Share (nb: Hopefully this version will maintain paragraph breaks! It's a long text, as we need a shared historical context for you and others to understand my questions. Regards, Patsy.)
The fires proved the need for ocean access in Mallacoota, but is throwing heaps more money at a dud the best way to achieve that? Council built 3B, a design which the expert panel said should be rejected. One main reason they rejected it was the likelihood it would capture excessive amounts of sand, and the costs and disruption to use of the ramp from an excessive need for dredging. And Council now admits it hasn’t been built appropriately to withstand wave action, and is subject to ongoing damage and even large rocks washing off the groyne wall. This was also predicted by people opposing the dud.
If you manage to stabilise the rocks in the short term, that won’t stop excessive sand build up and the continued costly, disruptive need for dredging. And what are your long term plans, and the costs and disruptions involved in those if you do get funding?
In response to questions from Jacqueline on this site, you said it was normal to ‘place a layer of woven geotextile underneath the placement of the rock’. Does this mean your planned remediation requires removal of the rocks to place the material under them? Is now the time for Council to face up to the fiasco they created? Has the alternative ramp and jetty put forward by Save Bastion Point even been considered, let alone costed? While that solution would still require (less) dredging, there is no problem with wave action damage. Instead of removing and replacing the breakwall rocks on geotextiles, could you just remove them once and for all when an alternative is completed?
Of course, like any facility at Bastion Point, there will be a problem with shallow water. That was understood by Council in 1999, and was why there was a recommendation that a different site from Bastion be investigated – a fact suppressed by a later Council when they became proponets for the dud.
The past CEO and Mayor (Kozlowski and Rowe) lied to everyone about the result of the 2000 Community Ballot, held after community had rejected the earlier attempts in the 1990s by Mr Rudge to have a 3B structure built. They lied saying a majority voted for a breakwall. In truth, a 66% majority voted for an upgrade of the ramp at the previous site with ‘no heavy engineering solutions’ like a breakwall. (Check Minutes from Nov 1999 and Feb 2000 to see this is true.) Protection from waves is provided at the old site by a natural rock formation.
Every authority and stake holder group told Council NOT to build it. But the past CEO and others encouraged the lie that anyone opposing the dud was a ‘greenie’ who didn’t want ocean access. They also hid the fact that Save Bastion Point offered a proposal for an improved, 2 lane ramp and a jetty at the old site, with no need for a sand catching ‘groyne’. This would have met the majority view voted for in the Community Ballot.
Once the dud was built and proved to be as stupid as everyone said it was, its proponents started saying that ‘greenies’ had stopped them building a longer breakwall. This is yet another lie. There was never any plan on the table for a longer breakwall. But folk who believe this lie think it’s the solution to the fiasco Council have created. As far as I understand, a longer breakwall is still going to present the same problem of excessive sand build up. It will just be a far more expensive way of collecting sand than the very expensive way the former Council’s lies and secrecy have already saddled us with.
By using contractural confidentiality as an excuse to hide the kind of research you’ve had done and the plans you’ve made, you’re effectively acting in secrecy again. But instead of secrecy, have you considered just being honest and transparent this time, and taking expert advice? Because you’re acting in secrecy, we can have no confidence in your plans for providing ocean access or for how you’re going to spend huge amounts of our money. on Facebook
Share (nb: Hopefully this version will maintain paragraph breaks! It's a long text, as we need a shared historical context for you and others to understand my questions. Regards, Patsy.)
The fires proved the need for ocean access in Mallacoota, but is throwing heaps more money at a dud the best way to achieve that? Council built 3B, a design which the expert panel said should be rejected. One main reason they rejected it was the likelihood it would capture excessive amounts of sand, and the costs and disruption to use of the ramp from an excessive need for dredging. And Council now admits it hasn’t been built appropriately to withstand wave action, and is subject to ongoing damage and even large rocks washing off the groyne wall. This was also predicted by people opposing the dud.
If you manage to stabilise the rocks in the short term, that won’t stop excessive sand build up and the continued costly, disruptive need for dredging. And what are your long term plans, and the costs and disruptions involved in those if you do get funding?
In response to questions from Jacqueline on this site, you said it was normal to ‘place a layer of woven geotextile underneath the placement of the rock’. Does this mean your planned remediation requires removal of the rocks to place the material under them? Is now the time for Council to face up to the fiasco they created? Has the alternative ramp and jetty put forward by Save Bastion Point even been considered, let alone costed? While that solution would still require (less) dredging, there is no problem with wave action damage. Instead of removing and replacing the breakwall rocks on geotextiles, could you just remove them once and for all when an alternative is completed?
