<p>Planned retreat is a precautionary yet controversial response to sea-level rise. Whilst coastal researchers have increasingly recognised the importance of fairness and emotional responses to adaptation, few studies have examined how these dimensions intersect with planned retreat. I investigate these debates in Brisbane Water, New South Wales, Australia, during discussion of a proposed relocation policy. Drawing on 22 interviews with climate, environmental, and property activists; members of a residents’ group; and council planners, I analyse how common emotional expressions shaped a fairness discussion. Fear and anger circulated through the community, centring on distributive concerns, such as property devaluation, rising insurance, and the demise of low-lying suburbs if the policy was approved. Climate and environmental activists sought to oppose a divisive fear campaign and wanted a discussion about planned retreat. Whilst the community debated hopeful sentiments and how they could find common ground, adaptation planners abandoned the discussion of planned retreat, faced with intensifying conflict. Overall, the results suggest that in coastal communities facing rising seas, an agonistic approach to consultation may better accommodate competing ideas of fairness and political emotions, such as fear, anger, and hope.</p>