Tennyson Dunes Coast Park Concept Reportassets.yoursay.sa.gov.au/production/2016/09/09/02... · The Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources recently prepared the Tennyson

Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources

May 2016

Tennyson Dunes Coast Park Concept Report Stakeholder Engagement Report

Tennyson Dunes Coast Park Concept Report

Stakeholder Engagement Report Final Report. May 2016.

Lead consultant URPS

Prepared for Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources

Consultant Project Manager Nicole Halsey, Director and Michael Arman, Associate Suite 12/154 Fullarton Road (cnr Alexandra Ave) Rose Park, SA 5067 Tel: (08) 8333 7999 Email: [email protected] and [email protected]

URPS Ref 2015-0411

Document history and status

© URPS All rights reserved; these materials are copyright. No part may be reproduced or copied in any way, form or by any means without prior permission. This report has been prepared for URPS’ client. URPS and its associated consultants are not liable to any person or entity for any damage or loss that has occurred, or may occur, in relation to that person or entity taking or not taking action in respect of any representation, statement, opinion or advice referred to herein. www.urps.com.au ABN 55 640 546 010

Revision Date Reviewed Approved Details

1 12/05/16 NH 12/05/16 Draft for client review

2 25/05/16 MA 25/05/16 Final report incorporating editorial changes

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

4

www.urps.com.au

1

www.urps.com.au

URPS Stakeholder Engagement Report Executive Summary

Contents Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................4

Preferences for path alignment .................................................................................................................. 4

Other issues to be addressed ..................................................................................................................... 7

Participants who did not identify a preferred alignment ........................................................................... 7

Feedback by stakeholder ............................................................................................................................ 8

1.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................................9

1.1 Supporting information .................................................................................................................. 9

2.0 Engagement Process .............................................................................................................. 10

2.1 What were the objectives of the stakeholder engagement?....................................................... 10

2.2 What was the approach to engagement? .................................................................................... 10

2.3 Who participated ......................................................................................................................... 11

3.0 Feedback from local residents ................................................................................................ 13

3.1 Level of support for the proposed Discovery Trail ....................................................................... 13

3.2 Impacts on the dune environment .............................................................................................. 14

3.3 Residents’ privacy, safety and amenity ........................................................................................ 14

3.4 Concerns about a shared use path – and cyclists ........................................................................ 15

3.5 Width and capacity of path, nodes and passing areas ................................................................. 15

3.6 Path materials and construction .................................................................................................. 16

3.7 Preferences for path alignment ................................................................................................... 16

3.8 Alternative ideas .......................................................................................................................... 19

3.9 Implementation, funding and ongoing maintenance .................................................................. 20

3.10 Engagement process .................................................................................................................... 20

4.0 Feedback from stakeholder groups ......................................................................................... 21

4.1 Charles Sturt and Port Adelaide Bicycle User Groups .................................................................. 21

4.2 Conservation Council ................................................................................................................... 23

4.3 Local environment groups............................................................................................................ 23

4.4 Western Adelaide Coastal Residents Association ........................................................................ 25

4.5 Other organisations ...................................................................................................................... 27

5.0 Other feedback ...................................................................................................................... 29

5.1 Who participated?........................................................................................................................ 29

5.2 Interest or connection with the Tennyson Reserve ..................................................................... 31

5.3 Preference for path alignment ..................................................................................................... 31

5.3.1 General comments about path alignment ...................................................................................... 31 5.3.2 Comments about a preferred path alignment ................................................................................ 32

2

Executive Summary

URPS

Stakeholder Engagement Report

www.urps.com.au

5.3.3 Comments explaining a lack of support for the proposed Discovery Trail ...................................... 35

5.4 Other comments .......................................................................................................................... 37

Appendix A........................................................................................................................................ 40

Appendix B ........................................................................................................................................ 41

Appendix C ........................................................................................................................................ 42

Appendix D ....................................................................................................................................... 43

Appendix E ........................................................................................................................................ 44

Tennyson Dunes Coast Park Concept ReportStakeholder Engagement

Local Environment Groups> Concerned about ecological impacts> Some identified a preferred alignment based on minimising ecological impacts

Western Adelaide Coastal Residents Association> Support proposed Discovery Trail and identified preferred alignment> Support alignments closer to residential properties to avoid dune swales

> Emphasised the importance of providing interpretation experiences

Residents adjoining Tennyson Reserve> Most did not identify a preferred alignment> Those that did prefer the use of existing paths> Many are concerned about ecological impacts, incompatability of cyclists and other users, and safety, privacy and amenity of local residents

Bicycle User Groups> Support proposed Discovery Trail> Support alignments that provide functional connectivity> Concerned about path width and construction material

Broader Community> 3 different alignments frequently identified, based on relative importance people placed on providing a direct link, ecological impacts, dune experiences and impacts on residents> Many could not identify a preference, because of concerns about ecological impacts, or cyclists, and a preference to do nothing

The Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources recently prepared the Tennyson Dunes Coast Park Concept Report for an approximately 1.5km ‘Discovery Trail’ through the Tennyson Dunes Conservation Reserve. A range of engagement activities were undertaken to understand preferences for the alignment of the Discovery Trail. As illustrated below, the feedback shows there are mixed views.

attended an environment

groups forum

Local environment

groups

6Port AdelaideCharles Sturt

BICYCLE USER GROUPS

348people submitted online feedback

people provided coments over the phone

Written Submissions

67

Who did we hear from?

Aims of the engagement > Understand preferences for the alignment of the proposed Discovery Trail

> Understand reasons for people’s preferences

73at 2 residents’ forumsParticipants

Western Adelaide Coastal Residents

Asociation

4

Executive Summary

URPS


www.urps.com.au

Executive Summary The objectives of the engagement were to understand preferences for the alignment of the Discovery Trail and the reasons for those preferences. Based on the information collected via the engagement activities documented in sections 3 to 5 of this report, the following conclusions are made for further consideration in determining the preferred alignment of the Discovery Trail.

Preferences for path alignment

The feedback gathered shows that there are mixed views regarding the preferred alignment of the Discovery Trail. These views generally differed based on the relative importance placed on:

• Providing a direct path that forms an important link in the overall context of Coast Park

• Establishing Tennyson Reserve as a destination to experience the dunes environment through a low speed, meandering path

• Protecting the privacy and amenity of residents living adjacent the reserve

• Minimising ecological impacts

• Providing an immersion experience of the dunes environment

• Offering sea views while also drawing people through the dunes

• Making use of existing trails versus constructing new pathways.

The following three alignments were most frequently identified:

• Eastern alignment generally comprising path segments A, C, D, F, I, J, K, N, P, R, T, W, Z, Bb, Ee, Hh, Ll.

Reasons offered in support of the eastern alignment include that it:

> Is practical for users, offering a direct pathway through the Tennyson Dunes for people using Coast Park

> Minimises ecological impacts as the path is generally located out of the dune swale and traverses areas with degraded vegetation or weeds

> Provides a mixture of ‘in dune’ and ‘sea view’ experiences

> Allows for easier maintenance as it is located close to the existing street network.

• Western alignment generally comprising path segments A, B, D, F, I, J, L, O, S, V, Y, Aa, Dd, Gg and Kk.

Reasons offered in support of the western alignment include that it:

> Provides a good experience of the dunes, being located in the swale

> Makes use of existing trails

> Avoids impacts on residential amenity, privacy and security.

5

www.urps.com.au


• An alternative alignment generally comprising A, B, D, F, G, H, J, K, N, Q, R, S, U, W, X, Y, Aa, Dd, Ff, Hh and Ll.

Reasons offered in support of the alternative alignment include that it:

> Minimises ecological impacts, as it deliberately avoids areas known to be of ecological significance and allows for greatest area of uninterrupted dune structure

> Slows users through a longer and less direct alignment, helping to establish the area as a destination rather than a thoroughfare.