Of course, like any facility at Bastion Point, there will be a problem with shallow water. That was understood by Council in 1999, and was why there was a recommendation that a different site from Bastion be investigated – a fact suppressed by a later Council when they became proponets for the dud.
The past CEO and Mayor (Kozlowski and Rowe) lied to everyone about the result of the 2000 Community Ballot, held after community had rejected the earlier attempts in the 1990s by Mr Rudge to have a 3B structure built. They lied saying a majority voted for a breakwall. In truth, a 66% majority voted for an upgrade of the ramp at the previous site with ‘no heavy engineering solutions’ like a breakwall. (Check Minutes from Nov 1999 and Feb 2000 to see this is true.) Protection from waves is provided at the old site by a natural rock formation.
Every authority and stake holder group told Council NOT to build it. But the past CEO and others encouraged the lie that anyone opposing the dud was a ‘greenie’ who didn’t want ocean access. They also hid the fact that Save Bastion Point offered a proposal for an improved, 2 lane ramp and a jetty at the old site, with no need for a sand catching ‘groyne’. This would have met the majority view voted for in the Community Ballot.
Once the dud was built and proved to be as stupid as everyone said it was, its proponents started saying that ‘greenies’ had stopped them building a longer breakwall. This is yet another lie. There was never any plan on the table for a longer breakwall. But folk who believe this lie think it’s the solution to the fiasco Council have created. As far as I understand, a longer breakwall is still going to present the same problem of excessive sand build up. It will just be a far more expensive way of collecting sand than the very expensive way the former Council’s lies and secrecy have already saddled us with.
By using contractural confidentiality as an excuse to hide the kind of research you’ve had done and the plans you’ve made, you’re effectively acting in secrecy again. But instead of secrecy, have you considered just being honest and transparent this time, and taking expert advice? Because you’re acting in secrecy, we can have no confidence in your plans for providing ocean access or for how you’re going to spend huge amounts of our money. on Linkedin
Email (nb: Hopefully this version will maintain paragraph breaks! It's a long text, as we need a shared historical context for you and others to understand my questions. Regards, Patsy.)
The fires proved the need for ocean access in Mallacoota, but is throwing heaps more money at a dud the best way to achieve that? Council built 3B, a design which the expert panel said should be rejected. One main reason they rejected it was the likelihood it would capture excessive amounts of sand, and the costs and disruption to use of the ramp from an excessive need for dredging. And Council now admits it hasn’t been built appropriately to withstand wave action, and is subject to ongoing damage and even large rocks washing off the groyne wall. This was also predicted by people opposing the dud.
If you manage to stabilise the rocks in the short term, that won’t stop excessive sand build up and the continued costly, disruptive need for dredging. And what are your long term plans, and the costs and disruptions involved in those if you do get funding?
In response to questions from Jacqueline on this site, you said it was normal to ‘place a layer of woven geotextile underneath the placement of the rock’. Does this mean your planned remediation requires removal of the rocks to place the material under them? Is now the time for Council to face up to the fiasco they created? Has the alternative ramp and jetty put forward by Save Bastion Point even been considered, let alone costed? While that solution would still require (less) dredging, there is no problem with wave action damage. Instead of removing and replacing the breakwall rocks on geotextiles, could you just remove them once and for all when an alternative is completed?
Of course, like any facility at Bastion Point, there will be a problem with shallow water. That was understood by Council in 1999, and was why there was a recommendation that a different site from Bastion be investigated – a fact suppressed by a later Council when they became proponets for the dud.
The past CEO and Mayor (Kozlowski and Rowe) lied to everyone about the result of the 2000 Community Ballot, held after community had rejected the earlier attempts in the 1990s by Mr Rudge to have a 3B structure built. They lied saying a majority voted for a breakwall. In truth, a 66% majority voted for an upgrade of the ramp at the previous site with ‘no heavy engineering solutions’ like a breakwall. (Check Minutes from Nov 1999 and Feb 2000 to see this is true.) Protection from waves is provided at the old site by a natural rock formation.
Every authority and stake holder group told Council NOT to build it. But the past CEO and others encouraged the lie that anyone opposing the dud was a ‘greenie’ who didn’t want ocean access. They also hid the fact that Save Bastion Point offered a proposal for an improved, 2 lane ramp and a jetty at the old site, with no need for a sand catching ‘groyne’. This would have met the majority view voted for in the Community Ballot.
