cooks river bank naturalisation project · 2013. 3. 19. · canterbury road • plans, clarify why...

FINAL REPORT COMMUNITY CONSULTATION OUTCOMES on the Draft Concept Designs Cooks River Bank Naturalisation Project Prepared for Sydney Water by Thompson Berrill Landscape Design Pty Ltd May 2009

COOKS RIVER BANK NATURALISATION PROJECT FINAL REPORT COMMUNITY CONSULTATION OUTCOMES PREPARED BY TBLD P/L MAY 2009 FOR SYDNEY WATER PAGE 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE # 1.0 INTRODUCTION 3 2.0 SUMMARY OF SURVEY OUTCOMES 4 2.1 Personal Details of Respondents 2.1.1 Gender 2.1.2 Age range 2.1.3 Where they live 2.2 Responses to Recommendations 5 2.2.1 Site 1 – Cup and Saucer Creek, Canterbury 5 2.2.2 Site 2 – Flockhart Park to Beamish Street, Campsie 6 2.2.3 Site 3 – Upstream of Second Avenue, Belfield 7 2.3 General Comments for all 3 Sites 8 3.0 SUMMARY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS 9 4.0 SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO THE KEY ISSUES RAISED DURING

THE CONSULTATION PHASE 12 5.0 CONCLUSIONS 15

ATTACHMENT A 16 Detailed information from the survey

ATTACHMENT B Sydney Water Cooks River Bank Naturalisation Project Newsletter and Survey


1.0 INTRODUCTION

Sydney Water has identified the need to renew sections of its aging concrete lined channels along the Cooks River. As part of this renewal, Sydney Water has investigated renewal of these assets with more natural methods including rock work (using sandstone) and native planting. This naturalisation would significantly improve the environmental, aesthetic, safety and recreational values of the foreshore area, whilst maintaining its hydraulic function.

As part of the project, Concept Designs for three of the sites that require renewal have

been prepared. Sydney Water has consulted with the community to receive feedback on the three Draft Concept Designs for the naturalisation works. Consultation has included meetings with Community Stakeholders, display of the draft designs on site and distribution of a Newsletter and Survey to residents who live near the three sites. This consultation report is a summary of the feedback received on the Draft Design and an outline of proposed changes to the plans as a result of the comments.

The three sites for the Draft Bank Naturalisation Concept Designs are:

• Site 1 - Cooks River at the confluence of Cup & Saucer Creek in Canterbury • Site 2 - Flockhart Park extending upstream to Beamish Street in Campsie • Site 3 - Upstream of Second Avenue in Belfield

1.1 Survey method A newsletter and survey was prepared to seek feedback from the community regarding the draft concept designs for the Cook River Bank Naturalisation Project. The survey was designed so that residents were able to provide feedback on one, two or three sites by agreeing or disagreeing with major design features. There was also space for them to make general comments. The newsletter and survey is attached to the report for reference. Refer Attachment B. 5,300 newsletter/surveys were distributed to residents within an approximate 200 metre radius around proposed sites, including some placed in brochure holders on site. Posters advertising the project, which included the design plan graphics from the newsletter, were displayed near the proposed sites with brochure holders for people to take the newsletter/survey. Three advertisements were placed in the local newspapers in December 2008 and January 2009 including Bankstown Torch, the Canterbury Express and the Cooks River Valley Times. The plans and survey were also available on the Sydney Water website. The consultation phase ran from mid-December 2008 through to mid-February 2009. A total of 119 surveys were completed and returned which represents a 2.2% return rate. This included 105 returned via mail and 14 completed on-line. Seven detailed written responses were attached to the surveys. The survey outcomes are described in Section 2 of this report and the written submissions have been summarised in Section 3. The 2.2% return rate has provided a substantial sample and there are strong consistent trends in the responses provided. The greater than 80% agreement with the majority of recommendations is an unusually strong level of support, and given the sample size, Sydney Water can make the assumption that that this sample indicates the broader community views regarding the project. A greater than 2% return rate is considered satisfactory to gain sufficient sample for these types of household surveys.