These three alignments are illustrated in on the following page:

Options for Path Alignment FROMTENNYSON RESERVE DISCOVERY TRAIL STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT

7

8 9 10 1112

13

P

Q

R

SU

T

V

W Z

YX Cc

Aa

Nn

Mm

Dd

Ee

FfGg

Jj

Kk

Ll

HhBb

63

2

1

4

5 L

M

N

O

A

B

D

E

F

H

I

G

JK

C

MILITARY ROADMILITARY ROADMILITARY ROAD

TENNYSON HEIGHTS COURTTENNYSON HEIGHTS COURTTENNYSON HEIGHTS COURT

MAWSON CLOSEMAWSON CLOSEMAWSON CLOSE ES

TCO

UR

T

R

OA

D

ESTC

OU

RT

RO

AD

ESTC

OU

RT

RO

AD

BUCKNALL CLOSEBUCKNALL CLOSEBUCKNALL CLOSE

Good views to water

MILITARY ROAD

MILITARY ROAD

MILITARY ROAD

SHORE COURTSHORE COURTSHORE COURT

DUNE COURTDUNE COURTDUNE COURT

NEWPORTER TERRACE

NEWPORTER TERRACE

NEWPORTER TERRACE

UR

IAH

P

LAC

EU

RIA

H

PLA

CE

UR

IAH

P

LAC

E

CO

RO

NA

DO

CO

UR

TC

OR

ON

AD

O C

OU

RT

Good native grasses

CC

Good reveg maintained by resident

Good Scaevola crassifolia patch

Norfolk island pine

Good native grasses

Area where Leucopogon parviflorus present

Good Lepidosperma gladiatum patch

Important Helichrysum patch

Area of rare native nettles

Extensive patches of Leucopogon parvi florus present

Existingcarpark

Existingcarpark

Existingcarpark

Existingcarpark

Important Alyxia buxifolia patch

Good Lepidosperma gladiatum patch

0 10 20 40m

PLAN SCALE

30

During the engagement period, three alignment options were frequently identified, albeit with minor variations as described in the Engagement report.

These three alignments were based on responses which identified a preferred alignment for the full length of the Discovery Trail, noting that many respondents did not identify a preferred alignment or identified a small number of preferred path segments.

A

1

Trail option reference

Trail junction marker No.

Trail alignment option

Node - Locations TBC on final on-site alignment

Existing trail(not required for Coast path link)

Remnant/ high significant existing vegetation

KEY“Eastern” Alignment - preferred as it provides a direct Coast Park connection, is convenient for users and avoids the dune swales.

“Western” Alignment preferred as it makes use of existing trails, located away from houses and offeres good dune experiences.

“Alternative” Alignment preferred as it avoids areas of ecological significance and provides a slow meandering dune experience.

CONCEPT PLAN FROMTENNYSON DUNES COAST PARK PLAN REPORT

7

www.urps.com.au


Other issues to be addressed

Feedback gathered by the engagement also identified a number of issues regarding the final design and alignment of the Discovery Trail as follows:

Path width – the path should be wide enough to cater for anticipated users while being narrow enough to minimise impacts upon dune ecology

Path material – use of material that is sufficiently hard to cater for all users while also being natural in appearance and permeable to minimise impacts associated with erosion or upon vegetation

Mix and safety of users – minimise conflicts between different path users (e.g. pedestrians, cyclists and people in wheelchairs), designing for safety and meeting the long term needs of all users

Signage and visual markers – encourage responsible behaviour through adequate signage, path treatments and visual markers

Connections – link the Discovery Trail with the car park, proposed Interpretive Centre and the various beach access tracks

Construction techniques - avoid adverse or unintended damage to the dune environment during construction.

Participants who did not identify a preferred alignment

The mix of views through the engagement was strongly linked to whether or not people supported the provision of a Discovery Trail in the Tennyson Reserve.

During the engagement, many participants did not engage with the question regarding what is their preferred alignment, but rather expressed their opposition to a Trail per se. Key reasons for this opposition included:

• Concern about the impact of the path footprint (including shoulders and distance between fences) on the sensitive dune ecology

• Changes to the wild, quiet and isolated atmosphere of the area as a result of new and increased number of users

• Incompatibility between pedestrians and cyclists and the associated risks to safety

• Impacts on residential amenity and privacy, including increased noise and anti-social behaviour such as vandalism and break-ins

• Preference for the Coast Park to be re-routed along Military Road in accordance with Option 1 of the previous Charles Sturt Coast Park consultation, with minimal upgrades to existing pedestrian pathways.

8

Executive Summary

URPS


www.urps.com.au

Feedback by stakeholder

Further analysis of the feedback by stakeholder ‘type’ shows the following in relation to preferences for the alignment of the Discovery Trail:

1. Most residents did not identify a preferred alignment of the proposed Discovery Trail; of those that did, the most popular alignment options were those that followed existing pathways generally located away from residential properties. Residents have significant concerns about the proposed Discovery Trail, most commonly linked to environmental impacts, the incompatibility of cyclists and other users and impacts on residential amenity.

2. Local environment groups expressed concern about the ecological impacts of the proposed path, with some groups identifying a preferred path alignment based on minimising ecological impacts.

3. WACRA indicated support for the proposal, identified a preferred alignment and offered suggestions for improvements, including the importance of providing interpretative experiences.

4. The Bicycle User Groups indicated support for the proposal offered suggestions for improvements including path width and construction, and considering an additional path for bicycles.

5. Feedback gathered via YourSay and from other interested members of the public generally indicated three key preferences for path alignment; a direct path alignment generally to the east of the Tennyson Reserve, a more western alignment generally using existing trails and located away from homes, and an alternative alignment generally based on minimising environmental impacts.

6. Many of the people who completed the YourSay feedback from or provided a written submission could not identify a preferred alignment as their preference is for no or limited change, predominantly because of impacts on the environment/dune experiences and concerns about cyclists.

9

www.urps.com.au

URPS Stakeholder Engagement Report Introduction

1.0 Introduction The Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources (DEWNR) recently prepared the Tennyson Dunes Coast Park Concept Report (the Concept Report) for an approximately 1.5km ‘Discovery Trail’ through the Tennyson Dunes Conservation Reserve.

The Concept Report outlines options for the alignment and construction of a low speed, shared use path that caters for users of all ages and different modes of mobility including walking, jogging and cycling and those using wheelchairs and prams, while enjoying the environment and encouraging visitors to stay on the path. The Discovery Trail will allow more people to experience this unique and important ecological asset and provide opportunities for education and interpretation.

The Concept Report contains a number of options for the alignment of the Discovery Trail, each of which has possible positive and negative impacts. It does not identify a preferred alignment.

Following the finalisation of the Concept Report, DEWNR sought feedback from a wide group of stakeholders, including local residents, environmental groups, bicycle user groups, the Western Adelaide Coastal Residents Association and others with an interest in the Tennyson Reserve regarding their preferences for the alignment of the proposed Discovery Trail.

Consultants URPS were engaged by DEWNR to facilitate an engagement process to understand the views of these stakeholders, in particular the reasons why alignment options in the Concept Report are or are not preferred.

This report summarises the engagement process, who participated and key themes/messages heard throughout the engagement and documents feedback gathered by stakeholder type, starting with local residents living in the immediate vicinity of Tennyson Reserve (section 3), followed by key stakeholder groups (section 4) and other feedback (section 5).

1.1 Supporting information

A range of supporting information is included in the Appendices to this report, including

• 67 written submissions received during the engagement

• Summarised notes from residents’ and other stakeholder groups forums.

• Notes from telephone calls received during the engagement period.

10

Engagement Process

URPS


www.urps.com.au

2.0 Engagement Process 2.1 What were the objectives of the stakeholder engagement?

The objectives of the Tennyson Dunes Coast Park Concept Report stakeholder engagement were to:

• Ensure stakeholders are well informed about the proposed Discovery Trail through the provision of accurate, accessible and timely information

• Gather feedback regarding stakeholders preferences for the alignment for the Discovery Trail and the reasons why different options are/are not preferred.

2.2 What was the approach to engagement?

The approach to engagement was informed by a desire for the engagement to be targeted to local residents, identified stakeholder groups and the wider public who may have an interest in the Tennyson Reserve. The engagement process sought to understand the views of stakeholders about the options for alignment of the Discovery Trail, and why those views are held. In this way, it was not “a vote” but rather an exercise to understand preferences and reasons why.

Communication and engagement activities were identified based upon the likely interest of stakeholders in the Discovery Trail, as shown in Table 2-1.

