Get the facts about Toondah Harbour

The recent Toondah Rally concluded with placement of Toondah Defenders on a fence at G.J. Walter Park

The recent Toondah Rally concluded with placement of Toondah Defenders on a fence at G.J. Walter Park

Councillors recently issued divisional newsletters. In Division 2 Cr Mitchell stepped into the Toondah debate with a “Toondah Harbour update” which would have benefited from some fact checking.

Toondah Update: Issued by Cr Mitchell

Sadly, Cr Mitchell’s contribution contains some fundamental errors. He wrongly declared there was a “green light” to progress the environmental impact assessment (EIA).

The Federal Minister for the Environment has made no such decision. There is no “green light” because as yet there are no terms of reference for an an EIA.

The Federal Minister is awaiting advice from Walker Group on whether they are seeking to have the State or the Commonwealth undertake the assessment process.

So the next move is in fact up to the Walker Group not the Commonwealth or State government.

Update or marketing campaign?

The “update” from Cr Mitchell describes the project as …”innovative design, engineering, sustainability and environmental responses to deliver a world-class gateway that will better connect residents and visitors to the diverse coastal experiences and natural attractions of Moreton Bay…” 

The flood of adjectives is more of a marketing campaign than a responsible update published by an elected official at ratepayers expense.

How can 3,600 dwellings in Moreton Bay enhance “natural attractions”?

Did readers of the “update” notice that it failed to mention that the cost of project is dominated by the cost of constructing the 3,600 apartments.  These will be in the Bay and home for up to 10,000 people and some 4,500 cars.

Further, the construction of gateway facilities for ferries and barges are not due to commence until the first 900 units are sold which could take many years.

The update ignored community opposition

A community update might have at least acknowledged local sensitivity about the project.

He could, for example, have mentioned the number of submissions to the revised EPBC referral process. There were 1,419 submissions and of these 1,411 oppose Toondah and only eight support the project.

These facts were readily available and would have added balance and completeness to the Councillor’s Toondah update.

Ratepayers might also be interested to learn that in the face of 1,419 formal submissions to a new referral application by Walker’s the Redland City Council never even debated the issue. A reasoned update might have explained why Council itself made no submission on behalf of its community.

Community angst was also evident in a petition tabled before Council on 22 November 2017.   There were 1,163 residents (and tourists) who asked  Council to withdraw support from the project.

Cr Mitchell was present when the petition was launched and could easily have ascertained that hundreds were signing the petition at the Toondah Rally.

The “update“ could also have mentioned the Redland City Bulletin poll which has found 85% of respondents want the Toondah PDA stopped.

Cr Mitchell’s personal view “I believe our community deserves to see this opportunity tested” is clearly at odds with the local community’s opinion.

Check the facts on Toondah

Councillor Mitchell recently complained about social media reports on Council’s removal of trees near to Toondah Harbour.

He said “regarding some necessary tree removal does require a factual response”.  He went on to say “I acknowledge the sensitivity around tree removal and these trees are in a known Koala area”.

He concluded his spray with “whatever your passion, play hard, play fair, and please take personal responsibility to fact check before reacting”.

With this in mind, perhaps his next update, published at ratepayers’ expense, should be more accurate, balanced and fact checked before it ends up in residents’ letterboxes.

Redlands2030 would be pleased to assist any councillor who wants accurate information about the likely impact of Walker Group’s plans for massive residential development on Ramsar wetlands next to Toondah Harbour.


Redlands2030 – 8 December 2017


Please note: Offensive or off-topic comments will be deleted. If offended by any published comment please email

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

6 thoughts on “Get the facts about Toondah Harbour

  1. Regrettably Mitchell has become the show pony of the Council! We hoped we were on a winner but when you get up close and personal with him he is a hopelessly inept Councillor with the most minimal of grasps on what it is all about! His handling of the Raby Bay revetment walls and surrounds has shown him up as a non event!

    “Vote For Mitch!” Yeh ……………………..

  2. The Dennis Tafe facts and requests for information are more interesting than all the World Class, innovative design , and peculiar engineering, and suppositionary dredging and landfill media.
    The call for an independent assessment should be ready. Where are the risk Assessments and where are the funding resources to fix the consequences ?

  3. the Councillors update was likely written for him by the Councils PR team. It was article trying to sell the development. It is not a report worthy of public funding…but we have seen the before.

    More urgent though is who was it who took the wall of teddy defenders away?…reports circulating are fairly compelling and that Council itself removed the wall of teddies only a day or so ago .

    Can you imagine, the councillors get together to decide to remove the wall of teddies because of them being unsightly…may be…but compared to 10-storey residential towers built in the Bay …. the teddies were insignificant.

    Does this Council even care what people are doing …there is even one Councillor that touts protecting community values…but on remains silent on many substantive issues…

  4. Does Cr Mitchell have any recommendations on how to stop gridlock from happening on our local road system which saw yet another crash yesterday, where there have been many before, in the Windemere/Finucane Rd area in Alexandra Hills, a short distance from where several deaths in recent years occurred adjacent to the 4-way intersection at Capalaba and where we are seeing posies of flowers in memory of loved ones lost to road kills? 3,600 units by Toondah Harbour…can Cr Mitchell advise how Department of Roads/Transport will, and how soon, upgrade existing roadways in Redland City? How many people have to die or be injured before action is taken to prevent any further tragedies in Redland City where most of the work force drive outside the City?
    Cr Mitchell needs to provide up to date information on how the traffic dilemma will be tackled in the near future to ensure better safety on our already congested roadways.

  5. The “update” from Cr Mitchell describes the Walker project as …”innovative design, engineering, sustainability and environmental responses to deliver a world-class gateway…..” I am a biologist so I know the irreversible damage that would be done to the Ramsar Migratory Shorebird protection zone should the Federal Environment Minister allow a commercial developer to dredge the intertidal zone with an abundance of life so they can construct 3,600 home units. However, I am not a developer or an economist so I cannot understand the words “innovative, sustainable, or world-class gateway” in relation to a commercial development such as the one proposed by the Walker Corporation. A world-class gateway to what? The same adjectives could have been applied to the Raby Bay development 20 years ago and what did it do for tourism or for the creation of a world-class gateway? Many of the residents of Raby Bay can tell you about the land slippage and the very expensive repairs because the housing development was constructed on reclaimed land without due diligence. Redland City Council has had to pour millions of dollars into those repairs and guess where that money came from? You have the answer in one word – ratepayers.