Support is pouring in from concerned residents of the community who are opposed to the development of Lot 21 and below are just a few of the comments we have received.

A from Yeppoon writes:
Great Keppel Island (GKI) should be kept as low impact tourism, it is the largest island habitat we have close to the Capricorn coast. It is home for many vulnerable marine and terrestrial species (incl Beach Stone Curlew and green turtles).  Most value is for bush walking and camping to experience magnificent island environment. Tower Holdings responsibility is to improve existing resort area and operate services - leave Lot 21 for nature!!

M of the Capricorn Coast writes:
I am one of the 300 residents of the Capricorn Coast and Central Queensland Area who made submissions regarding the development of Lot 21 on Great Keppel Island. As a result of the review of these submissions and the environmental issues associated with development of this land, the Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Water made a decision to set this area aside for conservation. It is very disappointing to see that this decision has been ignored. Mr Agnew is saying both that Great Keppel Island (GKI) is a jewel in the crown of the Great Barrier Reef and, at the same time, that it is so degraded that the only way to salvage it is to develop it. These statements appear to be contradictory. I do not and never will agree that the way to conserve Lot 21 and GKI are to build a golf course over "of concern" (according to Vegetation Management Act) remnant vegetation, to build a marina in a shallow bay presently inhabited by dugongs, sea turtles and other wildlife taking advantage of the extensive seagrass beds in evidence, and developing a residential/shopping precinct over areas of remnant vegetation. Development of GKI in the manner proposed by Mr Agnew would be environmental vandalism.

A from Rockhampton writes:
The environmental impacts of the proposed development (as it stands) are many and varied. Every aspect of this development has the potential to impact specific ecosystems. The main problem with any island development is the unacceptable risk to the surrounding reefs. Fringing reefs are by their very nature, dependent on good water quality with low sediment, nutrient and herbicide runoff. As it stands, the current proposal will cause unacceptable risk to at least 15 fringing reefs around GKI and surrounding islands. As these reefs lie in the World Heritage Marine Park and are protected by Australia's obligations to World Heritage areas, I cannot see how the current proposal will be allowed by either State Government or Federal Government. It is our obligation, under the laws governing World Heritage areas, to protect and promote biodiversity in the marine park. Allowing dredging adjacent to coral reefs will not permit us to meet that obligation. While I accept that public access to these beautiful natural surroundings is important and needs to be improved, limiting the damage that such changes will have should be of paramount importance in any State Government approval process. As I see it, a marina is unnecessary and public access can be achieved by a floating pontoon and jetty at Fisherman's beach. Buildings must be set back from beach protection zones and all forms of water runoff should be minimised. Such an eco-friendly development on the Western side of the island will be welcomed by all. However, any development of the other three sides of the island will have irreversible impact on the fringing reefs and is therefore unacceptable. I urge the public, State and Federal Governments to protect this buffer zone (Lot 21) between the developed Western side of the island and the critically endangered (by climate change) coral reefs on the Eastern, Northern and Southern sides.

M from Mackay writes:
A monster resort in the middle of the island will destroy all the biodiversity values of the island. Islands should not be places that people go to play golf at the expense of the wildlife. The island is more valuable as low key eco tourism to Australia. Soon there will be nothing left for overseas visitors to see except the high rise buildings and golf links that are already prolific in their own countries.

S from Yeppoon writes:
Lot 21 on Great Keppel Island is public land and belongs to members of the community. As such my opinion for its future zoning and tenure is that it should be designated as a Conservation zone with conditions allowing for public recreation and use. I do not feel that it is appropriate for Lot 21 to be developed and used to turn profits for private investors as it falls outside the intent of current zoning. This ~828 ha landscape encompasses diverse ecosystems from native woodland, mangrove forests to creeks and wetlands, dune systems, beaches and predominantly these areas are in good condition with much potential for degraded areas to be repaired and rehabilitated. I agree with economic progress and use of GKI Lot 21 to draw in tourists and to promote the industry for the region. I don't think that having a tourism industry necessitates large scale development of the entirety of Great Keppel Island and it seems that developers are holding community to ransom at present. Having recently travelled throughout remote areas of the Northern Territory I believe it entirely possible to promote this area without detracting from natural values with high impact developments. People travel from all over the world to travel through remote places in the territory to visit iconic landscapes and explore Australia's unique natural heritage so I do not believe the argument that in order for tourism on GKI to thrive, Lot 21 should be subject to development. If any development occurs on GKI Lot 21 it should be very small-scale and ecologically sustainable, minimising earthworks that will destroy creek systems beaches and cause for sedimentation of the marine and intertidal environments. Any activities on GKI Lot 21 should be for the benefit of the community and include opportunity for Woppaburra people to promote their heritage and culture.

A from Bribie Island writes:
Development, while necessary, should not overpower our natural environment, wilderness, river and coastal ecosystems. The Keppel Island group contain some of the most iconic marine habitats on Earth and we need to, protect the region's natural resources and respect the indigenous people's spiritual attachment to the land.  Building marinas, increasing development and overtaking undeveloped areas is surely a form of destruction. Let some parts of Queensland retain its originality. After all what are we going to say to our great grand children when the island is desecrated by development, 'Yes we knew it would happen because money talks.  It's sad isn't it?'