Reference Groups recommended preferred path alignment - discussion

over 4 years ago
CLOSED: This discussion has concluded.

What are your thoughts on Coast Park Project Reference Groups recommended preferred path alignment ? How could it be improved?

The Coast Park Project Reference Groups recommended preferred path alignment proposes a comprised solution and features:

  • natural surface path beachfront path south of Fort Street
  • 'dual paths' which combines a hard surface shared use path along Seaview and Military Roads and informal natural surface path along the beachfront
  • activity nodes at key locations 
  • no Coast Park path is proposed through Tennyson Dune area (as directed by the Minister) with a shared use path skirting the site along Military Road.

Consultation has concluded

  • AWD over 4 years ago
    I would prefer to leave this section as is and not spend the money or if the council do want to go ahead do something different from the rest of this huge stretch of coast park. However Options 3 and 4 don't seem to be getting much discussion so if Option 1 is to go ahead then I think it's really important that a low impact path that meanders to ensure it keeps the cyclists (other than small kids) off it will be really important. One that addresses environmental and local residential concerns.
    Hide reply (1)
    • KH over 4 years ago
      agree AWD
  • Tim_Walsh over 4 years ago
    I would like a sensitive mixed use path as close to coast as possible but open to workable compromises. People need to assisted to enjoy these spaces - and ideally not to have to drive there to do so.I understand the need to protect the Tennyson Dunes from competing with all the interests reflected in these discussions. Now that it has been recognised as a special place, I think it timely a separate plan occurs for how this area can have its pathways upgraded or restored to current standard. It should not have to accommodate all traffic along the coast, but i think a path allows access from North to South with access to Bournemouth St, would allow greater use and appreciation of the Park. Time to bring forward a separate plan for this area so it can compliment the Coastal Park, and perhaps benefit from any funds attracted to the Coast Park.
  • a local almost 5 years ago
    I think option 1 is an excellent idea, being a local resident and knowing how well a formal footpath has been used on every other stretch of coastal path from brighton to largs. Option 1 allows all users free and open access, including those persons that currently find the undulating grass/sandy stretch difficult to traverse along. Option 1 allows bike users clearer access, allows young kids a safer path than the military road option, allows those who are currently disabilitated and utilise a wheelchair access to a very special stretch of beach. I do not empathise with residents that own/rent property along this stretch that refuse to acknowledge progression and change. The area directly in front of their property is public, no different to any other stretch of coastal land with a public right of way in front of it. I am in full support of option 1 and this weekends protest with crime scene tape going across the public right of way was in my opinion immature, unwarranted and petty. I use this public right of way every week and as such I feel that the opinion of those in support has not been captured.
    Hide Replies (12)
    • RustyNeverSleeps almost 5 years ago
      Gazza Why option 1 and not option 2? As a resident, I'm keen to get a non resident's perspective as to why they wouldn't choose 2 over 1.The recent completed developments in Semaphore Park have created a much more inviting outlook that can be enjoyed by all, but they had to use up a large part of the road to develop this. This is not the case for most of the last section to Grange so they can go even wider with the pathway. Some of the residents are hiding behind the environmental impacts as a cover for not wanting the best development for all.Don't be too critical of all residents, the more the merrier I say, it only creates more interest in the area which can only have a positive impact on property prices!!!!ps. just need to stop all the dog lovers letting their animals run freely. I'm all for dog walking, but on a leash please, and clean up after your animals.
