts matter; explain how the proposal would affect you personally or why you value the area (some examples below).
Finish clearly; end by asking for the proposal to be refused.

Examples of personal impacts:

“I chose to live here because of the peaceful rural environment.”
“I am worried about impacts on local wildlife and wetlands.”
“I regularly use this area for recreation and nature appreciation.”
“I am concerned about traffic and safety on local roads.”

Suggested talking points

Pick any of these for your own submission, but try to paraphrase them in your own words. You don't have to include them all! Just pick a few that resonate.

Conflict with the City of Moreton Bay Planning Scheme Strategic Framework The proposal conflicts with Strategic Framework outcomes requiring protection of coastal character, scenic amenity, environmental values and infrastructure capacity. Two 11-storey towers and major commercial intensification are inconsistent with the intended low-rise Bribie gateway landscape. References: City of Moreton Bay Planning Scheme – Strategic Framework; Planning Act 2016.
Excessive Building Height and Visual Dominance The proposed towers reach approximately 36 metres and 11 storeys, dramatically exceeding the prevailing low-rise coastal built form. The towers would dominate skyline views from Bribie Island, the bridge corridor and foreshore areas. References: Building Height Overlay Code; General Residential Zone Code; Visual Impact Assessment.
Degradation of the Northern Inter-Urban Break (NIUB) The development undermines the NIUB's role in maintaining landscape separation between Greater Brisbane and the Sunshine Coast, protecting coastal character and limiting coastal sprawl. References: South East Queensland Regional Plan; applicant's own planning report.
Inappropriate Intensification Adjacent to Ramsar-Connected Wetlands The ecology report confirms development is proposed within 100 metres of Ramsar wetlands connected to the Pumicestone Passage and Moreton Bay wetland systems. References: EPBC Act 1999; Ramsar Convention; Ecology Assessment.
Failure to Properly Address Cumulative Environmental Impacts The proposal fails to adequately assess cumulative impacts from ongoing urbanisation, tourism expansion, stormwater runoff, habitat fragmentation and increased disturbance across the Pumicestone Passage catchment. References: Environmental Protection Act 1994 (precautionary principle); State Planning Policy 2017.
Conflict with the Environmental Areas Overlay Code The site contains remnant vegetation, wetlands, marine plants and koala habitat considerations. Increased lighting, traffic and urban activity would intensify ecological edge effects and fragmentation. References: Environmental Areas Overlay Code; State Code 16; State Code 25.
Unacceptable Wetland and Riparian Impacts The proposal intensifies urban development immediately adjacent to wetlands and marine habitat systems supporting migratory shorebirds protected under JAMBA, CAMBA, and ROKAMBA agreements. References: Riparian and Wetland Setback Overlay; EPBC Act 1999.
Transport Network Already at Capacity The Bribie Island access corridor already experiences severe congestion during holidays, weekends and emergencies. The applicant's own traffic report acknowledges the need for major upgrades and signalisation works. References: Traffic Impact Assessment; Planning Scheme transport outcomes.
Emergency Access and Evacuation Concerns Additional tourism and commercial traffic would worsen emergency evacuation risks associated with the single bridge access to Bribie Island during bushfire, flooding or storm events. References: Planning Act 2016 public interest considerations; State Planning Policy natural hazards provisions.
Conflict with Coastal Hazard Overlay Code The site is affected by coastal hazard and erosion-prone area constraints. The proposal relies heavily on engineered mitigation rather than avoiding inappropriate development in vulnerable coastal areas. References: Coastal Hazard Overlay Code; Coastal Protection and Management Act 1995.
Flood Hazard Risks Intensified The development introduces major permanent assets into a low-lying flood-prone coastal location requiring detention basins and substantial drainage works. References: Flood Hazard Overlay Code; Stormwater Management Report.
Acid Sulfate Soil Risks Remain Significant The applicant's own report found 11 of 14 boreholes exceeded action criteria. Disturbance risks include acidification, heavy metal mobilisation and water quality degradation affecting downstream wetlands and waterways. References: Acid Sulfate Soils Overlay; Environmental Protection Act 1994.
Reliance on Future Management Plans Rather Than Avoidance Ecological impacts are proposed to be "managed" through future plans, offsets and mitigation rather than avoided through proper siting and scale reduction. References: Ecology Assessment; precautionary principle under EPA 1994.
Major Scenic Amenity Degradation The Visual Impact Assessment admits its own methodology has major limitations and may understate gradual scenic degradation across multiple viewpoints. References: Applicant's Visual Impact Assessment; Building Height Overlay Code.
Inconsistent with General Residential Zone Intent A major tourism/commercial hub with 202 rooms, drive-through uses and a service station is inconsistent with the intended residential and coastal character of the locality. References: General Residential Zone Code (Next Generation Neighbourhood Precinct).
Potential Precedent for Further High-Rise Coastal Urbanisation Approval would create a dangerous precedent for further vertically dominant development at the Bribie gateway and along the Pumicestone Passage corridor. References: Planning Act 2016 public interest considerations; SEQ Regional Plan.
Koala and Threatened Fauna Habitat Impacts The ecology report acknowledges core koala habitat and threatened fauna habitat within or adjacent to the site. Increased lighting, noise and traffic will increase disturbance pressure. References: State Code 25; Nature Conservation Act 1992.
Stormwater and Water Quality Risks to Pumicestone Passage Increased hard surfaces, runoff and urban activity create long-term risks to wetlands, fisheries habitat and marine water quality connected to the Passage. References: Environmental Protection Act 1994; State Planning Policy water quality provisions.
Economic Benefits Do Not Outweigh Environmental and Infrastructure Harm The claimed tourism benefits do not outweigh long-term ecological degradation, traffic impacts, scenic loss, and infrastructure pressures on the Bribie region. References: Planning Act 2016 public interest test.
Proposal Conflicts with Ecologically Sustainable Development Principles Given the combination of wetlands, coastal hazards, flooding, acid sulfate soils and ecological sensitivity, the precautionary principle should apply and the proposal should be refused. References: Environmental Protection Act 1994; Planning Act 2016; State Planning Policy 2017.