Today 29/8/2017 I received a letter in the post about the changes to the boat ramp and it was dated 20/7/2017.! A bit late!

The letter states residents were invited to participate in the consultation process and the results were issued in a letter dated 21 May 2014. That is three years ago and I didn't even live in the state at the time!

The letter received today raises a number of issues:

1. The pedestrian ramp is referred to as a DDA ramp. There is no such thing, this is not the correct use of DDA.
The Disabled Discrimination Act (DDA) provides protection for everyone in Australia against discrimination based on disability. It does not provide the details for this ramp, only that one needs to be provided.
Therefore CCC is really attempting to say they are building a continuous accessible path of travel including ramps that comply with Disability (Access to Premises - Buildings) Standards 2010 and ramps in accordance with AS1428.1 Design for access and mobility.
www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/disability-rights/brief-guide-disability-discrimination-act

2. Disabled Discrimination Act (DDA):
Now that they have made the reference to the DDA; does anyone know if they intend to provide disabled parking bays and upgrade the public toilets to include and accessible toilet facility?
Given they are providing access for people with disabilities, they need to provide the equivalent amenities as provided to the general public otherwise they are not meeting the intent of the DDA and open themselves to potential discrimination claim unless they also provide:
- An accessible toilet.
- Parking bays
- Extend the accessible path to the barbeque facilities on the canal side.

end of rant!

Replacing beach level and wide access with narrow and much steeper ramps over a man made sand dune interesting

yeah i hope i can get my wheelchair /pram down that everyday of the year like i used to be able too.. doubt it

Needs to be longer, steeper and angled straight out .....

This is still a hot topic in Lauderdale. The big argument is that there is a massive safety issue with no access. The lack of consultation with the community before works started is also not acceptable..

The work that has been done is a total joke as well, i.e wheel chair access with two foot drop offs into sand, they covered the 30 meter ramp with one inch chicken wire!!!!, lots of kids toes injured there!!!, concrete footings sitting out of sand by 30cm on beach side..the list goes on..
so there is a Facebook group ..www.facebook.com/groups/1802812696610294/ to support reinstating the ramp.
meeting this Saturday at Lauderdale .
Just a quick reminder about this weekend's meeting at the old boat ramp, DDA ramp (eg useless White Elephant!). If you're free this Saturday 7th October @ 3pm come along and share your thoughts. The more people we get there the better. Bring your water craft, prams, bikes with trailer, windsurfer, surfski's etc. Hopefully we can show the Clarence City Council Aldermen how useless the "White Elephant" really is. As a community we can get our beach access back & restore our Summer way of life."

The whole thing is an astonishing debacle. How the new structure could ever be claimed to be environmentally sympathetic or helpful to remediate erosion is a farce... a structure jutting out past the natural shoreline constructed with copper arsenate treated timber, held together with heavy metal coated fasteners covered with chicken wire , soon to be rusty steel splinters is idiotic.... but you all know that!
A very similar issue was resolved with all parties satisfied on Nutgrove Beach years ago when the eroding dunes were stabilised whilst retaining the water access for recreational use.
I'll post some pics later.
If anyone wants to re post these thoughts on the Lauderdale Boat Ramp Facebook page feel free to do so.
See you Saturday.
Get your Local member there. There could be an election in the wind!

Mayor Chipman , nice to speak to, have not seen him at Lauderdale once , no idea, relies on his incompetent, council staff to do the talking and decision making.
Not Happy Jan.
Lived at Lauderdale for 40 years, love this place, seen it all , just don't own a PHD in environmental vandalism.
Get a grip Clarence Council.
Listen to the people that live here.

This is worth a read if you want to know about the " lack of community consultation/cover up"
Long but explains a lot.

Taken from the Facebook group admin.