      Hide Replies (11)
      • a local almost 5 years ago
        Hi, thanks for the reply. I only opted for option 1 as it seemed to lessen the impact on the existing dune. But on reflection, anything except option 3 or 4 would be a good compromise. Options 3 or 4 cease to become a coastal path if its not actually on the coast and is hidden behind houses and becomes unviewable :-)I have spoken to several non-residents and they are of the opinion that military road is not an option. I have a young child, I ride a pushbike, my girlfriend who is a non-resident likes to run along the beach and the grassed area from west lakes boulevard to semaphore, hence why a few weeks back she had to duck underneath the crime scene tape that local residents put across the public right of way in protest to the planned development. I'm not sure anyone has a full understanding of the environmental impact, but hopefully an agreeable outcome can be achieved by all without too much inconvenience to residents whose property face directly onto the path. I'm not critical of all residents, just the few that make progression impossible. Property prices should always hold as this is a nice stretch of coast and I enjoy living here. With regard to dog owners/lovers, it's the few that let down the many. As I do have a small child I do worry about some of the dogs that run freely, but the majority of dog owners put them on a leash when necessary. I dont have a dog but I do not object to seeing a dog running without a leash on an empty stretch of beach when less populated. Most people do clean up after the dog but yes, on occasion the few that are irresponsible leave a mess.There are just as many people that leave litter and do not respect the area, but thats life!
        Hide Replies (9)
        • savvas over 4 years ago
          Option 1 is completely unrealistic and cannot work. The legal frameworks supporting enforceable use of Shared Use Pathways (and indeed footpaths) in Australia are not strong enough to ensure that walkers will stick to the 'walking path' and bike riders, skate boarders etc will stick to the 'bike path'. Apart from 'local action' and 'vigilantism' there's no way a 'different paths for different users' approach can work or be anything else apart from a complete waste of public money! Also the enormous costs involved in suitably modifying roadways complicated by power poles, driveway ramps, drainage infrastructure etc would add enormously to the final bill. We need to get real about this folks!
          Hide Replies (8)
          • a local over 4 years ago
            Option 1 will probably end up being realistic so I guess it will work!, Segregation of the end users just alienates, chill out. 'Vigilantism' could be construed as being the local residents along the proposed section putting crime scene tape along the public path in their vain attempt to protest.How about a coastal path that runs along military road!, get real. Something ceases to be coastal when it's not actually next to the coast, i really do not see what the problem is, it has worked along other stretches of the beach where all users integrate and is enjoyed by all. As for costs, change and progression are not free, we all pay taxes so why not get them spent improving the area. Bike riders, pedestrians/walkers/runners and skateboarders and in fact anyway else who is fully entitled to use a public pathway will all enjoy option 1, so come on don't just get real get on the pathway to success :-)
            Hide Replies (7)
            • savvas over 4 years ago
              I'm sorry 'A Local' - we seem to be in agreement on all matters but I think you have misunderstood my comment completely. The reason why Option 1 - which proposes that a dual pathway system be constructed with different routes for walking and bicycle use - is unrealistic is simple mate. It's because it cannot be enforced in any way under existing laws. Hence my (light-hearted) reference to 'local action' being the only way it could be enforced. Even Council Officers standing on Option 1's beach front 'walking only' pathway would have no legal power to stop bike riders using it! That's why it will only work in the imaginations of those who construe it, and it is indeed misconstrued! You don't seem to understand what Option 1 is proposing at all. It will ask that anyone on wheels avoid the coast path and take the Seaview or Military Road route instead. Apparently by voluntary choice! Option 2 on the other hand recognises that a dual-pathway approach is plain silly and sticks much more to the idea that a Coast Park should be a single, shared pathway and indeed run along the coast!
              Hide Replies (6)
              • a local over 4 years ago
                Comment - option 1 completely unrealistic and cannot work, well yes it can and it will. Like all the other stretches implemented as non-bike ways to start with, they eventually get converted to both, so the initial cheaper option 1 gets done, bikes use it anyway and it will then be able to be used by all. It's usage will have to be amended So was not misconstrued, I was thinking ahead :-)As for military road, yes fine for adults, but I have a young child and until he is a little bit older I do not want him on that road. Kids do not develop peripheral vision and fully understand the risks until about the age of 10, therefore I would welcome any vigilante to stop a four year old riding a bike on a non bike pathway. If there is no legal framework to stop bikes, brilliant, build option 1 and bikes use it, problem solvedits about actually getting change made, get option 1 in as obviously cheaper because the council says its their preferred option so obviously has to be cheaper.The key is to actually get the path in place first then change it!. have you not seen the 'no pathway' view emerge, lets get some sort of pathway in and then amend.
