QLD Toogoom Foreshore Retaining Beach Wall - Do Property Owners Have to Pay?

[ANNIIMC]

Toogoom foreshore retaining wall on beachfront
18 properties are being made to pay for a rock retaining wall to stop erosion and loss of beachside property the cost is around $1.6m the wall and connecting crown land will never be owned by the property owners but the are being made to not just pay for this but also the upkeep maintenance revegetation and anything else asso iated with it. The wall and crown land can be used by any and everyone including dogs fishing strolling beaching etc but yhe people owning the land who are being made to pay for this will never own the property or have any say.

My legal question is: Is it fair and legal?
Why have the council not apportioned it out amongst rate payers and tourist council?
One of the landowners is a pensioner who has since had 2 heart attacks from stress and anxiety

 

[Sarah J]

Hi ANNIIMC,

Is the wall bordering a side of the 18 properties? Will the 18 properties be depending on the wall to prevent land from sliding/eroding?

If you and your neighbours are unhappy with Council's decision, you may complain to the Queensland State Ombudsman. They are a free service that handles complaints against state institutions and councils. It will probably be worthwhile giving them a call and enquiring about your situation. You can contact them here: contact.

 

[ANNIIMC]

Hi ANNIIMC,

Is the wall bordering a side of the 18 properties? Will the 18 properties be depending on the wall to prevent land from sliding/eroding?

If you and your neighbours are unhappy with Council's decision, you may complain to the Queensland State Ombudsman. They are a free service that handles complaints against state institutions and councils. It will probably be worthwhile giving them a call and enquiring about your situation. You can contact them here: contact.

Thank you Sarah
The wall is actually bordering crown land in front of their properties. The beach is eroding and took a terrible hit 2 years ago. The council put the rocks in place which is great but the ? Of payment by these landowners for the wall then re vegetate relawn and the yearly maintenance is really inreal. The council is not putting one cent in but yet in Harvey Bay a few kilometrrs south of Toogoom at yhe council's cost they are doing exactly the same at no cost to landowners!!
Thank you Anna

 

[Sarah J]

Hi ANNIIMC,

Have you asked your local council directly about the charges? What reasons do they give for charging the 18 landowners in this case and not in a neighbouring case?

I would also suggest giving your State Ombudsman a call and see if you can lodge a complaint against your local council. If so, they should be able to help you work through a resolution with the council.

 

[Sarah J]

Further, if you do approach your council against, ask them to direct you to the particular legislation or by-laws and provisions therein that gives them the power to ask for these charges. This will give you a clearer idea as to whether they are valid charges or not.

 

[Flea]

This is a complex erosion issue involving eight properties on a small section of beach at Toogoom.

Many of these discharged their stormwater directly into the sand dune on the seaward side of their properties. The severe erosion was localised to those same properties. Fraser Coast Regional Council allowed a few private individuals to decide who would be forced to participate in their project and who would be excused. No consideration was given as to need and neighbouring individuals who did not suffer from imminent erosion threat were forced to participate and contribute financially against their will.

The structure was fully built on State land and the engineering proved that the structure was NOT capable of protecting nearby private properties in a storm as falsely claimed by promoters and the FCRC.

State legislation does allow LGs to levy ratepayers of their choosing on the simple requirement that the LG deems that the ratepayer is receiving some undefined benefit. The LG does not need to specify, explain or justify its reasoning for so deeming a benefit exists, even if the engineering states that it does not. The LG only needs to "deem" there is a benefit.