1.2 Overall summary of outcomes The feedback from the surveys was very supportive of the proposed bank naturalisation works. More than 96% of the respondents supported the principle of removing the concrete channel and improving the natural values of the Cooks River with 29% of respondents stating they fully support the project and the majority of the design recommendations received over 90% support. This is a strong endorsement of Sydney Water's approach to bank naturalisation. The recommendations with the less than 90% support included: • 71% support removing the Willow Trees at Site 2 • 86% support construction of a small viewing platform at Site 2 • 87% support and the new path around the wetland at Site 1 Refer to Section 4 of this report for an explanation of the reasons for the recommendations, and any changes proposed to the plans as a result of the consultation outcomes.

1.3 Response to the survey outcomes The Project Working Group at Sydney Water, which includes representatives from Canterbury Council, the Cooks River Foreshore Committee and the Sydney Metropolitan Catchment Management Authority, has reviewed the consultation outcomes and prepared a response to the key issues raised from the surveys, written submissions and the Community Stakeholder Workshop. This response includes a description of the design rationale and summary of the proposed changes where applicable. Refer to Section 4 of this report for the Responses to the survey outcomes.


2.0 SUMMARY OF SURVEY OUTCOMES

2.1 Personal details of respondents

2.1.1 Gender

More than 50% of responses are male and over 30% are female with 10% not completed. This is an unusually low response rate from females.

2.1.2 Age range

There is a good representation of people between the ages of 30 and 69. The lower response rate from younger people is normal for surveys.

2.1.3 Where they live Postcode

The majority of respondents are from Campsie, Croydon Park and Canterbury, which reflects the proximity of these areas to the three detailed sites.

Streets


The following table is a summary of the precise location in each suburb (i.e. street) of the residents who responded to the request to provide their suburb and street name in the survey. A high proportion of respondents are from streets that directly adjoin the river. This means the feedback includes those residents who will be directly impacted by the proposed works. For list of individual streets and the number of respondents from each, refer to Attachment A, A1.

2.2 Responses to recommendations

Respondents were asked to indicate their views on each of the site recommendations by ticking the appropriate box indicating whether they 'agree' or 'disagree'. 86 respondents completed Site 1, 87 respondents completed Site 2 and 84 respondents completed Site 3. Note, items with an asterisk (*) have corresponding comments in a table following the graphs.

2.2.1 Site 1 - Cup and Saucer Creek, Canterbury

The following table is a summary of the outcomes of each recommendation, showing percentages of residents that agree or disagree. 86 respondents completed Site 1 which represents 72% of total surveys.

2.2.1.1 Comments received on Recommendations

Below is a list of comments made relating to the recommendations for Site 1. The total number of respondents to each comment is included in brackets, where more than one respondent made the comment. Comments without a number in brackets at the end were made by one respondent.

Rec No. Comments specific to recommendations for Site 1 a • Costs, too high

• Contamination of soil from previous industrial uses near the river including dumping of car batteries where wetland is proposed

• Wildlife, concerns that wetland will become nesting ground for Ibis • Frogs croaking will disturb residents

c • Costs, too high • Paths, will reduce potential of conflict with cyclists • Paths, concerns that gravel will be difficult for cyclists to ride on


Rec No. Comments specific to recommendations for Site 1 d • Concrete, visually unpleasant

• Concrete, artificial

f • Viewing platform, costly and of little use • Viewing platform, like the sign, but not viewing platform

g • Fence removal, agree only if safe, particularly for children (2) • Fence, remove all (2) • Agree as removal will reconnect people with the River • Fence removal, concerns about dogs jumping into river

h • Vegetation, concern if vegetation is too tall and dense then people will feel unsafe (2)

• Vegetation, concern if vegetation is too tall and dense then views will be lost from path

• Concern about loss of open grassed areas for recreational use

2.2.1.2 Overall comments specific to Site 1 • Mosquitoes, concern that wetland and saltmarsh will increase numbers and lead to

public health issue (2) • Mosquitoes, control methods required if wetlands are constructed • Costs, concerns about taxpayers having to fund cost of the wetland • Dogs, move dog off-leash area away from cyclists and industrial factories near