Table 2-1 Communication and engagement activities by stakeholder interest

Stakeholder Likely interest in the Discovery Trail

Communication method

Engagement activities

Local residents living within a defined primary catchment of Tennyson Reserve1

Impact on local residents Written letter and summary brochure directly mailed by post Invitation to attend residents’ forum

2 residents’ forums

Local environment groups (Tennyson Dunes Group, Sandpiper Dune Group, Wild Endangered Dunes Group and Coastal Ecology Protection Group)

Impacts on dune ecology

Phone and email Invitation to meeting

Meeting with representatives of local environment group

1 The primary catchment was determined to comprise all properties located between Tennyson Reserve and Military Road, extending as far south as Tennyson Heights Court and as far north as Shore Court (inclusive).

11

www.urps.com.au

URPS Stakeholder Engagement Report Engagement Process

Stakeholder Likely interest in the Discovery Trail

Communication method

Engagement activities

Other community groups (WACRA, Bicycle User Groups)

Impacts on coastal recreation Impacts on dune ecology Impacts on residents and beach users Track design and location and suitability for cyclists

Phone and email Invitation to meeting

Meetings with representatives of these groups

City of Charles Sturt Engagement process Key messages and communication about this project Relationship between this project with other Council projects Outcomes of engagement

Presentation of engagement approach to Elected Members Presentation during engagement period to Council’s Coast Park Working Group

Conservation Council of SA Impacts on dune ecology Phone and email Invitation to meeting

Meeting

Other people with an interest in Tennyson Dunes

Impacts on coastal recreation Impacts on dune ecology

Corflute signage displayed in Tennyson Reserve

YourSay Website online discussion and feedback form

To support the engagement, a Summary Information Brochure (refer Appendix E) was prepared summarising the Concept Report with a focus on the options for path alignments, including the positive and negative consequences of each path segment option.

In addition, a project website was established using the State Government’s YourSay online engagement platform, to provide information about the project, access to an online feedback form and the ability to download the Concept Report and Summary Brochure.

During the engagement period, people were able to contact URPS to provide feedback over the phone. All stakeholders were invited to provide a written submission in addition to the YourSay feedback form and other engagement activities.

The stakeholder engagement took place over an 8 week period between 15 February 2016 and 8 April 2016.

2.3 Who participated

Across the different engagement opportunities, the following participation was recorded:

• 73 people attended the residents’ forums (noting that 11 people attended both meetings)

• 6 local environment groups were represented at the local environment groups’ forum

• 2 bicycle user groups attended a meeting

• Meeting with representatives of the Western Adelaide Coastal Residents Association

12

Engagement Process

URPS


www.urps.com.au

• 67 written submissions were received, of which

> 27 were from local residents

> 6 were from stakeholder groups

> 34 were from interested members of the public

• 10 people provided comments over the phone, of which

> 7 were local residents

> 3 were other interested members of the public

• 348 people submitted the Your Say feedback form, of which 239 provided comments about preference for path alignment.

It should be noted that there was duplication between approaches; for example, many of the people who attended the residents’ forums also attended the environment groups’ forum and completed a YourSay feedback form and/or provided a written submission.

It is also important to note that respondents who participated in any of the engagement activities self-selected and may therefore not be representative of the whole community. The YourSay feedback form, nor any of the other engagement activities, do not constitute a statistically valid survey as participation was voluntary and not based upon a random selection process.

The themes and comments provided in this report therefore only refer to those individuals and organisations who chose to participate in the process. They cannot and should not be understood as an indication of what the whole community might think, as responses could be swayed one way or another. People with strong views either for or against a proposal are more likely to respond to self-initiated feedback processes.

13

www.urps.com.au

URPS Stakeholder Engagement Report Feedback from local residents

3.0 Feedback from local residents This section summarises feedback from local residents received via the two residents’ forums, 27 written submissions2 and over the phone3. Summaries of residents’ forums are provided in Appendix B, written submissions in Appendix A and the notes from the phone conversations are included in Appendix D.

3.1 Level of support for the proposed Discovery Trail

The majority of residents who attended the forums, provided written submissions or made comments over the phone indicated that they do not support the proposed Discovery Trail. Instead, these residents indicated their preference for existing trails to remain untouched since they already function as a Discovery Trail, for existing paths to be receive minor upgrades and/or for the Coast Park to be redirected along Military Road (as per the previous City of Charles Sturt Coast Park feedback).

Residents commented that the existing trails already provide immersion experiences of the dune environment, and therefore additional trails are not needed. Residents expressed concern that the Discovery Trail has been designed to encourage north south movement to connect the Coast Park, rather than to provide a slow meandering experience in the dunes. The lack of improved pathway connections to the beach, car park, and proposed Interpretive Centre were cited as examples of designing for through movement, rather than to establish the area as a destination to experience the dune environment.

Comments4 which illustrate this general lack of support include:

“Ideally we would prefer nothing be done to disturb these millions of years old dunes”

“If the aim is for people to enjoy the dunes and its flora, there is already a path. Why not improve it, maybe widen it slightly and improve the surface”

“Only moderate adjustment and a commitment to its maintenance is needed to provide a genuine experience for most people in the community”

“Should be a destination in itself for pedestrians as it is now – adequate parking for cars and bicycles, excellent signage etc and should not become a through way or transiting area”

“There are few people that actually take the time to learn and observe from signs or their environments, most travel through to get somewhere else”.

2 Written submissions from local residents were identified on the basis of name and/or address, which were cross-referenced against the database used for the mail-out of information brochure. 3 Names and addresses were requested when receiving comments over the phone. 4 All comments in italics and within quotation marks represent verbatim comments recorded at the residents’ forums or direct quotations from written submissions.

14

Feedback from local residents

URPS


www.urps.com.au

A small number of local residents indicated support for the proposed Discovery Trail, with comments including:

“We have no reservations in believing that with quality work and materials this format will establish a community asset that will be appreciated and praised for decades to come”

“We have always considered the…plan for a continuous 70km coastal route…to be good for the community at large and were pleased to see the development of the Tennyson Dunes Coast Park Concept Report to assist in achieving this goal”.

3.2 Impacts on the dune environment

Residents expressed concern about the way in which the wider path footprint, additional users and construction will impact on the dune ecology, as well as its intrinsic value, with comments including:

“What about disruption to the fauna, in particular the snakes, which are breeding prolifically”

“The site hosts extensive native and indigenous flora and fauna…the Tennyson Dunes system is deserving of preservation ‘for its own sake’”

“This excessive approach will destroy…the rare fragile, natural environmental appeal of the dunes the Government claims to want to preserve”

“While we feel that it is of benefit for all to have access to this unique area, we feel that excessive development would detract from the very reason it is so special.

A number of residents also identified that an Environmental Impact Statement should be prepared to fully understand the impacts of the proposed Discovery Trail.

3.3 Residents’ privacy, safety and amenity

A strong theme at the residents’ forums and through the written submissions and phone calls from residents were concerns about privacy, safety, vandalism and more general impact on amenity and quality of life. In particular, residents were concerned that increased use of the area will result in more break-ins, a loss of privacy for those properties directly adjacent Tennyson Reserve and reduced property values. Examples of these concerns included:

“Construction of a path…offends the principle of respecting the privacy and safety of residents, particularly concerning given the small children living there”

“I have already had trouble with intruders and at times already feel vulnerable…are there any plans in this process that will ensure…fencing of properties or security measures”

“Opening up of the area to the unsavoury activities…conducted in the dunes”

“Graffiti and opportunistic damage to properties will increase”

“Loss of amenity for existing residences, with increased pedestrian and wheel traffic at close proximity to front fences and boundaries, and to habitable rooms and private open space”.

15

www.urps.com.au


“Core principles such as ‘privacy’ adopted for coastal residents by City of Charles Sturt Community Reference Group must be included (and planned for) in new proposals by government”

“Reduced property values potentially amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars per property”.

3.4 Concerns about a shared use path – and cyclists

Residents questioned the ability to design a shared use path that is genuinely low speed, can safely cater for all users including people of all ages, people in wheelchairs and cyclists while also being sufficiently low impact to minimise impacts to dune ecology. They considered that it was not possible to provide a meandering experience while also providing appropriate lines of sight for cyclists, and expressed concern that the Discovery Trail will be used as a high speed cycling thoroughfare.