Once the dud was built and proved to be as stupid as everyone said it was, its proponents started saying that ‘greenies’ had stopped them building a longer breakwall. This is yet another lie. There was never any plan on the table for a longer breakwall. But folk who believe this lie think it’s the solution to the fiasco Council have created. As far as I understand, a longer breakwall is still going to present the same problem of excessive sand build up. It will just be a far more expensive way of collecting sand than the very expensive way the former Council’s lies and secrecy have already saddled us with.
By using contractural confidentiality as an excuse to hide the kind of research you’ve had done and the plans you’ve made, you’re effectively acting in secrecy again. But instead of secrecy, have you considered just being honest and transparent this time, and taking expert advice? Because you’re acting in secrecy, we can have no confidence in your plans for providing ocean access or for how you’re going to spend huge amounts of our money. link
(nb: Hopefully this version will maintain paragraph breaks! It's a long text, as we need a shared historical context for you and others to understand my questions. Regards, Patsy.)
The fires proved the need for ocean access in Mallacoota, but is throwing heaps more money at a dud the best way to achieve that? Council built 3B, a design which the expert panel said should be rejected. One main reason they rejected it was the likelihood it would capture excessive amounts of sand, and the costs and disruption to use of the ramp from an excessive need for dredging. And Council now admits it hasn’t been built appropriately to withstand wave action, and is subject to ongoing damage and even large rocks washing off the groyne wall. This was also predicted by people opposing the dud.
If you manage to stabilise the rocks in the short term, that won’t stop excessive sand build up and the continued costly, disruptive need for dredging. And what are your long term plans, and the costs and disruptions involved in those if you do get funding?
In response to questions from Jacqueline on this site, you said it was normal to ‘place a layer of woven geotextile underneath the placement of the rock’. Does this mean your planned remediation requires removal of the rocks to place the material under them? Is now the time for Council to face up to the fiasco they created? Has the alternative ramp and jetty put forward by Save Bastion Point even been considered, let alone costed? While that solution would still require (less) dredging, there is no problem with wave action damage. Instead of removing and replacing the breakwall rocks on geotextiles, could you just remove them once and for all when an alternative is completed?
Of course, like any facility at Bastion Point, there will be a problem with shallow water. That was understood by Council in 1999, and was why there was a recommendation that a different site from Bastion be investigated – a fact suppressed by a later Council when they became proponets for the dud.
The past CEO and Mayor (Kozlowski and Rowe) lied to everyone about the result of the 2000 Community Ballot, held after community had rejected the earlier attempts in the 1990s by Mr Rudge to have a 3B structure built. They lied saying a majority voted for a breakwall. In truth, a 66% majority voted for an upgrade of the ramp at the previous site with ‘no heavy engineering solutions’ like a breakwall. (Check Minutes from Nov 1999 and Feb 2000 to see this is true.) Protection from waves is provided at the old site by a natural rock formation.
Every authority and stake holder group told Council NOT to build it. But the past CEO and others encouraged the lie that anyone opposing the dud was a ‘greenie’ who didn’t want ocean access. They also hid the fact that Save Bastion Point offered a proposal for an improved, 2 lane ramp and a jetty at the old site, with no need for a sand catching ‘groyne’. This would have met the majority view voted for in the Community Ballot.
Once the dud was built and proved to be as stupid as everyone said it was, its proponents started saying that ‘greenies’ had stopped them building a longer breakwall. This is yet another lie. There was never any plan on the table for a longer breakwall. But folk who believe this lie think it’s the solution to the fiasco Council have created. As far as I understand, a longer breakwall is still going to present the same problem of excessive sand build up. It will just be a far more expensive way of collecting sand than the very expensive way the former Council’s lies and secrecy have already saddled us with.
By using contractural confidentiality as an excuse to hide the kind of research you’ve had done and the plans you’ve made, you’re effectively acting in secrecy again. But instead of secrecy, have you considered just being honest and transparent this time, and taking expert advice? Because you’re acting in secrecy, we can have no confidence in your plans for providing ocean access or for how you’re going to spend huge amounts of our money.
PatsyLisle
asked
8 months ago
Share What did the Dilapidation Report find is the cause of the failure of the Bastion Point breakwall?
In EGSC's Budget: Item 12067 Bastion Point Geotextile Groyne Wall $217,000. Can you explain what this Geotextile is? And why more public money is being expended on this failed development?
Thank you.
on Facebook
Share What did the Dilapidation Report find is the cause of the failure of the Bastion Point breakwall?