Canterbury Road • Plans, clarify why works to the northern side of river are not included in plan • Plans, fully support the project • Plans, two private properties are shown as green on the plan which is misleading • Recreation, need to consider recreational use as well as native habitat values. • Vegetation, control methods required to reduce weed infestation • Vegetation, promote regrowth of Mangroves on northern bank and on little island • Wetland, concern about unpleasant odours • Wildlife, methods required to reduce the impact of non-native birds • Wildlife, good to see increasing number of wildlife return to river • Water quality, include measures to improve the water quality in Cooks River

2.2.2 Site 2 - Flockhart Park to Beamish Street, Campsie

The following table is a summary of the outcomes of each recommendation, showing percentages of residents that agree, disagree and responses not-completed. 87 respondents completed Site 2 which represents 73% of total surveys


2.2.2.1 Comments received on Recommendations Below is a list of comments made relating to the recommendations for Site 2. The total number of respondents to each comment is included in brackets, where more than one respondent made the comment. Comments without a number in brackets at the end were made by one respondent.

Rec No. Comments specific to each recommendation for Site 2 a • River, naturalised riverbanks are a priority b • Paths, will reduce potential for conflict with cyclists e • Willow trees, retain (2)

• Willow trees, beautiful and should not be removed • Willow trees, retain even though they are not natives and plant

natives around them f • Fence removal, agree only if safe, particularly for children (4)

• Fence removal, concerns about dogs jumping into river • Fence, remove all

g • Vegetation, concern if vegetation is too tall and dense then views will be lost from path

• Vegetation, concern if vegetation is too tall and dense then people will feel unsafe

• Grassed areas, retain all • Grassed areas, retain some

2.2.2.2 Overall comments specific to Site 2 • Grassed areas, good for children playing sport • River, hydraulic modeling and dredging access required due to silt disposition • Dogs, retain off-leash areas • Dogs, clarify if off-leash area on south side of river will be retained

2.2.3 Site 3 - Upstream of Second Avenue, Belfield

The following table is a summary of the outcomes of each recommendation, showing percentages of residents that agree, disagree and responses not-completed. 84 respondents completed Site 3 which represents 71% of total surveys.

2.2.3.1 Comments received on Recommendations

Below is a list of comments made relating to the recommendations for Site 3. The total number of respondents to each comment is included in brackets, where more than one respondent made the comment. Comments without a number in brackets at the end were made by one respondent.


Rec No. Comments specific to recommendation for Site 3 b • Path, question the need for it

• Paths, will reduce potential for conflict with cyclists • Paths, concerns gravel surface will be hard to walk on

c • Concrete, repair not replace (2) • Concrete, removal will allow debris and rubbish to be retained in

bank d • Planting, will encourage rats, etc e • Fence removal, agree only if safe, particularly for children (3)

• Fence removal, concerns about dogs jumping into river • Fence removal, fully support • Fence, retain

f • Vegetation, concern if vegetation is too tall and dense then views will be lost from path

• Vegetation, concern if vegetation is too tall and dense then people will feel unsafe

g • Grassed areas, retain

2.2.3.2 Overall comments specific to Site 3

• Plans, residents of Walsh and Fountain Avenue are against proposals • Plans, implement as soon as possible • Plans, should extend to more sites • Seats, more seating in shaded areas required • River, trapping of storm water run-off and refuse required

2.3 General comments for all three sites Included in the list below is a summary of general comments for all three sites, with the %

indicating the number of respondents who made the comment. For additional single comments (made by one respondent) refer to Attachment A, A2.

Draft Concept Designs 29% Fully support the project 8% Implement as soon as possible 5% Should extend to more sites 3% Good for flora, fauna environment and public River 6% Good to see river rehabilitated/restored 4% Remove concrete 2% Concerns about flooding 2% Concerns about rubbish dumping/other pollution Vegetation 3% Concern about proposed planting obscuring views of the river 2% More indigenous plants required, removal of exotic species desirable 2% Concerns that over-vegetation in some areas would increase criminal activity Environment 4% Look forward to a more natural environment 2% Look forward to ecologically harmonious environment Wetlands 2% Fully support creation of wetlands and water gardens 2% Concern that wetland/swamps will increase mosquitoes and lead to public health

issue Paths 3% Separate paths for walkers and cyclists required 2% Cyclists are a hazard when walking dogs, enforce use of warning bells


