Weinam Creek Parking, the role of the Government Advisor to Redland City Council, and funding responsibility for swift water training facilities at the proposed Redlands Whitewater centre are discussed in letters to the editor.
Letters to the editor are a powerful way for residents to raise concerns, highlight community priorities, and express opinions on issues of public interest. Letters to the editor, are included in our newsletters emailed to thousands of subscribers.
If you have something to say about local issues, email a short letter to: theeditor@redlands2030.net
Car parking for SMBI residents
I believe that to solve the accessible parking (and long walking to cars) issue on the Redland Bay side, the ferry terminal should be an interchange whereby car owners get onto buses and be taken to a large (many acres) carpark at say, Mt Cotton. The existing buses that already take people to Loganholme and Victoria Point etc. could easily add this carpark to their route.
Buying a Mt Cotton farm and creating a carpark has to be cheaper and more viable (and expandable) than any high rise on the foreshore. This will assist SMBI residents with accessibility too.
D.A.
Mount Cotton
Weinam Creek car parking
Who else spotted the article in the Redland Bayside News on 15 January (page 8), titled “10 major planning decisions shaping the Redlands in 2026”?
I did — and noted that number two on the list was the Weinam Creek car park. That immediately raises an obvious question: how long has this actually been on the planning agenda?
The Weinam Creek development was declared Queensland’s third Priority Development Area (PDA) in May 2013. Twelve years later, there is still no multi-storey car park and no completed precinct. Is this normal for a PDA, or is it another example of Redlands being trapped in poor planning, shifting responsibility, and endless delays across all three levels of government?
The PDA master plan was finally released in May 2021, eight years after the PDA declaration. Council stated at the time that the final proposed master plan had been submitted to Economic Development Queensland for approval. That was four years ago. Yet discussions continued to focus on preferred development partners rather than construction. So again — why is there still no car park in 2026?
In the 2025 election year, both major parties promised delivery. The former Labor government committed $95 million, reportedly enough to complete the project, and the LNP later made its own election commitment. Despite this, many residents remained sceptical — and understandably so. From the community’s perspective, it has been endless consultation, multiple master plans, repeated promises, and no delivery. People want less talk and more action.
Now in 2026, the LNP government has been in power for over 15 months, and the local MP is also the Assistant Minister for Planning. Since the October 2024 election, the community has seen more announcements, reviews, and changes — but still no construction and no firm delivery timeline that I am aware of.
In December 2025, Council voted 7–3 on a confidential item to end the existing developer arrangement and begin direct negotiations with the State to progress the car park. In January 2026, residents were left with conflicting narratives about what that decision actually means — but the outcome remains the same: no car park.
The hard facts are simple:
- Weinam Creek declared a PDA in 2013
- Master plan released in 2021
- Still no car park in 2026
- Funding committed by both major parties pre october state 2024 election
- Island commuters still battling overcrowded parking every day
After 12 years, countless consultations, and millions of dollars promised, the real question remains: why is Weinam Creek still a planning exercise instead of a functioning transport hub? And more importantly — when will Redlanders finally see action instead of announcements?
T.H.
Thornlands
Why is Redland City Council funding a swift water training facility?
Houston, we have a problem…
Council cost-shifting, where Councils inherit responsibility for the delivery of infrastructure and support services considered the domain of State and Federal governments, is a major challenge of our time.
The LGAQ is a leading advocate, with local Redlands Councillors on the case – one being Cr. McKenzie (Div 7), as attested by her public social media statements:
.. regarding cost shifting. It’s a topic I’ve raised publicly before, where ratepayers are picking up the tab to deliver services that should be provided by other other levels of government or the private sector .” [October 17, 2023].
“Cost shifting to Councils means your rates are being used to deliver services that should be provided by other levels of government or the private sector” [February 7,2024]
“While the State Govt is throwing out temporary cost of living relief like it’s candy, they’re cost shifting their responsibilities to Council and your rates” [ June 14,2024]
A noble sentiment, persuasively put, and hard to disagree with!
So how can it be that, according to the (Olympic) Games Independent Infrastructure and Coordination Authority (GIICA) Reference Design overview, Council is funding construction of a standalone Floodable Streetscape/ Rescue Simulation Channel (outside scope of the Whitewater Course) – the purpose of which is solely as a dedicated rescue training facility for use by State fire and emergency services personnel – arguably the domain of the State QFS and SES departments.
Whilst the intrinsic value of life-saving rescue training facilities is not in dispute, the question we are entitled to ask in this climate of cost-shifting pushback, is how is it appropriate that the build-cost of this State-portfolio infrastructure asset be borne by Redland ratepayers?
Taking a step back, we know in May 2024, a slender majority of councillors voted 6/5 in favour of Council’s continued participation as a delivery partner for the 2032 Olympics whitewater facility.
Further begging the question – was the requirement of Council to deliver a dedicated Floodable Channel at its cost, known to Councillors at the time of this May’24 vote?
Given Cr. McKenzie was one of the 6 voting to proceed, did she and other Councillors of similar vein challenge or reject this burden on Council, consistent with their public positioning against State cost-shifting?
Otherwise what can explain the disconnect between such vocal cost-shifting advocacy, and their voting outcomes that’s now led to the very State cost-shifting situation they rail against?
Muddied Waters
Redland Bay
The Government Advisor to Redland City Council
The Government Advisor is here to address ongoing internal conflict, poor meeting attendance, and governance issues, with his role focused on improving councillor conduct, leadership, and compliance until May 2026.
Since Redland City Council ratepayers are paying for the work done by the Government Advisor, shouldn’t we have some say in what he does?
My thoughts are that the Government Advisor should examine transparency of the Council’s decision making about the Heinemann Road project.
D.S.
Wellington Point
More letters to Redlands2030
The Macleay Island hill climb – in letters to Redlands2030
Footpath wanted in Ormiston, security upgrade needed at Weinam Creek – letters to Redlands2030
Mount Rushmore story provokes letters to Redlands2030
Great insight D.A. Mt. Cotton. A multi-storey carpark dominating prime waterfront foreshore at Weinam Ck. is surely a throwback to a 1960s town planning mentality.
The combined retail parking block was the PDA hook for private partnership that is now dead in the water just build the car park offsite and shuttle to ferries … give the waterfront back to the locals and tourists.