Original source · versioned page text
2021-10-08 Special Meeting Agenda
Text sections have not been matched to the original PDF pages. Use the original document to check page numbers.
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 8 OCTOBER 2021
Community comment Proposed response
General – CHAP approach
What about artificial reefs off Eastern Beaches? Discussions had with consulting engineers
concluded such reefs are not of a scale or location
to provide protection during large swell events and
are unlikely to be a feasible option.
Recommend that Council’s asset replacement The draft CHAP states:
program and forward estimates should budget for “The Peregian Beach Surf Life Saving Club itself is
the replacement of the Peregian Beach SLSC given not expected to be directly impacted during a major
its erosion risk exposure. erosion event, however operations are likely to be
impaired due to damage to the park and beach
accesses.”
Recommend that Council budget papers and This forms part of more detailed asset management
associated management plans clearly identify planning separate to the CHAP. The CHAP will
replacement schedules and projected costs on an inform this asset management.
annual basis (regarding Peregian Park).
Noosa Heads
Support the ongoing use of the sand recycling Noted.
system on Noosa Main Beach, with costs
continuing to be met by a levy on appropriate
properties.
Do not support the further construction of groyne
walls, which are likely to generate unexpected
negative impacts.
Note the reference to impacts on Noosa Woods Noted. Council’s management response to erosion
becoming “intolerable” by 2070. The Noosa Spit is issues at Noosa Woods is addressed in the
an artificial construction built to protect the Hayes relevant Shoreline Erosion Management Plan, and
Island Development. As a recreational area, Noosa does not form part of this CHAP.
Spit should be considered sacrificial in the context
of the ever-shifting sandbank formations of the
lower Noosa River Estuary function.
We do not believe that large amounts of public
money should be spent on retaining the Noosa Spit
in its extant current form for recreational purposes,
and that expenditure of works for private property
protection purposes should be borne by the owners
of those properties.
Noosaville
The basis of the claim that Noosa Waters is - Council has prepared tidal inundation mapping
flood prone is completely unfounded. Both AAMI consistent with the State Government’s technical
and Suncorp have had their own research by guidelines for modelling and mapping of coastal
hydrologists and conclude that these claims are hazards.
incorrect. Council’s dooms day attitude is harmful to - Insurers look at a range of data and factors
the cost of living here and the value of property. including flood hazard modelling, but do not factor
in sea level rise changes or ‘actions of the sea’
such as storm surge.
- Insurers update their premiums annually based
on best available information. They are interested
in current day risks not future sea level rise.
- Coastal risks of storm surge, coastal erosion and
gradual sea level rise are therefore excluded by
most general insurance policies.
Page 15 of 26
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalSearchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.