Costs 2% Concerns about price rises to pay for projects 2% Money would be better spent on other things Dogs 3% Retain leash-free areas and provide fenced-off area for dogs to exercise Wildlife 2% Good to see increasing number of wildlife return to river Maintenance 2% Regular maintenance required

3.0 SUMMARY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

In addition to the returned questionnaires, seven written submissions were received. A summary of key issues and opportunities raised in these more detailed submissions has been included below. Draft Concept Designs • Wonderful to see plans for improvement of Cooks River and Parklands. • Whilst objectives of the plans are supported, concern about impact of proposed works

on the foundations of adjoining properties. • Project needs to demonstrate it can be engineered successfully, rather than just focus

on biodiversity. Also, would like to see other specialists involved, e.g. water science, geologists, geographers, etc.

• Clarify how the banks are going to be reshaped and what materials are to be used for bank layback. Structure needs to be solid.

River • Concerns about unpleasant odours from low water level in the river. • Without regular maintenance of river banks, naturalised areas will degrade, as there is

no regular flushing of stormwater, limiting its environmental benefit. • Concerns about flooding during heavy rain periods. • Views across the river at Sites 2 and 3 at low tide will be degraded by concrete

channel base. • Concrete channel base will not assist with flood management as floods rarely occur

and there is plenty of depth capacity available in Sites 2 and 3 at high tide. • Concerns that water level in some parts of Cooks River is too low, resulting in silt and

rubbish build up in the bank naturalisation works. Wildlife • Due to current fencing, breeding turtles get trapped on cycle path side of the River

(next to the Mangroves on the path next to Canterbury Racecourse). Fences should facilitate turtle movement.

• East of Punchbowl Road there is a range of birds along the waterway amongst the Mangroves including Great Egrets, White-faced Herons and a range of ducks . These birds need to be protected from dogs off-lead.

• Riparian vegetation is very important for birds. Currently there are not enough areas of dense shrubs away from human traffic, and more of this style of planting is required as it is important small bird habitat.

• Concerns about deceased wildlife and domestic animals in drains and poor maintenance of them.


• Steep rock banks are not conducive to egg-laying turtles. Vegetation

• Removing some willow trees is favourable. • Fully support idea of many indigenous and native plants. • Concerns that too much revegetation will block views and paths close to the river. • Clarify why indigenous plants are being planted, considering Canterbury is the ‘City of

Cultural Diversity’. Would be good to see plants from places that are strongly represented in the community.

• Many of trees in Turpentine-Ironbark and Floodplain Forest grow too high and cause damage to shared pathways, obscure sunlight and views and can cause damage to houses.

Wetlands • Concerns that the wetland will encourage rats and increase number of mosquitoes

(and threat of Ross River Fever). Continuous control and maintenance would be required.

• Concerns about lack of water flow in Cup and Saucer Creek leading to stagnant water in Wetlands with wind blown rubbish and litter. If water were pumped to ensure continuous flow, noise levels of the pump would be a concern.

• Wetlands need to be large enough to allow ‘filtering’ and water quality treatment. • Concern that wetlands will over saturate soil and impact on adjoining residents.

Paths

• The danger of shared pedestrian/cycle paths. • Lack of consideration given to cyclists accessing Cooks River path from Berna Street.

Cyclists currently have to ride on very narrow path. • Cycling on gravel paths is too difficult, prefer sealed paths. Water quality/litter • Clean up litter and storm generated pollution (would in-turn encourage community

participation). • Concerns that Council will not regularly maintain the rubbish trap at Site 1 once

recommendations have been implemented. Mown grass areas

• Decreasing mown grass areas is an excellent strategy. • Retain mown grass areas as they are healthy spaces for children, dogs and walkers to

enjoy the outdoors. Viewing Platforms

• Rarely used and a waste of money. Fences

• Fully support and approve of fences being removed.


4.0 SUMMARY OF RESPONSE TO THE KEY ISSUES RAISED DURING THE CONSULTATION PROCESS

The following tables summarise the comments or key issues raised in the surveys, written

submissions and the Community Stakeholder Workshop held in late November. The tables include a response to the comment and in italics at the end of the response a summary of whether a change will be made to the Concept Designs as a result of the comment.