A small number of people commented that providing access for people with disabilities may not be warranted given that there are many places that do not provide this level of access.

Concerns were also expressed about the safety risks as a result of cyclists conflicting with other users, the hazard that sand drift will present to wheeled users, and appropriateness of cycling through Tennyson Reserve more generally. Comments that illustrate these views included:

“I have never seen a cyclist look at flora and fauna and neither should they – bike riders should be looking ahead to avoid obstacles in their path”

“There are inherent dangers in combining pedestrian and cycle traffic”

“Overseas experience has shown that “shared usage” does not work and some countries are developing “dual” systems separating bikes from pedestrians”.

“Bicycle riders commonly ride at between 10 and 50 kilometers an hour…this provides for an unsafe environment in any ‘shared’ type of concept with pedestrians/prams/wheelchairs/ children”

“There are plenty of other places to visit the coast which provide hard surface paths for people who have significant age or mobility limitations”.

3.5 Width and capacity of path, nodes and passing areas

The width and capacity of the proposed pathway, passing areas and nodes was discussed by many residents. On one hand, residents considered that the path, its foundations and the area beside the path between the new fencing is too wide and will result in unacceptable impacts upon the dune environment. On the other hand, residents also identified that it may not be wide enough to manage the anticipated number and combination of users (including cyclists), and may result in people passing on the sides of the path, further degrading vegetation. In addition, residents identified that the Concept Report proposes too many nodes and passing areas and that these are too large. Comments included:

“The path should be a maximum of 2 metres wide to minimise disruption to the dune ecology, and avoid loss of fauna habitat”

16


URPS


www.urps.com.au

“I will be expected to go down narrow little paths and then wait at nodes until other users pass. How do I know if other users are coming if they are difficult to see because of winding paths”

“The number and spacing of nodes is particularly concerning… the length and width of the nodes will take up a disproportionately large area of the dunes”.

3.6 Path materials and construction

Many residents discussed the hardness of the proposed path construction material, and indicated preference for the use of more permeable and natural materials. In addition, residents highlighted the desirability of any path to follow the natural contours of the dunes.

Some residents expressed concern about the impacts of construction especially given that contractors may not fully understand the ecological significance of the area, with one resident suggesting that the project ensure that an ecologist, landscape architect and Tennyson Dunes Group are involved/oversee site works. Raised boardwalks were suggested as one possible technique that may allow the dunes and the creatures that live within them, to move while also providing access for all.

Examples of comments about path materials and construction included:

“The construction of an excessively wide path of hard material with elevated structures seems quite invasive and not in keeping with the ecology and the natural feel of the area”

“The path should be constructed of a permeable material to minimise erosion from water runoff”

“The material suggested for use on the trail in the Concept Report is not appropriate for a dune system”

“By not following the natural contours of the dunes, more cut and fill will be required, and there would be greater sand drift (due to cutting through the dunes and destabilising the dune faces)”

“Whilst the stated intention of seeking input from an ecologist/dunes group/landscape architect…is to be applauded, it is far too late to do this when site works are underway”.

“Contractors have proven time and time again that they cannot act in an environmentally acceptable fashion”.

3.7 Preferences for path alignment

Many of the residents who participated in the forums, provided a written submission or provided comments over the phone did not offer a preferred alignment based on the options outlined in the Concept Report and summary brochure.

Some residents offered general comments about the alignment, such as the desirability for the path to follow the natural contours of the dunes, follow existing path alignments, be setback from residential properties and avoid areas that residents have revegetated. Aligning the path through the swale was identified as having many benefits, including a lower likelihood of being impacted by sand drift, a better

17

www.urps.com.au


immersion experience in the dunes and reduced visual impacts. Examples of these general preferences for path alignment included:

“The alternative alignment options of aligning the path with the adjoining property boundaries will mean the path does not align with the natural swales of the dunes”

“There would be greater sand drift from an alignment that did not follow the natural contours of the dunes through the swales”

“It is important to respect the work done by volunteers and not re-route the path through re-vegetation areas”

“An alignment through the swale also has less visual impact than one constructed higher up the dune face”.

A small number of residents provided specific comments about the alignment options in the Concept Report and Summary Brochure. Of those who commented specifically, not all provided a response about all sections/options. For the purpose of summarising these, the Discovery Trail has been divided into three sections.

Southern section

Of those residents who provided comments about alignment options in the southern section:

• Many identified that they did not support segments A, B, C and D because of impact upon amenity, safety and security of local residents, the lack of sea views or “rewarding nature experience” and high likelihood of conflict between users (eg walkers, cyclists and people leaving their properties).

• A very small number indicated support for a path alignment through segments A, C, D, F and I.

• Some residents identified that segment E should be retained and upgraded as a main path, and extended through the dunes to connect directly with Bournemouth Street, possibly as a walking-only track. Path E could then connect with H and J. This connection had mixed levels of support, with

18


URPS


www.urps.com.au

some noting that it is not appropriate to construct a new path given the dune ecology surrounding segment E, while others commenting that this means that it offers a “very good nature experience”.

• Segment H was not supported by some residents as establishing a more substantial path would result in damage and destruction. Conversely, others identified support for this segment.

• It was suggested by some residents that there should be no hubs developed through segment J given the high integrity vegetation that is found there and the existing problems of antisocial behaviour.

• The existing car park was identified as needing careful consideration, as clear connections to the Discovery Trail will be required to prevent further environmental impact.

Central section

Of those residents who provided comments about alignment options in the central section:

• Many indicated a preference for connecting J with L, O and S, being further away from residential properties and making best use of existing trails.

• Segment L was identified as being preferable to segment K, noting that segment L would have lesser environmental impact since it involves an upgrade to the existing trail, is further from residents and that sea views should not be a criteria.

• An alternative preference identified by some residents was to connect J, K, N, P and R.

• The segment between letters N and P was identified as having significant elevation changes, and that it should be ‘tidied up’ and replanted, and that the green patch above segment N should be protected as an important site for breeding kestrels.

• Segment R was not supported by a number of residents. Reasons identified included that it is too close to residents, impacts on residents’ privacy, noise from users and impact on wildlife. One resident offered an alternate view, commenting that it is currently a “scrappy edge” and that it would be good to see it improved.

19

www.urps.com.au


Northern section

Of those residents who provided comments about alignment options in the northern section:

• Many indicated preference for the Discovery Trail to follow the existing alignment through V, Y, Aa, Dd, Gg, Kk, identified as it makes the best use of existing paths, follows the swale and is less likely to impact residential amenity, privacy and security.

• Around segments Z, Bb and Ee north of Dune Court, residents commented that there has been significant revegetation and weed removal undertaken by local residents in this area and that new native vegetation would be destroyed.

• It was also identified that segment Z would threaten the Scaevola patch maintained by local residents, and result in considerable impacts to residents on Newporter Terrace given that people would be moving north-south as well as the existing east-west.

• It was suggested that a boardwalk may be appropriate along segment V to neutralise the elevation differences.

• It was suggested that there should be no civil works near the identified Norfolk Island Pine (or its root zone).

3.8 Alternative ideas

The most common alternative ideas proposed by residents was for the Discovery Trail to be re-routed around the Tennyson Reserve, and follow Military Road in accordance with Option 1 from the previous City of Charles Sturt Coast Park Consultation. Other ideas included reallocating funding to habitat restoration and weed/animal management in the Tennyson Reserve, revegetating paths no longer required, involving residents in revegetation and developing a new Concept Report on the basis of the input from a wider group of stakeholders. Examples of comments about alternative ideas included:

“I would prefer funding be allocated to nurturing the growth of natural flora and fauna, revegetating and… eradicating imported animals to help restore the natural lizard colonies”

20


URPS


www.urps.com.au

“I and my neighbours would be happy to undertake re-planting and rehabilitation…at our own expense and in accordance with DEWNR guidelines, should the existing path alignment be retained”

“The City of Charles Sturt hosted and facilitated a detailed community reference group who worked…for 18 months to come up with a recommendation called Option 1. This plan proposes a narrow, multi-user low impact path through this fragile coastal dunes system with the much wider shared use road running off-road, around these precious dunes”.

