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 give to letters of 100 words or less.
- Read the story: Mountain closure suggestions ‘disrespectful’ says department
I do not doubt that some people out there are trying to close Mount Beerwah and other mountains in the Glass House Mountains area.
This is wrong and I am against what they are trying to do. I have lived with these mountains, and taken schoolchildren to enjoy climbing them, for some time and do not see why anyone wants to stop this from happening.
Desley Palmer, Morayfield
It is shocking that people just doing their job have spurious allegations flung at them.
The rangers and government employees who try to monitor or mitigate the damage done by inappropriate use should not be demonised.
Environmental protection is a responsibility of government and for society’s benefit.
Avril, Darwin
- Read the story: Mayors set for overseas fact-finding mission
I think that the mayor should start working for the Sunny Coast, rather than appearing on morning shows. I couldn’t tell you one thing she said she was going to do in her pre-election rubbish that has been done.
Look out the windows or come to Landsborough, then you will see a few facts. People are living tents and cars and you are in five-star hotels. Maybe she should stay there.
Jo Aitken, Landsborough
- Read the story: Dog owners ‘in tears’ at meeting with mayor and Dog owners rally against proposed beach restrictions and Feedback period extended for dog area changes
As a non-dog owner and a beach lover I can only hope council sticks to its plan.
The silent majority are fed up with dog owners demanding more while general public have to suffer their inconsiderate thinking. How much more can one say without sounding cruel?
It’s cruel to others. I can’t go to a market as dogs have taken over.
Enough is enough.
Stewart Hyder, Clontarf
Where’s the data? In 2024, council rescinded the La Balsa Park off-leash area on environmental grounds. Now they’re using the same straw man to justify closing-off stretches of beach (e.g. north Stumers Creek) to off-leash.
In the absence of supporting data, one’s left feeling that these decisions are being made based on ‘the vibe’. Surely, if council had the data showing the detrimental impact of dogs on wader bird roosting or turtle nesting at La Balsa, or on the national park adjoining Stumers Creek, they’d freely release it.
If you want us to respect your closures, show us the data.
John Thorogood, Maroochydore
Interesting that council commented that parks would be more disability-friendly, when in fact the opposite is true.
Dog parks are usually undulating ground with tuffs of grass, holes, often too wet after rain with many trip hazards, not including the unruly dogs and less trained owners that frequent such places.
Often the path to access the fenced dog areas are lengthy and exhausting, before even reaching the dog park. The risk of snakes and ticks are a real threat to our safety, as is being at an isolated dog park. A fenced dog park is like a prison to a dog: they are trapped with unruly aggressive dogs and I have not had one good experience at them.
There is nothing to do in a fenced dog park for the dog or owner. I have tried dog parks when I first moved here and they do not deliver a great experience, for a person with a disability or for my dog, who has a gentle nature. So, I do not use dog parks and have not used them for 10 years.
The dogs on beaches and their owners are much better behaved. The ocean and beaches offer peace and better social interactions. It’s a healthy environment for mental health. It helps me to exercise within my mobility limits while exercising my dog.
With 211km of coastal beaches there is plenty of area for the wildlife that currently seem to have more rights than residents, or is the environment just used as an excuse to further council’s cause? Where is the balance?
Help save off leash-dog beaches. They would not even account for 1 per cent of all the coastline.
Lindy Rogers, Caloundra West
I’m a dog lover. My greyhound loves to run and off-leash areas give him that opportunity.
Nambour has two brilliant off-leash areas that are rarely used. One adjoins Petrie Creek with cool shade, the other at west Quota Park is close to coffee shops and supermarkets, so you can do all that within a five-minute walk. All dogs’ ancestry comes from the savannah so vegetation and animal smells are his natural favourites.
It’s the dogs’ humans that love the beaches. Sometimes I meet friends for a beach walk (nothing much to smell but undrinkable water for my dog). Our migratory and other sea birds and turtles are under threat. They get a lot more out of the beach experience than dogs do.
Nambour is ideal to create an off-leash area with a dog market (there’s one in Bayview, NSW) and it’s a great place to meet, buy dog stuff (supporting local small businesses) and have him washed while we drink coffee.
