Public Question Time Applicant: Ken & Desley Nixon
See the votes on this matter →
What was decided?
The minuted decision sequence
No separately labelled carried Council Resolution has been identified here. Read each formal event and the complete item minutes; a lost motion is not necessarily the final outcome.
Read complete item-specific minutes
QUESTION 1
Will Noosa Shire Council, as part of its Budget considerations, include a raised boardwalk (approximately 25 metres) on flood prone section of Beach Access 55, noting that we are not seeking replacement of the existing concrete path but only an elevated structure over that section (Case RM2024/10901)?
RESPONSE BY SHAUN WALSH, DIRECTOR INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES
Council’s has recently completed a Strategic Beach Access Renewal Plan, which captures existing asset data across Council’s 70 beach accesses. This asset plan provides the Infrastructure department with clearer guidance and prioritisation for longer‑term renewal planning and works scheduling. Beach Access 55 (Kingfisher Dr, Peregian) has been assessed as a Medium priority (Categories are Low, Medium, High and Urgent), with the overall condition considered fair. It is acknowledged that the primary driver for future renewal is the infrequent inundation of the pathway during high rainfall events, which can temporarily restrict public access. In terms of budget provision, Council allocates an annual capital budget provision of $240,000 for renewal of beach accesses & showers, and this budget will be prioritised towards completing Urgent and High priority upgrades at other Beach Access locations. No funding is currently proposed to be allocated toward design or construction of a raised boardwalk through the flood prone section of Beach Access 55.
QUESTION 2
Can Council please clarify the statement in the 28 January email (from the A/Executive Officer) referring to the existing path and railing being "at the end of its service life", and explain what this means in practical terms and when it will be scheduled for repair or replacement (in relation to the existing concrete pathway at Beach Access 55)?
RESPONSE BY SHAUN WALSH, DIRECTOR INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES
Will Noosa Shire Council, as part of its Budget considerations, include a raised boardwalk (approximately 25 metres) on flood prone section of Beach Access 55, noting that we are not seeking replacement of the existing concrete path but only an elevated structure over that section (Case RM2024/10901)?
RESPONSE BY SHAUN WALSH, DIRECTOR INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES
Council’s has recently completed a Strategic Beach Access Renewal Plan, which captures existing asset data across Council’s 70 beach accesses. This asset plan provides the Infrastructure department with clearer guidance and prioritisation for longer‑term renewal planning and works scheduling. Beach Access 55 (Kingfisher Dr, Peregian) has been assessed as a Medium priority (Categories are Low, Medium, High and Urgent), with the overall condition considered fair. It is acknowledged that the primary driver for future renewal is the infrequent inundation of the pathway during high rainfall events, which can temporarily restrict public access. In terms of budget provision, Council allocates an annual capital budget provision of $240,000 for renewal of beach accesses & showers, and this budget will be prioritised towards completing Urgent and High priority upgrades at other Beach Access locations. No funding is currently proposed to be allocated toward design or construction of a raised boardwalk through the flood prone section of Beach Access 55.
QUESTION 2
Can Council please clarify the statement in the 28 January email (from the A/Executive Officer) referring to the existing path and railing being "at the end of its service life", and explain what this means in practical terms and when it will be scheduled for repair or replacement (in relation to the existing concrete pathway at Beach Access 55)?
RESPONSE BY SHAUN WALSH, DIRECTOR INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES
To clarify previous advice provided 28 January in terms of Council's current capital funding prioritisation process, Beach Access 55 has been assessed as a Medium priority (Low > Medium > High > Urgent), with the overall condition considered fair. It is acknowledged that the primary driver for future renewal is the infrequent inundation of the pathway during high rainfall events, which can temporarily restrict public access. At this stage, no delivery timeframe has been scheduled for Beach Access 55, as Council’s current program is prioritised for more urgent and high priority beach access works across the Shire. It is noted that the adjacent beach access points Beach Access 54 (approx. 350m north) & Beach Access 56 (approx. 300m south) aren't impacted by inundation and are available as alternative access points during periods of prolonged inundation of Beach Access 55. All beach accesses will continue to be evaluated on an annual basis.
This summary follows this item’s minutes. The established voting totals use their existing method while differences are checked against the full records.
What was said?
Named discussion on NoosaWatch TV
These actual transcript passages match the item’s wording. The start and end of the item’s discussion are not yet confirmed; these excerpts are not measured item airtime or exact decision moments.
Frank Wilkie15:28We're going to have a few questions from members of the gallery on another topic. But then they'll there will be an adjournment, which gives you an opportunity to meet with some of our staff, including our Director of infrastructure, Shaun Walsh, if you have any questions of Mr Walsh or Councillors, that's an opportunity today. Okay, thanks, Frank. Thank you. Next up we have two submissions for public question time. First application with two questions is from Ken and Desley Nixon. Mr. and Mrs Nixon couldn't be here today and they've requested that Councillor Lorentson read their questions which will be answered by Shaun Walsh, Director Infrastructure Services. Councillor Lorentson.
1 suggested discussion start time
- 962.0 seconds on the council source timeline · Recording time not yet verified. The end of the discussion is not yet confirmed.