3.9 Implementation, funding and ongoing maintenance

Many residents raised questions about the process for funding and implementing the Concept Report during the residents’ forums, in written submission and over the phone, commenting that the Government should focus its efforts and funds on more “worthwhile projects”. Some residents suggested that the implementation of the Trail will require a development approval, which may be impacted by the nomination of the Tennyson Dunes as a heritage place. Residents also identified the importance of clear strategies for ongoing maintenance. Comments included:

“The concept is a waste of tax payers money when the government should be concentrating on jobs, economy, health and education”

“This trail will also cost taxpayers a lot of money and there will also be a continuing obligation to maintain it”

“The proposal requires adherence to a process and development approval in accordance with the Development Act 1993”.

3.10 Engagement process

Some residents commented on the engagement process, expressing disappointment that the Concept Report is not consistent with the previous City of Charles Sturt consultation, frustration that they were not engaged in the development of the Concept Report and that the change of direction by the Government, expressions of thanks regarding the current engagement, and requests for further involvement and to be able to view the final engagement report. Comments about the engagement process included:

“Residents have not been consulted prior to this concept being developed”

“To ignore these previous findings would indicate that the State Government is paying lip service to the feedback process”

“Its great that effort has been taken to understand the views of the various parties interested in the proposals and that local residents have been included in that process”

“I would also request that a copy of the summary to be submitted to the Minister be provided to me”

“Why has the Minister changed his mind?”

21

www.urps.com.au

URPS Stakeholder Engagement Report Feedback from stakeholder groups

4.0 Feedback from stakeholder groups This section summarises feedback from stakeholder groups received face-to-face at group meetings and through written submissions.

4.1 Charles Sturt and Port Adelaide Bicycle User Groups

Representatives of the Charles Sturt and Port Adelaide Bicycle User Groups (BUG) provided comments at a meeting on 10 March 2016. The full summary of this meeting including the other documents tabled by Port Adelaide BUG is provided in Appendix C, and the written submission received during the consultation period by the Port Adelaide BUG is provided in Appendix A. Below is a summary of key messages expressed by the BUGs.

Overall support

Overall, the BUGs support the proposed Discovery Trail which was described as providing a “missing link” and a “meaningful alternative” to Military Road, which is not appropriate for all cyclists. The BUGs are supportive of the conservation outcomes sought by the Concept Plan, and the intention to establish the reserve as a destination to be enjoyed by the wider public. The BUGs also support the premise of providing high quality access for people in wheel chairs to prominent nodes.

Path width and choke points

Although the BUGs offered general support for the concept of a slow speed shared use path through Tennyson Reserve, concern was expressed about the width of the path, describing it as “inappropriate in its narrowness”. The concern was that in the future, management strategies could be introduced to restrict bicycle use if there is conflict between users, the path becomes more popular than expected and/or the path is found to be insufficiently wide.

Participants also commented that the design of these choke points needs careful thought to ensure they do not worsen conditions for cyclists and other users. BUGs also thought that the design standards that will be used should be specified in the Concept Report given that the AusRoads standards do not apply in this instance.

In their written submission, the Port Adelaide BUG clarified a number of points regarding path width and choke points, including:

• Concern that it appears that traffic estimates have not been used in developing the Concept Report

• The need to find a balance between minimising environmental harm while also ensuring safety for all and allowance for adequate speeds

• Their view that a 1.5m wide path or the use of choke points is not an acceptable width for passing users, and will result in bicycles slowing to an unsafe speed

• Suggestion that a 1.8m wide path is “an improvement” but still results in an unacceptably high risk of collision for inexperienced bike riders.

22

Feedback from stakeholder groups

URPS


www.urps.com.au

Consider an additional path at key sections

Between trail junction makers 3 and 5, the BUGs suggested that an alternative higher capacity path is needed. This alternative path should be located further east, most likely hugging the boundary of Tennyson Reserve, and would minimize conflict between users through the main section of the dunes where there is high integrity vegetation.

In their written submission, the Port Adelaide BUG added that an additional option for this extra path is to hug reserve boundaries, and then upgrade existing pathways through the dunes (e.g. F-K and O-R) for pedestrians and with interpretive signage.

Preferred alignment

At the meeting, the BUG representatives did not express preference for particular alignment options over others, other than to reinforce that any selected alignment should provide for “functional connectivity” and that the detailed designs should consider connections with car parks, where possible.

The Port Adelaide BUG, in their written submission, made the following additional comments about path alignment:

• Preference for option C instead of B to minimise intrusion into the broader dune area

• Lack of support for any trail through F-J and suggest these should be closed and the path re-routed further east close to property boundaries and the car park, possibly with zig-zagging due to slope, and to connect with path at K

• Support for K instead of L, and N

• Lack of support for OR and mixed views about options NQR or NPR

• Support for T, W, Z, Bb, Hh, Jj, Ll.

Signage

BUGs identified that signage will be important to reinforce the responsibility of all users when they enter the Reserve, especially given the different path width and surface treatments compared with the rest of Coast Park.

Trail construction and ongoing involvement

Support was offered for the proposed smooth surface, with BUG representatives commenting that it is important to cater for all users, including children and others using small-wheeled scooters and similar equipment.

More generally, it was identified that the suitability of the path for cycling will likely depend on the design detail, especially in relation to path design, width, construction material/finish and gradient. For these reasons, the BUGs are interested in ongoing involvement in the project if or when the alignment has been determined.

23

www.urps.com.au


Additional Documents

At the meeting, the Port Adelaide BUG tabled additional comments included in Appendix C. Port Adelaide BUG provided a detailed submission (in Appendix A) which clarified their position following the meeting.

4.2 Conservation Council

DEWNR’s project manager met with the CEO of the Conservation Council during the engagement period to discuss the Concept Report. During the meeting, the Conservation Council expressed that they are comfortable with the process and outcomes to date, and that the Conservation Council will support the views of the Tennyson Dunes Group as they are members of the Conservation Council.

4.3 Local environment groups

The following local environment groups were invited to send up to four representatives to a meeting of local environment groups:

• Tennyson Dunes Group

• Sandpiper Dune Group

• Wild Endangered Dunes Group (WEDGE)

• Coastal Ecology Protection Group (CEPG).

In addition, the following groups also attended the meeting:

• Tennyson South Residents

• Save our dunes action group.

Appendix C contains a full written summary of this meeting including a detailed summary of each group’s comments about the Concept Report. Appendix A contains the written submissions received from the Tennyson Dunes Group and CEPG. A summary of feedback from local environment groups via the meeting and written submissions is provided below:

Impacts on the dune environment

Local environment groups expressed concern about the physical extent of the proposed Discovery Trail, the way in which it will bring additional users to the area and impact upon the dune environment through the destruction and fragmentation of habitat and edge effects. Concern was also expressed about the environmental damage caused by the decommissioning of the old fence and construction of new fencing.

Groups identified that revegetation and replacement of lost plants is not always possible, as some plants only grow in certain locations, and pruning may result in the unintended consequence of killing or irreversibly damaging plants. Requiring cyclists to slow to walking pace – and designing the path to deliberately slow their movement was suggested by one group as a way to reduce the need for sight lines and the associated removal of vegetation.

24


URPS


www.urps.com.au

The impermeable road base material used for the track subsurface was identified as problematic, as it can cause irreversible damage to plant roots. While the concept of using hand tools and small equipment during construction was supported, groups identified that the complexity of the project means that it may be difficult to construct the path and avoid adverse/unintended damage.

Inappropriate mix of users

Local environment groups questioned the ability to genuinely provide a low speed shared use path that caters for all users, suggesting that in order to cater for all users, the path would need to be of a width that results in unacceptable impacts on the dune environment.

It was identified that there will be a high likelihood of accidents, due to conflict between users and suggested that international examples of shared use paths should be considered to inform the designs.

Commuter thoroughfare rather than a destination

Local environment groups considered that the proposed Discovery Trail has been designed as a “commuter thoroughfare” for cyclists, evident in the many straight sections, sight lines, passing areas and nodes. Groups suggested that this approach to design is contrary to the goals of encouraging people to slow down and enjoy the dune environment.

Groups cited the lack of east-west pathways/connections and limited commentary about interpretation in the Concept Report as examples of the focus on movement rather than establishing Tennyson Reserve as a destination. In particular, it was identified that the Discovery Trail should bring people to the proposed interpretive centre as a key site in the Reserve.