In EGSC's Budget: Item 12067 Bastion Point Geotextile Groyne Wall $217,000. Can you explain what this Geotextile is? And why more public money is being expended on this failed development?
Thank you.
on Linkedin
Email What did the Dilapidation Report find is the cause of the failure of the Bastion Point breakwall?
In EGSC's Budget: Item 12067 Bastion Point Geotextile Groyne Wall $217,000. Can you explain what this Geotextile is? And why more public money is being expended on this failed development?
Thank you.
link
What did the Dilapidation Report find is the cause of the failure of the Bastion Point breakwall?
In EGSC's Budget: Item 12067 Bastion Point Geotextile Groyne Wall $217,000. Can you explain what this Geotextile is? And why more public money is being expended on this failed development?
Thank you.
Jacqueline
asked
9 months ago
Hi Jacqueline
Thank you for your interest in this project and taking the time to provide feedback; we understand your time is precious, and we appreciate your willingness to engage with us regarding your concerns.
The breakwater has suffered damage from wave action, and repairs and rock clearances have been undertaken on the head of the breakwater and in the boat access channel over time, with recent incidents of large rocks washing off the groyne wall in stormy conditions. The consultant’s reports indicate the damage to the breakwater is due to several factors, which when combined caused the failure of the breakwater in its proposed purpose.
For rock mound groynes, such as the breakwater at Bastion Point, it is common practice to place a layer of woven geotextile underneath the placement of the rock. The geotextile filter prevents the erosion of the soil foundation and the consequent undermining of the rock mound. There are several different types of geotextiles available.
As the considerations in the consultant’s reports relate to contractual matters, we are not able to release the reports publicly as Council has a legal obligation to keep them confidential; however, the considerations were addressed thoroughly by Council and the decision to undertake works to repair and maintain the wall was made.
Allocating funds through Council’s budget to repair and maintain existing assets and infrastructure, such as the groyne wall at Bastion Point, is crucial for several reasons; the groyne wall serves as a protective barrier against erosion and helps maintain the safety of all boat ramp users. Ensuring its structural integrity is essential to safeguarding the surrounding area and protecting boat ramp users from potential hazards.
Bastion Point is a popular destination for locals and visitors, contributing to the local economy through tourism and recreational activities. By investing in its maintenance, we are not only protecting the asset, but supporting the safety and functionality of the area which in turn benefits businesses and the community.
‘During the bushfires, the Bastion Point boat ramp was used by Naval and other vessels to evacuate locals and visitors. With the only sealed road into Mallacoota closed and air evacuations subject to smoke conditions, evacuation by sea was sometimes the only available option.
As many supplies came by sea during the fires, including diesel fuel, access is critical. In addition to its economic importance, the boat ramp needs to be fit for purpose for emergency situations including evacuations and delivery of essential items, such as fuel and food.’ Excerpt from MADRA’s recovery report: MADRA community led disaster recovery plan (madrecovery.com)
Landing vessels took people to two ships - MV Sycamore and the much larger HMAS Choules. HMAS Choules evacuated over 1100 people from Bastion Point in January 2020; the evacuation was described at the time by senior commanders as “one of the largest movements of people” in recent times in Australia.
The breakwater provided wave protection during the rescue efforts.
As such, the boat ramp needs to be fit for purpose for future emergency situations, including evacuations and delivery of essential items such as fuel and food; access to safe harbour is critical.
We understand the importance of preserving our community's assets and ensuring their continued functionality for everyone’s benefit. Your support and understanding are greatly appreciated as we work to maintain and improve all infrastructure that serves our community.
We welcome your continued interest in this project; project updates will be provided on YourSay in the tab below, when available.
Please click 'Subscribe' at the top of the webpage to follow this project and to receive important information directly to your inbox.
Warm regards,
Sally
Share Why extend the breakwall when it is already clearly a complete fail that continues to fill with sand, more tax payers money to extend it and it will continue to fill with sand. No one listened to the brains last time I really feel that my voice
Won’t be heard & the shire just does what it wants, not democratic at all on Facebook
Share Why extend the breakwall when it is already clearly a complete fail that continues to fill with sand, more tax payers money to extend it and it will continue to fill with sand. No one listened to the brains last time I really feel that my voice
Won’t be heard & the shire just does what it wants, not democratic at all on Linkedin
Email Why extend the breakwall when it is already clearly a complete fail that continues to fill with sand, more tax payers money to extend it and it will continue to fill with sand. No one listened to the brains last time I really feel that my voice
Won’t be heard & the shire just does what it wants, not democratic at all link
Why extend the breakwall when it is already clearly a complete fail that continues to fill with sand, more tax payers money to extend it and it will continue to fill with sand. No one listened to the brains last time I really feel that my voice
Won’t be heard & the shire just does what it wants, not democratic at all
Carla
asked
10 months ago
Hi Carla
Thank you for your interest in this project and taking the time to provide feedback. Your feedback is important and has been shared with the Project Engineer overseeing this project and recorded in Enterprise Content Management (ECM), Council’s secure document management program.