Deborah Moseley, Rosemount
I am responding to proposed changes that will restrict dog access to a small stretch of beach south of Alex Surf Club.
My family and I use this beach with our dog as he is old and unable to walk up and down the stairs at the bluff. This beach is a short walk from home and the dog enjoys getting wet on his daily walk.
I understand council has to cater for visitors but please consider the lifestyle of the locals. I would like to suggest a bit of give, not take.
The dog access near the rock wall river mouth south of Mooloolaba was taken away from us some years ago. This section close to the rock wall is overgrown and the tide prevents visitors from erecting shade covers along this strip.
Instead of taking more and more over time, why not show a bit of good will and give us back a small section of beach at the rock wall.
Reg Trevor Lobegeier, Alexandra Headland
- Read the story: Region poised to develop tech-driven economy
The article on the Sunshine Coast as a technology centre appears to be just talk.
If the Sunshine Coast, or any region in Australia, intends to become another Silicon Valley, talk alone will not result in any real investments.
Silicon Valley did not just appear out of the blue. HP, along with support from Stanford University, could be considered the starting point for Silicon Valley. Other companies followed with the aid and support of local councils. Technology in Silicon Valley is a culture, not just an industry. The Sunshine Coast has a lot to learn if they plan on emulating the success of Silicon Valley. First, there must be more than talk and presentations, there must be commitment – which may be expensive. To date I don’t see that. There must also be a plan for investment – to date there is no plan, and who will drive the plan? Over what time frame?
I noted in the article some focus on 5G and high-speed internet. Focus such as this will simply fail. Who and where in Australia are there real experts on high-speed internet? Where are the 5G experts? These technologies are already 10 years or more old with well-established companies providing product. Even 6G is now well underway as a technology, as is quantum computing and AI.
We need a pipe dream. Where is the educational system to support advanced technologies? What incentive is there for commercial investments? Where is the marketing plan to make viable high technology visible? To get such a project underway will be expensive and 10 years or more to get established. The Sunshine Coast Council could not fund the investment – it is just too great – and the establishment of a high-tech educational establishment will take at least five years. Certainly, the federal government would need to be involved and help and may provide assistance.
If the Sunshine Coast is indeed interested in becoming it, stop the talk and begin the plan.
Peter Dare, Pelican Waters
- Read the story: Trees to be cut down at master-planned estate
Your recent article regarding the removal of vegetation at Hillside Mooloolah Valley estate contains several statements that need to be challenged and corrected.
One of the residents is quoted as saying: “The council were also happy to make us pay more for our build due to the bushfire dangers, which now won’t exist.”
Both statements are incorrect, with the comments about the bushfire risk no longer existing having potentially fatal consequences.
The requirement to build to a higher standard (i.e. pay more) is a consequence of the changes to the relevant Australian Standards as a consequence of the devastating 2009 Victorian fires and the subsequent royal commission. The standard to which a house must be built is determined by the BAL (Bushfire Attack Level), which is based on the bushfire risk as determined at a higher level of government than the local council. Council must assess building plans for compliance against the standard.
More worrying, as a retired bushfire safety professional, is to think the bushfire risk will no longer exist. There are three causes of house losses due to bushfires: ember attack, radiant heat and direct flame. To think the bushfire risk no longer exists is potentially life-threatening. Over 70 per cent of house losses due to bushfire in Australia are from ember attack, not radiant heat or direct flame. Embers are carried by wind and may travel some distance. On the Sunshine Coast, we have seen ember attack up to 4km from the actual bushfire. The one house lost in the Peregian fires was not next to the bush. The 2009 Victorian fires saw ember attack up to 20km from the head fires.
Just because you don’t live next to, or close to, bush doesn’t mean you have no bushfire risk. Please understand this and prepare accordingly. When you are directed to evacuate is too late.
Andrew Marnie, Eudlo
- Read the story: Men’s health beach gathering shut down over permit
I am writing to express my concern over the recent requirement for permits to hold free gatherings on our public beaches, which adversely impacts our community’s mental health and freedom.