It was expressed that the current proposal, by encouraging a thoroughfare, will destroy the very thing people come to Tennyson to experience, which is a connection with nature.

Lack of regard for previous consultation

Many representatives of the local environment groups discussed the previous City of Charles Sturt Coast Park consultation which resolved that the Coast Park shared use path would bypass the Tennyson Reserve (option 1), and that they “feel ignored” and “betrayed” that this outcome has been ignored.

Consider a ‘light touch’ upgrade of existing trail network

As an alternative to the proposed Discovery Trail, many groups suggested that a minor upgrade to existing paths for pedestrians should be considered, with bicycles re-routed to Military Road.

Conditional support for the Discovery Trail concept

The Tennyson Dunes Group expressed support for a low impact path that follows the existing pathway footprint, up to 1.8m in width, provides for walking pace movement, and supports people to move slowly through the area and connect with the dune environment.

While supporting this concept, the Tennyson Dunes Group identified that they oppose the path as currently proposed as they consider it will not achieve its objectives because it is “too fast, too wide and

25

www.urps.com.au


too hard”. The submission by this group acknowledges the way in which their input to date has been incorporated into the design as well as identifying opportunities to improve the Trail to protect dune ecology without compromising the project, and aspects in the proposal that are unacceptable to the group. Priority issues for the Tennyson Dunes Group are path width, surface, base and construction material, the number of passing points, clearance and pruning of vegetation and the ‘over engineered’ and ‘formal’ nature of the design.

Alignment of the proposed path

The following groups did not offer a preferred alignment of the Discovery Trail: WEDGE, CEPG, Save our Dunes Action Group.

The following groups identified that they support the alignment option preferred by Tennyson Dunes Group given that group’s detailed knowledge of the dune environment: Sandpiper Dunes Group, Tennyson South Group.

The Tennyson Dunes Group offered a preferred alignment, subject to their other concerns about path width, surface/materials, passing points, the need to find ways to slow down cyclists and a better approach to removal of vegetation being addressed. This alignment was also identified on the basis of minimising impacts to the dune environment rather than privacy for residents. The group’s preferred alignment comprises sections:

A, B, D, F, G, H, J, K, N, Q, R, S, U, W, X, Y, Aa, Dd, Ff, Hh, Ll.

Desire to view the consultation report and remain involved

Local environment groups expressed a desire to remain involved in the project and to be able to view the Consultation Report when it is submitted by DEWNR to the Minister.

4.4 Western Adelaide Coastal Residents Association

Representatives of the Western Adelaide Coastal Residents’ Association (WACRA) provided comments at a meeting on 15 March 2016. The full summary of this meeting including the other documents tabled by WACRA is provided in Appendix C, with key themes summarised below:

Overall support

WACRA indicated strong support for the Tennyson Dunes Coast Park Concept Report, which they see as being consistent with the Coast Park position paper that WACRA previously prepared. WACRA’s support for the proposed Discovery Trail as outlined in the Concept Report is based on a number of reasons, including:

• Support for the broader goals of the metropolitan Coast Park, which was described as “fabulous”

• The ability to deliver significant recreation, educational and tourism benefits to the community

• The proposed Discovery Trail being consistent with the Conservation Reserve status of Tennyson Reserve, and the in-progress application for heritage listing of the area.

26


URPS


www.urps.com.au

Path alignment

WACRA identified their preferred path alignment to comprise the following options: A, C, D, F, G, H, J, K, N, P, R, T, W, Z, Bb, Ee, Hh, Ll.

These options were supported because they minimise impact upon the dune environment and are practical for users, for example, providing appropriate vision and sightlines for cyclists, experiences in the dunes in some places and sea views in others. Generally, WACRA support path alignment options closer to residential properties because these avoid an alignment through dune swales, and land adjacent residential properties often contains more degraded vegetation.

WACRA suggested that the proposed trail needs to address east-west linkages, including the existing sand management issues. They also emphasised the importance of providing access to the Discovery Trail from logical places such as the car park and Bournemouth Street, especially for people in wheelchairs.

Path materials

WACRA support the proposed approach of using a change in surface material to denote arrival in a key activity node or a choke point in the Discovery Trail. It was suggested that plantings should be low to the ground at these nodes, and that there could be creative use of natural materials to inset a centre line.

In discussing the rocks shown in the imagery in the Concept Report to denote arrival at a key node or trail intersection, WACRA suggested that public artworks could be installed and serve a similar purpose of providing a visual marker.

WACRA suggested that consideration should be given to the construction of boardwalks where practical, as there are many examples where this has been done with little environmental damage. WACRA does not oppose the use of a boardwalk in sections where swales need to be crossed allowing exotics to be removed and endemic species to be planted.

Opportunities for learning and interpretation

WACRA identified support for the educational and interpretation opportunities that the Discovery Trail presents in a number of areas including the local environment, the coast, recreation and indigenous culture and heritage.

Consideration of indigenous significance

WACRA emphasised the importance of recognising and promoting the indigenous significance of the Tennyson area. There are a number of ways this could be achieved, including through interpretation along the Trail, artworks or an interpretive centre.

Maintenance

WACRA expressed that the ongoing maintenance and management of infrastructure such as the Discovery Trail can be a significant issue for the community. It was suggested that a statement of commitment (or similar) about ongoing maintenance should be included in the Concept Report.

27

www.urps.com.au


Additional Documents

WACRA provided the following documents which contain additional detail about their position on the Coast Park and the proposed Discovery Trail through Tennyson Reserve:

• WACRA Position Paper on Coast Park

• Summary of responses to the WACRA Position Paper

• WACRA Newsletter, March 2016.

These are included in Appendix C.

4.5 Other organisations

During the consultation period, the following organisations provided written submissions:

• Field Naturalists Society of South Australia

• South Australian Herpetology Group

• Nature Conservation Society of SA.

These submissions are included in full in Appendix A, with a summary provided below.

Field Naturalists Society of South Australia

The Field Naturalists Society of SA support improvements that allow visitors to enjoy the unique coastal area and learn about the fragile dune environment. The Society is concerned that the Discovery Trail has been designed as a “roadway…designed for fast cycling at the expense of pedestrians and the environment”. The loss of sensitive vegetation, the use of an impermeable road base for subsurface and the pruning of old trees were identified as particularly problematic. The Society suggests designing a slower path that incorporates greater use of boardwalks to improve safety, limit pedestrian movement and protect habitat, and incorporate environmental trails with a Visitor Interpretive Centre that includes toilets.

South Australian Herpetology Group

The submission from the South Australian Herpetology Group was written by the same individual who prepared the submission for the Field Naturalists Society of SA and therefore contained the same content.

Nature Conservation Society of South Australia

The Nature Conservation Society of South Australia supports the proposal for a low speed shared use path as a means to provide opportunities for education and interpretation. The Society suggest that further consideration of the impact of the Discovery Trail on the conservation values of the area by:

• Restricting path width to 1.8 m including shoulders except where native vegetation is severely degraded

• Restricting path access to walking-pace cycling, with faster riders directed to Military Road as a way to reduce vegetation clearance associated with passing areas and maintaining sight lines

28


URPS


www.urps.com.au

• Carefully considering the number and location of pullover/passing areas, and involve the Tennyson Dunes Group in determining the final placement.

The society identified its preferred alignment to comprise segments A, B, D, F, G, H J K N Q R S U W X Y Aa, Dd, Ff, Hh, Ll to minimise ecological impacts.

29

www.urps.com.au

URPS Stakeholder Engagement Report Other feedback

5.0 Other feedback This section summarises feedback received via the feedback forms completed on the YourSay website5, written submissions6 and through telephone conversations7.

5.1 Who participated?

A total of 348 feedback forms were submitted on the YourSay project website. It should be noted that not all questions were completed when feedback forms were submitted. Of the 348 forms submitted:

• 304 indicated their interest or connection with the Tennyson Reserve

• 239 provided comments regarding preferences for alignment

• 236 gave reasons to support their preference

• 226 provided other comments.

All 348 respondents entered a postcode. These are mapped in Figure 5-1 which demonstrates approximately one third of respondents came from postcode 5022 which covers Grange, Henley Beach, Henley Beach South and Tennyson. The mapping also shows that there were large numbers of responses from postcodes to the immediate north, south and east of postcode 5022.

