THE debate over the future of the Dunwich Ferry Terminal precinct has intensified with ferry operator Stradbroke Flyer warning that the proposed $41 million terminal upgrade risks favouring a single operator and failing to meet all-weather safety requirements.
The comments follow a report outlining Redland City Council’s position that all public ferry services should be consolidated into a single upgraded hub at Dunwich Ferry Terminal with operations currently split between Dunwich and the One Mile Ferry Terminal.
Council’s draft submission to the Queensland Government argues the upgrade—funded through the South East Queensland City Deal and identified under the Gumpi Master Plan—should centralise ferry operations, improve transport integration, and remove services from the One Mile precinct entirely.
However, Stradbroke Flyer has strongly rejected aspects of the proposal, arguing the current design does not reflect earlier planning intentions for a multi-operator, all-weather transport hub.
John Groom from Stradbroke Flyer said the concept drawings “do not meet any of those criteria” for a safe, all-weather port capable of handling simultaneous ferry unloading in rough conditions.
“The design is compromised as only one operator can operate from this facility, not designed for two,” Mr Groom said.
“The biggest push back is that it is in no way all weather.
“If the facility was a safe all-weather port large enough to have all the ferries landing and unloading together in rough weather… the current artist impression does not meet any of those criteria.”
Mr Groom also disputed Council’s interpretation of the original planning vision, stating that the upgrade departs from what was originally envisaged under the broader island transport strategy.
“This is not the Dunwich Master Plan,” he said.
“The master plan was envisioned to bring all public transport to a purpose-built safe harbour for all operators, ferries and buses.”
He further claimed that consultation with infrastructure partners had been limited.
“Redland City Council has not ever met with me to seriously discuss the plan other than in a passing comment,” he said.
Mr Groom also raised concerns about operational impacts at existing infrastructure, pointing to current arrangements at Junner Street where SeaLink services operate alongside their own operations.
At present, Stradbroke Flyer maintains that when SeaLink services are disrupted in heavy weather, passengers often redirect to One Mile Ferry Terminal in search of alternatives.
The operator also highlighted what it described as temporary protective measures used by other operators, including mooring a vehicle ferry beside passenger pontoons during adverse conditions.
The strongest criticism centred on governance and allocation of infrastructure access, with Stradbroke Flyer claiming the current proposal effectively prioritises a single operator.
“The current plan is for one operator only,” Mr Groom said.
“There is only one pontoon and five vessels to share at the same time schedule.
“We have had meetings with State and were informed… we were not considered in the design of the new plan.”
The company also raised concerns that a $41 million public infrastructure investment could result in exclusive operational benefit, stating it was “a project for one operator.”
Redland City Council has maintained that the consolidation of services is necessary to improve efficiency, reduce congestion, and streamline transport planning across the Dunwich precinct.
Council’s submission argues that splitting ferry operations between two terminals creates confusion for passengers, contributes to parking pressure in surrounding areas, and limits the effectiveness of integrated bus and ferry connections.
The proposal also seeks to ensure the State Government retains full responsibility for managing the upgraded facility, warning Council should not inherit operational, or maintenance liabilities associated with the hub.
