Unley Footpaths ♿️
Unley Council has a dilemma when considering replacement of footpaths; as seen at the recent Council Meeting.
In 2011 Council endorsed a program to replace the bitumen footpaths with 1.2m wide brick paving. This reduced width was a significant cost saving measure.
In 2015 Council endorsed its Active Ageing Strategy to ensure accessibility for everyone.
In September 2016 Council endorsed its Environmental Sustainability Strategy which in part seeks to ensure that there is an increase in the tree canopy of the street trees.
In October 2016 Council considered what to do in 7 streets that are scheduled for new brick paving. The dilemma is whether or not to remove some trees and widen the footpath or retain trees and leave existing squeeze points.
Consideration was given to a desired width of 1.8 with a minimum width of 1.5m.
A modern gopher/scooter requires a gap 78cm (most are 75cm wide).
The idea of having room for 2 gophers to pass was considered unreasonable; as was 2 prams and as for cyclists they should use the road.
So, in most cases, where the gap (between tree and fence) is 90cm the tree will be retained. That was the general position of most Councillors.
In the future, each street will be assessed on merit and consideration of the foot traffic on that street. Where aged facilities are nearby, there will be an attempt to widen the footpath.
I believe that the outcome (after a very long debate) is a reasonable compromise ie. where possible retain the tree and leave squeeze points of 90cm. 🍀☘🌺☘🍀
In 2011 Council endorsed a program to replace the bitumen footpaths with 1.2m wide brick paving. This reduced width was a significant cost saving measure.
In 2015 Council endorsed its Active Ageing Strategy to ensure accessibility for everyone.
In September 2016 Council endorsed its Environmental Sustainability Strategy which in part seeks to ensure that there is an increase in the tree canopy of the street trees.
In October 2016 Council considered what to do in 7 streets that are scheduled for new brick paving. The dilemma is whether or not to remove some trees and widen the footpath or retain trees and leave existing squeeze points.
Consideration was given to a desired width of 1.8 with a minimum width of 1.5m.
A modern gopher/scooter requires a gap 78cm (most are 75cm wide).
The idea of having room for 2 gophers to pass was considered unreasonable; as was 2 prams and as for cyclists they should use the road.
So, in most cases, where the gap (between tree and fence) is 90cm the tree will be retained. That was the general position of most Councillors.
In the future, each street will be assessed on merit and consideration of the foot traffic on that street. Where aged facilities are nearby, there will be an attempt to widen the footpath.
I believe that the outcome (after a very long debate) is a reasonable compromise ie. where possible retain the tree and leave squeeze points of 90cm. 🍀☘🌺☘🍀
We may have to revisit at least one of the roads Bob. The measures approved for that street will see the street itself (which includes a parking bay) reduced to 4.7m
ReplyDelete