A total of 34 written submissions were received by members of the wider public. In addition, 3 members of the wider public provided comments over the phone.

5 This section summarises all feedback forms received via the YourSay website. It was not possible to extract feedback from residents in the primary catchment of Tennyson Reserve as respondents identified their address by postcode, not by street address. 6This section summarises all written submissions received excluding submissions from residents (summarised in Section 3) and submissions from stakeholder groups (summarised in Section 4). 7 This section summarises all information gathered through telephone conversations excluding conversations with residents summarised in Section 3.

4

1

1

1

2

1

1 1

2

5

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

8

22

1

23

14

6

6

124

3

1

1

11 4

3

2 1

41

5

2212 1

2

113 13

13

31

1

24

0 2,500 5,0001,250 m[www.urps.com.au

FIGURE 5-1 YOURSAY RESPONSES BY POSTCODE

PROJECT TENNYSON COAST PARK CONCEPT REPORT STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENTJOB REF. 2015-0411PREPARED BY APDATE 09.05.2016DATA SOURCE DPTI

Number of responses by postcode1-34-89-1516-30Over 30

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

1

1

1

21

2

1

1

GAWLER

SEAFORD

TANUNDA

KAPUNDA

ARDROSSAN

STRATHALBYN

ALDINGA BEACH

Other areas of SA, interstate or overseas = 6 responses

31

www.urps.com.au


5.2 Interest or connection with the Tennyson Reserve

Table 5-1 summarises respondents’ interest or connection with Tennyson Reserve, with the most common responses being enjoyment of the natural environment, walking, local resident, beach activities and cyclist. ‘Other’ responses include research/education, involvement in local groups and having grown up in the area. It should be noted that respondents were able to nominate more than one interest or connection with Tennyson Reserve.

Table 5-1 Interest or connection with the Tennyson Reserve (noting that respondents were able to nominate more than one interest/connection).

Response (number) Response (percentage)

Enjoyment of the natural environment 200 65.8%

Walker 186 61.2%

Local resident 142 46.7%

Beach activities 134 44.1%

Cyclist 126 41.5%

Participation in conservation activities 72 23.7%

Other 30 9.9%

5.3 Preference for path alignment

The YourSay feedback form asked people to consider the options for the alignment of the Discovery Trail, having regard to the possible positive and negative consequences outlined in the Concept Report and Information Brochure, and identify their preferred path alignment. This was followed by a question which asked people to explain their response.

People responded to this question by

• Providing general comments about a preferred path alignment (refer section 5.3.1)

• Identifying a preferred path alignment and the reasons behind these preferences (refer section 5.3.2)

• Providing comments about why they do not support the proposed Discovery Trail and/or any of the options for path alignment (refer section 5.3.3)

This is followed by other comments that do not necessarily relate to path alignment (refer section 5.4).

5.3.1 General comments about path alignment Through the YourSay feedback forms, written submissions and phone conversations, a range of general comments were received about what people would like to see considered in determining the alignment of the path, such as:

32

Other feedback

URPS


www.urps.com.au

• Views of the ocean and the ability to experience the dunes

• Providing a direct path through the reserve to link the Coast Park

• Providing a meandering path system to slow cyclists, and ensuring the safety of all users

• Preference for the path being located away from residents to protect security, privacy and amenity

• Preference for the path to be located out of the main dunes closer to residential properties

• Prioritising broader metropolitan goals over local concerns.

Comments that illustrate these general comments include:

“I like to see the sea when walking”

“The Coastal path must follow the coast8”

“I like the idea of being immersed in the dunes for a true ‘discovery’ experience”

“Trails nearer to residents would seem to be the best options, more accessible and least damage to flora and fauna”

“As far away from houses as possible”

“The most direct alignment is preferred. Current options are far too meandering to be functional”

“I would hope that the best alignment is chosen based on future sustainability and best connectivity with the rest of the metro path”

“Any path go through the middle of the dune, using existing trails where possible, and expending paths for short lengths where necessary, to stay away from residents”

“Local residents security, safety and privacy should be respected as best it can through the design process”

“I want a safe path as close to the beach as possible for children, myself and people in wheelchairs to use”

“I want a path to walk from Grange to North Haven. Why should only a few beachside residents enjoy these dunes”

“I think this is long overdue…properly designed and maintained paths will make for a more sustainable conservation area”.

5.3.2 Comments about a preferred path alignment Approximately one quarter of people who submitted a YourSay feedback form identified a preferred path alignment by assembling segments outlined in the Concept Report and Summary Brochure. A similar

8 Emphasis added as per respondent’s form entry.

33

www.urps.com.au


proportion of written submissions from the wider public identified a preferred path alignment. Three alignment options were regularly identified through these processes, as discussed below.

The eastern alignment

Of those who identified a preferred path alignment, the most common was an alignment generally to the east of Tennyson Reserve, outside of the dune swale and closer to residential properties.

This alignment most commonly comprises the following path segments:

A, C, D, F, I, J, K, N, P, R, T, W, Z, Bb, Ee, Hh, Ll.

On a number of occasions, the following minor variations were identified:

• B instead of C (further away from homes)

• G and H instead of I (following existing track alignment)

• L and O instead of K, N, P and R (following existing track alignment)

• Q instead of P (further away from important stands vegetation)

• Aa and Cc instead of B (avoiding area of high integrity revegetation).

Reasons offered in support of the eastern alignment included that it is the most direct option, well suited to the requirements of users, generally avoids a pathway through the middle of the dunes, is easier to maintain, and is the best compromise. Comments that illustrate these reasons include:

“This appears to be the best compromise for safety of users, dune vegetation and construction”

“Does not cut a swathe through the middle of this sensitive area”

“Would accommodate the broadest use whilst having minimal impact on the existing dune area”

“Less sand drift issues, a straighter track, less construction work needed, set back further from the beach, less environmental impact, less maintenance required”

“It will make maintenance easier with good access options”

“The path should stay along the sea side of residents’ homes. They do not own that land and it should be available for all to use and not isolated to the wealthy owners”.

Western alignment

The western alignment refers to a pathway that is located generally closer to the coast and away from residential properties. This alignment most commonly comprises the following path segments:

A, B, D, F, I, J, L, O, S, V, Y, Aa, Dd, Gg and Kk.

There were two common variations to this alignment. The first involves avoiding segments A, B, and D by re-instating segment E (noted in the Concept Report as not being an option) and developing a new walking path between Bournemouth Street and segment E. Acknowledging that the new path would

34

Other feedback

URPS


www.urps.com.au

traverse an area of high integrity vegetation, it was identified that it could function as a walking only pathway.

The other common variation involved following existing trails G and H as an alternative to segment I.

Reasons offered in support of the western alignment included that it generally makes use of existing trails, is located away from residential properties and therefore minimises impacts on privacy, security and quality of life, and provides a good dune experience being located in the swales of the dunes. Comments that illustrate these reasons included:

“I don’t see going very close to the houses as the best way to enjoy the place”

“Avoids sensitive area and gives privacy to residents”

“It minimises the amount of new tracts that need to be cut and cleared and also the overall area disturbed by tracks”

“It also avoids the major works and damage that would occur in widening and suring up the slope in area K”

“Existing alignment minimises impacts on vegetation and dune ecology and privacy of residents – more enjoyable nature experience”.

Alternative alignment

An alternative alignment comprising the following the segments was also frequently identified:

A, B, D, F, G, H, J, K, N, Q, R, S, U, W, X, Y, Aa, Dd, Ff, Hh and Ll.

This alignment was identified as making the best use of existing trail network and avoids vegetated areas of ecological significance. It was also noted by some that this is the preferred alignment of the Tennyson Dunes Group. Variations to this alignment involves segments L and M instead of K, or L and O instead of K, N, Q and R. Both of these variations make use of existing trails.

Comments that explain preferences for this alignment include:

“Seems less engineering required and less impact on dunes”

“Good combination of track with views and low impact”

“It puts dune ecology at top priority. Slows down the flow for people to appreciate where they are”

“One of these options will be created, so I went with the least intrusive”

“It allows for the greatest width of dune structure

“More in keeping with a Discovery Trail not a fast bikeway”.

