For Elisa Wood and her 12-year-old daughter, Sophie, cherished family moments by the ocean have become a distant memory. Sophie, who lives with polymicrogyria – a congenital brain condition that means she is non-verbal and frequently uses a wheelchair – once enjoyed the simple pleasure of watching her family's border collie play while her father and brother surfed at Point Cartwright's off-leash beach. Now, due to new regulations introduced by the Sunshine Coast Council, this beloved spot is only accessible via stairs or an extensive stretch of soft sand, making it impossible for Sophie and her family to enjoy.

Sweeping Policy Changes and Accessibility Gaps

The council’s updated dog policy, which came into effect on July 3, has dramatically altered where dogs can go across the Sunshine Coast region. The changes have reduced the overall size and number of designated dog beaches, including the critical shift at Point Cartwright. Across nearly 50 kilometres of coastline, stretching from Peregian Beach to Golden Beach, there are now no wheelchair-friendly off-leash dog beaches available.

While four specific beaches – Mooloolaba, Alexandra Headland, Caloundra, and Dicky Beach – do offer accessible access, such as matting, this equipment must be pre-arranged with local surf lifesaving clubs. Crucially, none of these locations permit dogs, creating a significant barrier for families like the Woods who rely on both accessibility and dog-friendly spaces.

Balancing Environmental Protection with Community Needs

A representative from the Sunshine Coast Council stated that the policy adjustments aim to strike a balance between providing opportunities for dog exercise, ensuring community safety, promoting shared use of public spaces, and, significantly, protecting the environment. The council indicated that the process included a Human Rights Assessment and extensive community consultation, involving representatives from disability organisations.

“Council recognises that beaches and parks play an important role in recreation, connection and wellbeing for our community, and acknowledges that changes to familiar places can be difficult,” the statement read. However, when questioned about specific plans for accessible dog beaches for people with disabilities, the council referred to its 2024-2028 All Abilities Action Plan, which currently does not outline any provisions for such spaces.

Environmental experts underscore the delicate balance involved. Professor Richard Fuller from the University of Queensland's School of the Environment explained that dogs, particularly in South-East Queensland, are a significant source of disturbance for migratory shorebirds. These birds travel thousands of kilometres from regions as far as Siberia and Alaska. “It’s already illegal to significantly disturb migratory birds, so council does have an obligation to act in this space,” Professor Fuller noted, adding, “Importantly, a controlled dog has a much smaller impact than one running loose.”

Advocates Call for Inclusive Solutions

Disability advocacy groups are urging the council to find a solution that integrates both environmental protection and accessibility. Paige Armstrong, Deputy Chief Executive Officer of Queenslanders with Disability Network, highlighted that accessible off-leash beaches are among the few truly inclusive recreational spaces available for people with disabilities. “Losing that tends to bring isolation, with real flow-on effects for mental health and community belonging,” Ms Armstrong warned. She firmly believes that environmental protection and accessibility do not have to be mutually exclusive. “That means retaining or creating a genuinely accessible pathway to at least one off-leash area and co-designing any changes with the people who actually use the space,” she advocated.

The issue extends beyond the Sunshine Coast, as Bern Walker, a project officer with Accessible Beaches Australia, points out. Her organisation works nationally to increase equitable beach access. “Out of the 12,000 beaches in Australia, less than 2 per cent are actually accessible to people with disabilities and mobility limitations, and very few of those are accessible all the time,” Ms Walker stated, calling the council’s decision “extremely disappointing.” She argues that by not providing access for people with disabilities, the implicit message is “you are not welcome and you are less valued than other people in society.”

Disappointment Over Consultation Process

Elisa Wood, who participated in the council's community consultation process and submitted feedback advocating for accessibility, expressed her deep disappointment, stating she felt “overwhelmingly ignored.” “It’s really disheartening when that process just seems to have very little impact on the decision-making,” Ms Wood lamented. She hopes for a reconsideration from the council: “I would love them to reconsider and create more balance to allow even just limited access for people like Sophie and our family with their dogs so that we can share the area like everyone else.” Despite these pleas, the council has indicated there is no current intention to review the policy, with a formal review only slated to commence in 2030.