                Hide Replies (5)
                • savvas over 4 years ago
                  Again I think you have misunderstood what is on offer. Option 1 cannot be 'cheaper' at all - it proposes 2 routes rather than just 1. The supposed 'bike route' sections along Seaview and Military Roads will add enormously to the costs with need to change kerbs, move power poles, restrict on-street parking etc etc etc.My reference to Option 1 being 'misconstrued' had nothing to do with you and referred to the thinking behind this specific 'duplication' plan. Perhaps I should have used the term 'misconceived' instead! I was simply saying that those who dreamt up the notion of having 2 duplicated routes simply do not understand the limited legal frameworks governing any transport route that is not a 'road'. The proposed differentiated use of the double route option simply cannot be managed in any legal sense! You suggest that "Like all the other stretches implemented as non-bike ways to start with, they eventually get converted to both...". I have been following the Coast Park development for over 20 years - at no stage has any section been devised as a non-bike, walking only section (apart from the silly boardwalk sections around the Glenelg 'towers' and Pat outlet).You also say Option 1 is "obviously cheaper because the council says its their preferred option so obviously has to be cheaper." The Council has not indicated a 'preferred option' at all and no costings have been identified. The use of the term 'preferred option' has obviously confused you and perhaps others. It refers to the preferences of the coalition of coastal environment protection groups who are supporting Option 1 (and perhaps also the 'no path' option which doesn't appear to be canvassed by the survey). It doesn't refer to a Council viewpoint at all!I can assure you that the 'no pathway' options is a non-starter and only the result of a recent and silly attempt at 'crowd-sourced' confusion. This Minister and DPTI have both indicated that this last section of the Coastal Way can, will and must be built! 'No path' is not an option for the Council at all!
                  Hide Replies (2)
                  • a local over 4 years ago
                    How can you comment on the costs of option 1 versus 2 or any other if as you say no costings have yet been identified?
                    Hide reply (1)
                    • savvas over 4 years ago
                      I don't know what to say I'm afraid. I'm not trying to quantify costs. AFAIK there has been no formal discussion of costs and none appears to be advanced in this consultation process. All I'm pointing to are the +ves and -ves of Options 1 and 2. Option 1 clearly involves more built infrastructure that Option 2, so I suppose one could guess that it will cost more. But I'm not going there - just pointing to the probability that it will be much more expensive! On this basis and with regard to the management and enforcement issues, Option 1 just doesn't make sense. Option 2 does.
                • AWD over 4 years ago
                  It seems that you were not at the recent council speak out sessions as they stated that the low impact path will meander through the designated area's to ensure that it would be suitable for pedestrian's and small children on bikes - not adults at speed as this would be incredibly dangerous. In addition, the path designed for military road would be completely separated out from the road traffic with dividers, plants, etc. I hadn't considered this an option either till I heard what they were potentially planning (although they didn't give a lot of info as they seemed to think it would be an unlikely choice from the community). There are many examples around Australia of coast parks more than a couple of hundred meters from the beach so it certainly does fit the criteria.I find it quite difficult that there are many people posting on this forum who didn't bother to go to the speak out sessions provided by the council and are therefore making comments that are factually incorrect. Everyone is entitled to their opinion however it's important to be informed as knowledge often changes options - I know it did mine.
                  Hide reply (1)
                  • a local over 4 years ago
                    It's not a case of not bothering with regard to attending the speak out sessions, it's a case of priorities and a coastal path is secondary to having a life! I am saddened however that you are finding a forum quite difficult, I hope you find resolve, but it seems emotions run high with this particular planning proposal. I still don't think you can deem a path coastal if it decides to run in land!, thats like saying military road has an excellent view of the coast!!!!!