35

www.urps.com.au


5.3.3 Comments explaining a lack of support for the proposed Discovery Trail Approximately one third of YourSay respondents and many who provided written submissions identified that they did not support any of the options for path alignment in the Concept Report and that their preference is for no change, or very minor upgrades to the existing trail network. Reasons given to explain this lack of support are summarised below

Environmental impact

Respondents identified that they do not support the proposed pathway because of impact of the path, future users and its construction on the ecological and intrinsic values of the dunes, with comments including:

“None of the options is preferred. The path will destroy too much of the dunes ecology”

“The dunes are fragmented and tiny already. I would prefer NOTHING is done that compromises any of the existing vegetation that has been so lovingly restored by the various local groups involved”

“The subsurface is an impermeable road base that will cause irreversible damage to tree roots”

“Materials proposed need to be carefully selected to ensure there is no long term damage to the ecology of the dunes”

“So tired of the narcissism of humans thinking they have some inalienable right to invade nature/our precious environment”

“Why has no Environmental Impact study been carried out to ensure the last reaming dunes in Greater Adelaide are not destroyed”

“Pruning of vegetation is unacceptable in some areas…pruning will destroy this habitat and 300 year old trees take 300 years to revegetate”.

Impact on experiences and atmosphere of the dunes

Some respondents expressed concern that the proposed trail will draw additional users to the area, negatively impacting the natural, wild and isolated experiences that Tennyson Dunes currently offers, commenting:

“My family regularly visits Tennyson especially for its beautiful coast line! We like the fact that its current state offers plenty of quiet enjoyment of the beautiful beach”

“It’s the only place of its kind along the coast where people can come to enjoy some true coastal wilderness. I would prefer neither option be enacted”

“Upgrade existing paths and preserve the peace and tranquillity of Tennyson Dunes”.

“Leaving the dunes in a natural state will attract far more ‘users’ in the long run, people seeking an inspiring environmental experience”

36

Other feedback

URPS


www.urps.com.au

Concerns about bikes and a shared use pathway

A number of people did not offer a preferred alignment because they do not support the concept of a shared use path, particularly catering for bicycles because of the risks to safety of users and environmental degradation. For some, catering for bikes was seen as problematic because it means that the paths need to be wider than existing trails, and include passing areas. Comments that illustrate this concern included:

“I don’t want to share the path with mad cyclists. There is no way that I will go on a shared path – as you never know what is around the next bend”

“I cycle the Coast Park, I spend some time in the Tennyson Dunes – I don’t think that both are compatible and one will have to give, despite the good intentions of the project”

“Cyclists would be able to ride too fast aggravating the already present dangers to pedestrians of all ages”

“I think cyclists can be better served by a different route”

“This proposal is over designed so as to accommodate bikes and with a path 10m wide in places, this will destroy the beautiful Tennyson Dunes”

“Sand will drift on to the paths and become dangerous for cyclists such as me”

“I can see problems with safety, maintenance, conflict between users and gradual deterioration of areas surrounding the path”.

Impacts on residents

Some respondents indicated that they do not prefer any alignment because of the impact upon local residents, for example:

“Any path that runs along the fence lines of local residents is a violation of our privacy and security”

“Many of the proposals are unfair for the local residents”

“The poor residents, they don’t deserve a bike track in front of their homes”

Preference for other options

Some people identified that they did not support any of the options presented in the Concept Report and prefer other options, such as:

• Aligning the Coast Park away from Tennyson Reserve along Military Road

• Using elevated board walks

• Developing a circuitous Discovery Trail that starts and finishes at the car park

• Developing narrow walking tracks that loop off the main Discovery Trail

37

www.urps.com.au


• Redesigning the path to facilitate lower speed cycle movement.

These options are illustrated by comments including:

“I would also like to see narrow single track ‘walking paths’ provided as an alternative to the coast park main path – a small loop off coast park using K, M, N, Q and R”

“Why can’t the path start and return to the car park. That’s the best way to visit the dunes – and it will probably cost less with less impact on the Dunes”

“I would put a walking path near the sea so we could view the sea as we walk. Why couldn’t there be a boardwalk along the top so we could see the sea”

“My preference would be for an elevated timber walkway similar to Largs Bay. This would allow minimum interference with the dunes and provide constant views of the beach”

“My highly preferred option was the earlier one which provided an upgraded walking path through the dunes, plus a faster cycling-grade path skirting back of the dunes closer to Military Road”

“By reducing the designated bike speed, the path can be narrower, have less overtaking areas, have less vegetation removal for sight lines, have a more permeable subsurface and meander around existing vegetation easier.

5.4 Other comments

Need for a sufficiently wide pathway

A range of views were expressed through the YourSay feedback form, written submission and phone calls about path width. In contrast to the previously discussed views about the pathway being too wide, some respondents consider that the proposed path widths are too narrow for intended users, commenting:

“The path is far too narrow for the various uses”

“The path is too narrow and the use of choke points must be reviewed… the path needs to be of a consistent construction with all environmental and user aspects considered. The paths at Semaphore and Largs may serve as a template for what is required”

“I fail to see why the path can’t be at least the minimum width of 2.5 metres or even 3 metres”.

“The path width may not be adequate to cater to all members of the community, particularly those who use a wheelchair or mobility device…it would be more cost-effective to implement a wider and consistent trail during the initial build, rather than upgrading the trail later when accessibility issues arise”

Path materials and signage

The materials to be used for the construction of the Discovery Trail was of interest to many respondents, who offered a range of views about how hard it should be, ensuring suitability for the anticipated users and the ability to practically construct a pathway through sand dunes. Signage was also identified as being of particular importance. Example comments include:

38

Other feedback

URPS


www.urps.com.au

“I also hope the surface finish will be flat enough with very loose material on top for stable riding and safe braking”

“The surface of this trail must be hard enough to allow for the variety of wheeled human powered vehicles such as bicycles wheelchairs and prams but it should be completely porous to avoid any water run-off and erosion”

“It is recommended that further consultation and specific wheelchair testing is done to ensure this surface will be appropriate for all users”

“It is concerning that there is no mention of what path construction standards/guidelines are going to be utilised to enable safe and adequate infrastructure provision”

“There are many examples where the State Government’s coast pathway has been constructed along the absolute beach front/coast and through sand dunes”

“I have doubts the path will be stable on any dunes. All the examples provided in the document are on more compact scenarios”.

“Signage will be important… it would be good to identify a suitable point at which cyclists can be advised to detour around the Dunes if they want to go fast…you need to make it clear that cycling through the Dunes is at walking pace”.

Consider the tourism opportunities

A number of respondents identified the project should recognise the tourism opportunities that the Discovery Trail may present, commenting:

“We have an opportunity to develop a special hub of interest and appreciation for all future visitors to our section of the Coast Park, incorporating the unique and important natural environment, flora and fauna, with Kaurna and early European settlement, history and heritage”

“I think that the successful completion of this could make the Adelaide’s metropolitan beaches an icon of South Australian tourism”

Funding and implementation

Many respondents discussed funding and implementation, with some expressing the view that the proposed construction cost does not represent a good use of Government funds. Others offered encouragement for the Discovery Trail to be implemented as soon as possible, especially given the long process to arrive at this point. Comments included:

“A minor upgrade of the existing paths will deliver access for all…and save the state $4million on a project that has no quantifiable public demand”

“Govt should get on with it, fast track it to avoid protests from these small minority of voters”

“I believe the planning and design process for this stage of the Coast Park Path has been delayed by specific interest groups who do not accurately represent the wider community”

39

www.urps.com.au


“I have a son with a disability…and this would be absolutely fantastic for us to be able to move safely with our son and without stress!”

Engagement process

Many respondents commented on the engagement process, expressing frustration that the feedback form was oriented around the preferences for path alignment when they may not support any option, the importance of seeking feedback from Aboriginal Australians and current path users, and general support for the engagement process, for example,

“This survey is flawed, why don’t you have a choice of no option”

“I believe the consultation advertisement has been lacking”

“Have the first Australians been consulted about the dunes. I would love to hear about their connection and ancestors stories about the dunes”

“Feedback should be sought from current path users”

“Well considered and structured in a way that all interested parties to provide constructive and considered feedback rather than just an emotional response”

“I think it has given the public a good opportunity to see the options and make an informed decision”.