The Response to the comment and direction for change is a result of review of these

outcomes by the Project Working Group at Sydney Water. This group comprises representatives from Sydney Water, Sydney Metropolitan Catchment Management Authority, Canterbury Council, Cooks River Foreshore Working Group and the consultants.

4.1 Site 1, Cup and Saucer Creek confluence

NO SUMMARY OF COMMENT RESPONSE TO COMMENT 4.1.1 Do not support path around

the wetland due to costs and conflicts with cyclists. A total of 12% of respondents disagreed with the recommendation to build a path.

• The path around the wetland serves the dual purpose of recreational and maintenance access. The compacted gravel surface allows the paths to be easily repaired by Council when maintenance vehicle access is required into the wetland, and they are the most cost effective paths to construct and repair.

• The proposed path is 2 metres wide, meanders and is constructed of compacted gravel. This will mean that cyclists won't be travelling at high speed and the noise of the gravel surface will alert pedestrians to their presence. It is therefore anticipated there will not be conflicts such as those on the sealed paths where cyclists are able to travel at high speed.

No change 4.1.2 Request additional

revegetation between the wetland the Cup and Saucer Creek.

• The consideration of additional revegetation has been balanced with concern from others about the loss of open sight lines and personal safety.

No change 4.1.3 Suggest a litter deflector be

included on the south bank to prevent litter catching in the naturalisation works and deflect it into the boat harbour area, which is already used as a litter trap.

• The need for a floating litter deflector is more easily determined once the works have been constructed and a floating litter deflector can be easily installed if it is determined to be required.

No change

4.1.4 Request a fence be constructed around the wetland to prevent dog access to it.

The proposed wetland will not be fenced at this stage for the following reasons: • it is primarily for water quality treatment purposes and

maintenance access is required • there are shallow safety benches around all the pond

margins, therefore it will not pose a safety risk to dogs or humans. The only pond that will not have safety margins is the sediment pond and this is already shown to have barriers around it

• potential impact on fauna movement • there is no precedent for fencing in other constructed

wetlands and will be an additional cost for the construction and maintenance, and it is not considered necessary at this stage.

No change 4.1.5 Prevent spills from Cup and

Saucer Creek entering the wetland

• The intent of the proposed water quality treatment wetland is primarily to treat the water quality from Cup and Saucer Creek prior to discharge into the Cooks River.


NO SUMMARY OF COMMENT RESPONSE TO COMMENT • Currently there is inadequate information available

regarding spills in Cup and Saucer Creek, their frequency and type of spill to determine if the installation of containment area is justified in this location at this stage. This issue would be investigated as part of the detailed design.

• At this stage it is inappropriate to include a containment area in the Concept design due to the lack of information of whether it is required.

No change 4.2 Site 2, Flockhart Park to Beamish Street Campsie

NO SUMMARY OF COMMENT RESPONSE TO COMMENT 4.2.1 Do not support removal of

the Willow trees as they are aesthetically pleasing and established. A total of 26% of respondents disagreed with the proposal to remove the Willow trees.

• It is acknowledged that the Willow Trees contribute to the established landscape character of this section of Cooks River, however, they are weeds in a waterway environment, and the majority are growing on the bank in locations where earthworks are proposed to create the naturalised banks. Retaining all the Willows would limit the extent of naturalisation works that could be achieved in this area.

• The proposed indigenous trees will become established relatively quickly and provide overstorey shade and a natural character.

Proposed change Investigate retaining the large Willow closest to Burwood Road bridge in the short term (i.e. for three to five years). Once the indigenous revegetation becomes established, remove the Willow. This Willow will only be retained in the short-term if it does not constrain the naturalisation works proposed in the vicinity of this area. This is subject to detailed design.

4.2.2 11% of residents do not support building a viewing platform, reasons given relate to cost and low use.

• The viewing platforms are to allow people to have closer access to the river and enjoy views over the naturalised areas including saltmarsh and revegetated banks. Once the revegetation is established in this area, the use of the platform is likely to increase by people who currently enjoy the open water views.

• There is potential for the viewing platforms to be funded via external grants.

