Independent Ballina Shire Councillor Stephen McCarthy has won a move to have the council upgrade access facilities to Angels Beach.
Staff made no attempt to disagree in agenda notes for last month’s ordinary council meeting with Cr McCarthy’s description of the timber beach entrance as ‘nearing the end of its useful life’ and in need of replacement.
Instead, they acknowledged the structure was ‘showing signs of wear and tear’ and would need refurbishment or rebuilding in the ‘not-too-distant future’.
The current structure is also designed for disability access.
Staff said they could include estimated costs in the April 2023 Finance and Facilities Committee reports, but already guessed the upgrade project would cost more than $100,000.
But support for the upgrades came only after time spent questioning how infrastructure projects are prioritised, with staff answering it was ultimately up to the elected councillors.
Councillors wary of changing priorities
Cr Phillip Meehan failed to gain enough support for an amendment to Cr McCarthy’s motion, that would have essentially seen business as usual for access to Angels Beach.
Cr Meehan called for the council to continue monitoring and maintaining the existing structure ‘as necessary’.
A second part to the amendment called for the council to examine the most appropriate location for any new structure before any refurb was done.
The council heard staff were due to provide a report on all capital works to the April Finance and Facilities Committee meeting.
Mayor Sharon Cadwallader voted in support of Cr Meehan’s amendment, which could have delayed any upgrades indefinitely, along with Crs Jeff Johnson and Eoin Johnston.
Independent Crs Stephen McCarthy, Nigel Buchanan, Eva Ramsey, Rodney Bruem and Greens Crs Kiri Dicker and Simon Chate voted against the amendment, meaning it failed.
Does Angels Beach deserve to be elevated, muses Cr Bruem
‘The council has a plan for managing our assets and replacing them and checking they’re safe and doing it in due course,’ Cr Bruem said, speaking against the original motion.
‘So, what I feel I have to weigh up, or what we have to weigh up, is does this deserve to be elevated?’ Cr Bruem asked, ‘is it really that serious that it’s a safety issue, or the community is really crying out for it?’
‘I’m afraid to say I’m not really satisfied that’s the case, having heard the answers that we’ve heard,’ Cr Bruem said, referring to staff responses to council questions earlier in the debate.
Staff had said their assessment of the Angels Beach entrance was that the structure was safe.
They had also explained what would happen if councillors voted against Cr McCarthy’s motion to prioritise Angels Beach.
Council’s job to prioritise, say staff
‘If you don’t pass this, I don’t think we’ll bring it forward as a priority within that four-year program,’ staff said, ‘so you won’t get any information’.
Staff said it was the council’s role to decide whether the Angels Beach access upgrade was ‘a higher priority than all the other priorities’.
‘We do occasional maintenance on it,’ staff had said, ‘and that’s quite normal’.
Cr Bruem said if the Angels Beach access upgrade project was ‘brought forward, perhaps some other more serious and more dangerous assets’ wouldn’t be replaced as soon ‘and it will divert more time and resources of staff to address it’.
‘I’m sorry, Cr McCarthy, but I can’t support this one,’ Cr Bruem said.
A different split of councillors compared to the amendment vote happened, with a majority voting for Cr McCarthy’s original motion unchanged.
Crs Rodney Bruem, Jeff Johnson and Kiri Dicker voted against, with Cr Dicker’s voice absent from debate on the item and Cr Johnson having said he saw prioritising the project as unnecessary and a redundant move.
I use that access ramp several times a week, but not many others do.
Mostly because it is out of the way and there are many other access points that people use.
People particularly use the one at the only carpark for that entire beach (with only ~8 car spots it is our quietest beach…but shhh, dont tell anyone).
It appears to be in OK/good repair.
Just this week a Council staff member was out there hammering at loose boards (literally with a hammer, presumably testing its safety?).
The power of being a Councillor eh ? Or at least the power of putting something on the agenda, which then prompts staff to then go check it out.
This could be a neat trick that Councillors have up their sleeve to escalate matters of interest to them…
Flag a motion on it, staff scramble to check out what the status is, they will see if it really needs/deserves attention, get the staff report in the meeting, let the motion fall or pass on the basis of the staff report.
This structure will need attention eventually but I can’t see the need for any urgent replacement. When it approaches the end of it’s life it should be demolished, it was never successful as a disabled access structure and there are other beach access pathways close by