      • bikerider over 4 years ago
        Removed by moderator.
  • dandmfrancis over 4 years ago
    I believe the coast park pathway should be a shared path the entire way, just like it is for the majority of the completed sections. All people should be able to access the area and use the path to soak up the ocean view in the safest way possible, including people out for a leisurely cycle. The option of diverting bicycles along Seaview Rd seems ludicrous. Firstly it is putting cyclists in the path of many motor vehicles due to the high volume of garaging along this road. It would also be extremely costly to upgrade this road to make it safe. Children, adults and the elderly need to take responsibility for their safety and learn to cohabitate with people using bikes, rollerblades, skateboards etc.
    Hide Replies (4)
    • Kevin@HenleyBeach over 4 years ago
      We totally agree. If they are going to introduce a "No Path" Option, they should also introduce a "Shared Pathway as Close to the coast as possible" Option for all to vote on - with board walks over sensitive areas, or the shared pathway along the actual boundary of sensitive Dune areas only, instead of avoiding the entire coastal strip between Grange and Semaphore!
      Hide Replies (3)
      • BANDS over 4 years ago
        Kevin and Dandmfrancis - I am unsure if you attended the recent Council Speak Out sessions however the "No Path" option was brought about by an overwhelming response from those attending. It was actually great to see the Council listen to the attendee's and to action this request by adding the forum topic basically overnight. I've been quite impressed by the Council's endeavour's to actually listen to the community throughout this process.
        Hide Replies (2)
        • Kevin@HenleyBeach over 4 years ago
          I'm sorry BANDS - but you won't catch us at any of the "speak outs". In relation to the "council listening" - we have been monitoring the coastal path project with baited breath since it was first announced by the State Govt over 15 years ago. We were delighted and optimistic that we would be able to ride along this proposed path with our young children (who had only just been born when this project was announced) without the danger of riding along roadways. We have in the past attended numerous consultative meetings and symposiums, completed surveys, submissions and letters to the editor, submitted petitions and canvassed elected council members in the hope that our dream of riding along an uninterrupted coastal pathway north and south from our home at Henley Beach, would eventually come to fruition. That dream has now well and truly evaporated, and we can only hope the pathway will eventually be completed without going along major roads so that we can one day enjoy it with our grand children! The only way we were able to experience an uninterrupted coastal ride with our children was to bundle our bikes into the back of my ute, and drive to the edge of our council area - (to Bower Rd into Pt Adel - Enfields area) to then enjoy over 10 km of uninterrupted coastal pathway all the way to North Haven, without the danger of crossing or travelling alongside roadways with vehicular traffic. Surely enough time and money has been wasted on consultation, meetings and "speak outs", and the questions of "why, what, when, where and how" have been well and truly answered with the "dooms day" predictions of the opponents with self interests thwarted with each section of pathway that is slowly completed. When a large project is announced, one that in the big picture benefits far more residents than it disadvantages eg a new highway, they don't go through a full consultation and planning process for every few hundreds metres of roadway that is built and draw the process out for over 15 years. This is bureaucracy gone mad, but this is what has occurred with this coastal path project within the Charles Sturt Council area. In relation to the Tennyson Dune system - have a look at a google satellite image of the area, it is already a patch work of gravel pathways, fences and houses built on dunes that should have been left undeveloped! - so it can hardly be called an untouched or truly natural environment. There are options including boardwalks that can be built over some of these remaining dunes, again to allow people to view and appreciate them, without the impact the current gravel pathways have on this area. Some wonderful examples of these types of boardwalks already exist along the coastline at Hallett Cove, in our National Parks including Innes National Park and through the mangroves at St Kilda - diverting around the entire area is far from the most ideal option. I can only hope that common sense eventually prevails and that a vocal minority don't spoil this project which a vast majority of families should be able to enjoy. A number of our friends and work colleagues feel the same as we do but most of them have given up fighting for this project through shear annoyance at the waste of resources to date.