These gatherings offer essential wellness activities like yoga and meditation, fostering community connections and improving well-being.
It is troubling that while these activities aim to enrich lives at no cost, the council imposes additional financial barriers. Considering the already significant annual income generated from taxpayers, this seems an excessive measure.
I urge the council to reconsider this decision and prioritise our community’s well-being and freedom.
Vincent Geisler, Eudlo
- Read the story: Road closure for estate surprises surrounding community
Affected residents of the Wappa Falls Road catchment are very appreciative of the coverage SCN has given to an issue that is threatening to compromise their safety and amenity.
Affected residents are also very appreciative of the commitment the member for Nicklin, Marty Hunt, gave to them at the YADCA forum on February 10 to pursue this issue with the relevant authorities. YADCA has convened a working group that will prepare a briefing for Mr Hunt on the issues and potential solutions.
However, a point that everyone seems to have chosen to overlook is that the Sunshine Coast Council Planning Scheme of 2014 (which, because of the delay in the issuing of the 2024 Planning Scheme, is still current), under which the land now referred to as South West Yandina was opened up to low-density residential development, prohibits the constriction of road access that the developer of this site is demanding. The closure of Creightons Road is just one of the multiple negative consequences of that drive to maximise the return on the development.
The only access of the still largely undeveloped Wappa Falls Road catchment to the Nambour Connection Road will be via a narrow obstacle course of speed bumps and roundabout. The Nambour Connection Road is part of the main hinterland road network, servicing major industrial development as well as a rapidly growing residential population.
Even in the current relatively underdeveloped state of the Wappa Falls Road catchment, that obstacle course would be a significant constraint on access by commercial and private vehicle movement. The issue of truck access and, in the case of bushfires, resident evacuation and fire brigade access have already been covered in the media, with no satisfactory solution forthcoming.
When, as is highly likely given the pressure on the state and council to address the need for industrial and residential land, there are new developments in that Wappa Falls Road catchment, TMR will be faced with a dilemma that could be avoided by applying now the criterion specified in the Planning Scheme that future provision of infrastructure not be compromised. It would be naïve to suggest that because, in 2014, there was no new ‘planned’ infrastructure in the Wappa Falls Road catchment, there will not be development in the near future that will need matching infrastructure, which would have to include an unconstricted Wappa Falls Road.
The South West Yandina development must leave an easement wide enough to accommodate the existing road with provision for future upgrading that will not require the forced buy-out of properties adjoining the greatly constrained Wappa Falls Road proposed by the developer.
The council planners have to look again at the South West Yandina development proposal from the point of view of the impact of the constriction Wappa Falls Road on future developments as well residents amenity and safety.
Keith Sweatman, Maroochy River
- Read the story: Twin 19-storey tower development approved for CBD
It looks like our illustrious mayor wants to turn the Maroochydore centre into a mini Gold Coast without thinking about infrastructure.
She will spoil it forever. Stop her.
Paul, Sippy Downs
- Oh Noosa
When I told my friends I was moving from Canberra to Peregian Springs, they looked blank until I said, “Near Noosa”.
“Oh Noosa, how wonderful,” they beamed.
Peregian is great and Noosa has exceeded my expectations as I discover the diversity of its environmental beauty.
Thank you to the citizens and groups who persisted over decades to achieve what we enjoy today.
Reassuringly, many are still doing it supported by local councillors and state and federal MPs conscientiously serving as civic custodians addressing climate change, urban planning, housing affordability, tourist and population pressures, and developer temptations.
When I discovered the council facilities tucked away in a lush forest it felt so Noosa, as did the river ferry trip not being overshadowed by skyscrapers along the shoreline.
Other gems of diversity include meeting friendly people from around the world in casual conversations while strolling on the beach or peace doves being released at an Easter sunrise service by the sea.
Yes, there is a danger of Noosa being loved to death, and the queues in traffic and hunts for parking deflating the joy of visiting from Peregian.
With empathetic innovation and collaboration, ‘Nooosa’ can grow sustainably with an extra O.
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 give to letters of 100 words or less.