Community is at the heart of Council’s decision making and our staff are local community members who have family and friends in our local communities – we work together to better East Gippsland for all.
By design, groin structures are meant to capture sand transported by the longshore current. An increased number of bad storms dislodged some of the rocks and Council is completing the short-term improvements, informed by findings outlined in January 2023 dilapidation report.
Council’s expert contractor has been engaged to identify the reason for the failure and produce an evidence-based report for the long-term improvements to the wall.
Council is not considering lengthening the wall, however additional rocks may be added to the outside of the wall for reinforcement. This is subject to findings in the current investigations.
Funding is for investigations and design only. Construction of longer-term improvements is reliant on future funding availability.
Kind regards,
Sally
Share How often is the boat ramp dredged and where is the information on the contaminants being removed from the vehicle area and dumped in the place where people use the beach? Is it the policy to dump the contents of the boat ramp, trapped by the sea wall, onto the adjacent beach or are there some contents deemed unsuitable? Is there an environmental impact report on the sea wall now that it has been in use for some time? Can this information be made more freely available to rate payers- I havent been able to find any information and as a new ratepayer I am trying to understand how this area is being managed and repaired. on Facebook
Share How often is the boat ramp dredged and where is the information on the contaminants being removed from the vehicle area and dumped in the place where people use the beach? Is it the policy to dump the contents of the boat ramp, trapped by the sea wall, onto the adjacent beach or are there some contents deemed unsuitable? Is there an environmental impact report on the sea wall now that it has been in use for some time? Can this information be made more freely available to rate payers- I havent been able to find any information and as a new ratepayer I am trying to understand how this area is being managed and repaired. on Linkedin
Email How often is the boat ramp dredged and where is the information on the contaminants being removed from the vehicle area and dumped in the place where people use the beach? Is it the policy to dump the contents of the boat ramp, trapped by the sea wall, onto the adjacent beach or are there some contents deemed unsuitable? Is there an environmental impact report on the sea wall now that it has been in use for some time? Can this information be made more freely available to rate payers- I havent been able to find any information and as a new ratepayer I am trying to understand how this area is being managed and repaired. link
How often is the boat ramp dredged and where is the information on the contaminants being removed from the vehicle area and dumped in the place where people use the beach? Is it the policy to dump the contents of the boat ramp, trapped by the sea wall, onto the adjacent beach or are there some contents deemed unsuitable? Is there an environmental impact report on the sea wall now that it has been in use for some time? Can this information be made more freely available to rate payers- I havent been able to find any information and as a new ratepayer I am trying to understand how this area is being managed and repaired.
VC
asked
12 months ago
Share I have worked commercially in Mallacoota for over 30yrs and extending this is going to make a bigger problem than you have now. My question is when you extend the wall will you pull it all down when it doesn’t work or are you going to keep throwing money after bad money at it on Facebook
Share I have worked commercially in Mallacoota for over 30yrs and extending this is going to make a bigger problem than you have now. My question is when you extend the wall will you pull it all down when it doesn’t work or are you going to keep throwing money after bad money at it on Linkedin
Email I have worked commercially in Mallacoota for over 30yrs and extending this is going to make a bigger problem than you have now. My question is when you extend the wall will you pull it all down when it doesn’t work or are you going to keep throwing money after bad money at it link
I have worked commercially in Mallacoota for over 30yrs and extending this is going to make a bigger problem than you have now. My question is when you extend the wall will you pull it all down when it doesn’t work or are you going to keep throwing money after bad money at it
Dale Winward
asked
10 months ago
Hi Dale
Thank you for your interest in this project and taking the time to provide feedback. We value community input in our projects and it helps us to make informed decisions.
Local interest in this project has recently escalated following the build-up of kelp on the beach due to recent flooding and storms and unfortunately misinformation has resulted.
Council is not considering extending the length of the wall and is only undertaking short-term remedial works at this time.
Funding has not been provided to complete any further works at this point and any such work would be subject to future funding availability.
Kind regards,
Sally