          Hide reply (1)
          • BANDS over 4 years ago
            I am sorry to hear that Kevin because times change and yes, 15 years ago the State Govt announced an initiative however government and community sentiments change and 15 years is a very long time - in this time we have learnt so much about the environment and the impact we are having on it and what that means to our future generations. Perhaps if you did come to the recent Speak Out's you would have had an opportunity to have your say and see how many people who were there who were extremely passionate about saving this stretch of coast and the important reasons as to why they believed this.
  • BANDS over 4 years ago
    I think that the remaining stretch of this beautiful coastline in the council’s Coast Park project should be left as it is currently.I do hope though that if the council do go ahead with this project that this option provided by the reference group is approved. I think its important that an ecologically friendly, low impact path designed for leisure walking and not a concrete bike path is approved for the Coast Park.
  • KH over 4 years ago
    It a beautiful stretch of coastline and is perfectly accessible as it is, leave it alone! I hope the council do not progress with this project however if they determine that they need to then I hope common sense prevails and that they chose to implement an ecologically friendly, low impact path designed for leisure walking (and children on small bikes) and not a concrete bike path is approved for the Coast Park.
  • Al over 4 years ago
    I believe that the remaining stretch of coastline in the council’s “Coast Park” project should be left AS IS, natural with no changes. However, if the council do go ahead with this park then I would urge them to approve Option 1. I think that an ecologically friendly, low impact path designed for leisure walking (not more than 1.5 meters wide) and not a concrete bike path is approved for the Coast Park. Lets be sensible in consultation and take into consideration firstly the environmental impact and the impact on the locals whilst endeavouring to try and deliver to the wider community.
  • Kevin@HenleyBeach over 4 years ago
    Option 2 should be the preferred Option - as it preserves the majority of the Tennyson Dunes area with improved access and enjoyment for all while also completing the coastal pathway project as orginally intended by Government over 15 years ago. If you can remember back that far past all the waisted time and money on numerous consultation processes it was originally announced as an uninterrupted "coastal" shared pathway, not predominately inland away from the coast and along house lined streets and major roads like the other options. Even Option 2 has room for more "coastal" shared pathways - but it is a fairer compromise in the current format than Option 1, 3, 4 & the ridiculous option of "no pathway"!
  • Kevin Martin over 4 years ago
    What I do like about option 1, It does take a more narrow and less expensive path along the coastal strip. As there does appear to be many different conditions and requirements for the path, any significant changes can be more easily adapted while the path is still in a smaller rough form. In time and as public consensus about the path layout is settled, a more wider, expensive and permanent structure can be built.What I do not like about option 1, Upgrades to Seaview road require more public consultation and not sure on the actual demand. I do have some concerns about what impact it will have on parking in the area. In trying to present a path for recreational use I do prefer it more coastal than residential route.
  • mjlane almost 5 years ago
    I would support option one as I think better public access to the seafront is a positive but I have a strong reservation to all the options in relation to the section between Fort and Terminus Sts which is where I have lived for 20 years.The proposed path is the current path which runs right up against the front fences of all the houses and these houses have gates which open onto the path,with the path being made more attractive to cyclists there is the real danger of a cyclist colliding with someone especially a child coming out of their gate.A much safer option would be to put a new path through the dunes here which are very wide,, similar to that put in between the torrens outlet and the henley sailing clubthe current path along this section is only 2.4m wide and the plan shows it as 3m wide so presumably there will need to be some significant earthworks as the ground drops away quite steeply next to the path and why is only natural surface and not a proper hard surface like the rest of the pathwaythe dunes within 12m of the current path contain a significant number of feral plants whereas the foredunes are in good condition,if the new path was put in say 5-8 m in front of the existing path it will not damage the best part of the dunes and gives chance to remove the ferals and put in coastal plants which as shown at west beach grow back quickly