Clarence Valley Council wants to close access to this beach to 4wds. It has been used by people for generations for walking, swimming, fishing, picnic and surfing.

There are only a few beaches on the North Coast where vechile access is permitted and the only beach in Yamba where access is currently allowed by vehicle.

People with mobility issues are able to gain easy access to the beach by vehicle. Vehicle parking at the other beaches is quite some distance from the beaches and involves steep access. Not ideal for dissabled beach goers.In Cr Toms motion, she said the following (as recorderd by council minutes):

Cr Toms stated that she had received:

"representations from the Yamba community", "a petition of 91 names". This is not a representitive sample of the entire community. 

"It is not only well used by residents who own dogs but also by residents and tourists alike", tourist bring in revenue to the township, and by "tourist" as opposed to "residents", this must mean people from the whole Clarence Valley as well as further afield.

"Pedestrian access of this section of Pippi Beach is through the same access as the 4 wheel drive vehicles." If this is an issue, then a seperate pedestrian access would not only be an inexpensive option, but would alleviate any interaction between vehicles and pedestrians.

"The high use of vehicles on the beach results in large ruts in the sand making it dangerous to walk safely on the beach." a seperate pedestrian access way would alliminate any percieved problem. The next high tide will cover any traces of 'ruts'. The sand is soft, people walking on the sand will leave 'ruts'.

"Beaches are used by a wide portion of the community and for various activities including relaxation, recreation and nature appreciation. " Agreed, do NOT limit the "portion of the community" to able-bodied local residents only. For many people with physical disablities, motorised transport is the only way they can have access to beaches.

"Beaches must be responsibly managed to balance the various needs" of the whole community.

"There have been accounts of illegal camping, litter and human waste on the beach. This is unacceptable and could be addressed if the beach was closed to vehicles." This statement by Cr Toms is MOST ofensive. Her assertion is that only vehicle drivers/passengers are responsible for illegal camping, litter and human waste. Where is the evidence for this accusation? It is my experience that most people that access a beach by vehicle are more likely to take their rubish back out with them. And how is it that only drivers/passengers need to relieve themselves? Illegal camping, then prosecute the offenders, there is no evidence to support her accusation that only vehicle drivers/passengers flaunt the laws. I have seen many times that people excercising there dogs do not pick up there dogs droppings, instead they just kick a little sand over it. Is Cr Toms certain that it was not dog faeces

"Council has an obligation to manage risks to users of areas under its care and control" This would also apply to "off-leash" dogs. One particular photo published in the minutes shows 2 German Shepard dogs running free - a breed well known to be aggressive and dangerous if not extremely well trained. Council needs to be consistent.

"should Council determine to close this access it would not be inconsistent with the draft Beach Access Policy currently being prepared." The draft beach access policy is not finalised, yet council is being advised that closure would be consistent with a yet unfinished policy??? Should not this policy be open for community comment and input/disscussion BEFORE being implemented? If so, this beach access policy should not be considered/have any bearing on/in this matter.

Here is a link to the motion put to council by Cr Toms:

http://www.clarence.nsw.gov.au/file.asp?g=RES-OZE-74-67-40

Submissions close on the 3rd October 2014 at 4pm so please sign this petition immediately. Thankyou.