Cast your mind back to my letter to the editor dated 25th Aug 17. I made reference to Councils own agenda. The email below is proof of that hidden agenda. This email was sent to the Mayor, Deputy Mayor & all the Alderman on Tuesday 3rd Oct 17. Within 30 minutes Mayor Doug Chipman had responded. (Mayors first response to me in 3 months) I have asked he work with us (residents & MAST) to resolve the situation. Note , the documents cited in the email are freely available on CCC website. As a community we need to come up with our preferred action from here. _______________________________________________ How Lauderdale lost it's boat ramp & gained a DDA access ramp.
Following further investigation into the history of our new DDA ramp and loss of the beach access I can now safely say the Clarence City Council have clearly deceived Lauderdale residents by executing their own hidden agenda to close the beach access.
Initially, Clarence City Council cited inundation as their primary reason to close the ramp (by Mayor Doug Chipman, ABC radio, Monday August 7 2017), backing this claim with scientific evidence via the 2012 TCAP report. This suite of reports had many parties who financially contributed, including Clarence City Council and the Tasmanian State Government. The purpose of these reports was to investigate what actions can/could/should be taken to protect Lauderdale and other surrounding coastal suburbs from inundation in the year 2100.
From the Council meeting notes dated 30 September 2013(page 327, section 2), two options from the TCAP 2012 report were tabled as a solution to future-proof the beach access. These are;
1) "Armour the sides of the existing access with rock, raise the height of the dune either side to 3m AHD (an increase of 750mm in height) and re-vegetate the dune."
2) "Armour the sides of the existing access with sand filled geotextile bags raise the height of the dune either side to 3m AHD (an increase of 750mm in height) and re-vegetate the dune" These two options were based on sound scientific evidence by University of New South Wales experts (Water Resource Laboratory) who prepared many of the TCAP 2012 reports. To clarify, the recommendations were to fortify the sides of the existing access and raise the existing dune; no mention of closing access.
A subsequent third and fourth option (page 327 sections 2.3 and 2.4) were tabled by Clarence City Council Aldermen for consideration. These options were not recommendations made in the TCAP reports. The options were;
3). "Fill the existing access with a core of sand filled 2.5m2 bags and cover the core to 3m ADH (an increase of 750mm) and re vegetate the dune. Provide a DDA compliant access over the dune to the beach that allowed the carriage of small water craft and those with mobility difficulties."
4). "Leave as is"
It should be noted that on page 328 section 2.8 of the Council minutes dated 30th September 2013 "The Aldermen indicated at its workshop that the options to close with sand filled bags or 'Leave as is' are the preferred options."
At the conclusion of the 30 September 2013 meeting the Council Aldermen authorised the General Manager to consult with residents in relation to 2 options (page 328 Section 3.2).The two options were No 3 "Close the ramp and build a DDA ramp" or No 4 "Do nothing".
These options were presented to Lauderdale residents in the following form (as stated Council minutes 17th March 2014 page 248 Section 2 Report in detail).
Q1. Do you support raising the dune at the access point?
Q2. Do you use the current access?
Q3. Do you expect to be adversely effected by the change in access?
Q4. What form of access to Roches beach is required for people with impaired mobility and where should it be?
Q5. Are there any features of concern to you? (eg appearance, safety, access)
As you can see from the questions, Lauderdale residents had no idea of what the actual proposal entailed.
The questions didn't spell out Council's intention to close the ramp and the building of the DDA ramp. Nor did they offer the option of "doing nothing". The questions were vague, non-specific and open to differing interpretation in order to hide Council's own agenda.
The results of the survey were presented to Council at the meeting 17th March 2014. (page 248 Sec 2 Report in Detail).
When we look at the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) data from 2016 showing Lauderdale had a population of 2282 residents, and 979 households. Assuming Council polled all ratepayers we can extrapolate this data to assume approximately 900 surveys were distributed. Only 154 surveys were completed and returned to council. This represents approximately 15% of households at that time. A 15% sample in the scientific world would be considered invalid to form any reasonable conclusion. However Council used this as justification to waste $180,000 of our rates.
That brings me to the question; what is/was council's agenda? Interestingly, as stated on page 326 Sec 1.2 of Council meeting minutes 30th September 2013. "Council have several assets at the rear of the dunes including a car park, roadway and parklands. Just to the north of the access is a public toilet built on the dune".
So one could conclude, Council are insuring their own assets with rate payer's money under the guise of saving Lauderdale from inundation.
In summary,
1. Clarence City Council have deceived Lauderdale residents by offering TCAP 2012 as justification for closing the ramp when actually TCAP 2012 recommended it remain open and be reinforced with rock or sand bags.
2. CCC has of their own initiative overruled the recommendations of an extensive scientific report in order to save their own council assets.
3. Council have snubbed the recommendation of the TCAP 2012 report basically in its entirety. So why commission a report costing hundreds of thousands of dollars for no value to the community.
4. CCC have constructed a DDA compliant ramp that doesn't comply with AS1428 currently. With an estimated cost of $180,000 to rate payers for no benefit that the old access didn't already provide. (Costs reported on page 328 Sec 2.9 Council meeting notes 30th September 2013, excluding the drainage oversight).
5. The Council's design was incomplete and failed to consider drainage of the catchment area they formed by closing the dune. Plus the use of inferior products that won't withstand the harsh marine environment.
6. Council did not provide Lauderdale residents details of the proposed DDA ramp from its approval (17th March 2014) to its July 2017 construction.
7. Council have failed in their duty of care with respect to closing the access from a Community Safety stand point.
8. With respect to Council assets, the two BBQs in the park have had water lapping up to the paving. This water has come from the canal and not Roches Beach. I note these BBQs are electrically powered! So how serious are Council at protecting their asset and the patrons who use them?
9. Council have failed to address the inundation threat from Ralphs Bay which is clearly the major issue documented in TCAP 2012.
As I've said in the past, this project has been a gross misappropriation of rate payer funds by the Clarence City Council.
As a community we should demand our ramp be reinstated and the council focus on protecting our community from the real threats as identified in the TCAP 2012 reports.
Safety is our No 1 concern this summer! Regards,
Greg Steinbauer

latest is mayor of Clarence is going to attend on Saturday, worth while windsurfers attending, a show of numbers from the community and others who oppose this will help.