No change 4.3 Site 3, Upstream of Second Avenue, Belfield

NO SUMMARY OF COMMENT RESPONSE TO COMMENT 4.3.1 Removal of fencing due to

potential safety issues for children and dogs. The main concern with this is at Site 3 (11%) with some concern at Site 2 (9%) and Site 1 (4%)

• The existing fence is currently only provided in locations where the bank is steeper than 1:3 grade. Fencing in the naturalised bank areas is proposed to be removed only where the bank layback works result in the bank grade being less steep. The proposed revegetation works, which include predominantly trees and tufted ground layer plants with some shrubs, will also discourage access. Removal of fencing improves the opportunity for future fauna movement between the open space and the river along with improved visual character.

• Sydney Water is currently undertaking public safety risk assessment of all their assets and the need for fencing will be reviewed as part of this process. The notes on the Concept Design already refer to potential fence removal subject risk assessment, consultation and


NO SUMMARY OF COMMENT RESPONSE TO COMMENT detailed design.

No change 4.4 All sites

NO SUMMARY OF COMMENT RESPONSE TO COMMENT 4.4.1 Density of revegetation

blocking views of the river and clear sightlines within the reserves.

• In all three sites there will be revegetation between the path and river bank which will reduce the open views of the river. The proposed vegetation between the river and the path is a combination of tufted low ground cover species and trees, with some groups of shrubs. There will be openings between the groups of shrubs to retain views of the water. Shrubs will not be planted close to the edge of the paths to retain open sightline along them.

• The proposed viewing platforms will allow people to access the river's edge with open views over the water.

No change 4.4.2 Proposed works impacting

on flooding. • The modelling of the concept designs into the Flood

Study has concluded that that the proposed bank naturalisation works do not negatively impact on flooding and may result in minor localised improvements.

No change 4.4.3 Lower water levels in Cooks

River and concern about odours, silt and rubbish build up.

• The water levels in Cooks River will not be affected by the proposed naturalisation works. There is potential that additional litter and silt may deposit in the vegetation and rock work on the naturalised banks during flood events. This issue has already been raised during design development and it was agreed that increased maintenance levels may be required to remove litter after flood events. The introduction of broader catchment-wide at-source water quality and gross pollutant controls measures will also assist with managing this issue.

No change


5.0 CONCLUSIONS The consultation outcomes have demonstrated a strong support for the proposed bank

naturalisation works. The issues raised during the process have been noted, and many of these are issues that will be resolved at the next stage of detailed design.

Sydney Water will update the Concept Design Plans to include the changes outlined in

this report. The updated Concept Design Plans and the consultation report will be used by Sydney Water to gain internal funding approval and seek external funding for works where appropriate.

Once internal and external funding is secured, Sydney Water will then progress the

project to detailed design and construction. If the funding bids are successful, it is anticipated construction will commence within the next two years.


ATTACHMENT A A1 Streets in each suburb surveys were received from The table below indicates the suburb and the number of surveys received from each

street. Many of these streets directly adjoin the sites where the works are proposed, which means that the survey responses have included residents who will be directly affected by the proposed works.

Suburb No Street Name

5 First Avenue Campsie 2194 4 Second Avenue

4 Beamish Street 3 Eighth Avenue 3 Sixth Avenue 2 Third Avenue 2 Seventh Avenue 2 Fifth Avenue 1 Shelley Street 1 Cowper Street

4 Balmoral Avenue 3 Not completed

Croydon Park 2133

2 Yandarlo Street 2 Windsor Avenue 2 Walsh Avenue 2 Trelawney Street 2 Hextol Street 2 Hampton Street 2 George's River Road 1 Weil Avenue 1 Riverside Street 1 Lees Avenue 1 Fountain Avenue 1 Burwood Road 1 Brighton Avenue

7 Berna Street 3 Hurlstone Avenue

Canterbury 2193

3 Foord Avenue 2 High Street 2 Not completed 1 Warrigal Street 1 Tincombe Street 1 Sugarhouse Road 1 Melford Street 1 Keir Avenue 1 Fore Street 1 Church Street 1 Canberra Street 1 Ward Avenue 1 Acton Street Earlwood 2206 4 Thompson Street 3 Waterside Crescent 2 Ronald Avenue 2 Burlington Avenue 1 Younger Avenue 1 Gornall Avenue 1 Winston Avenue 1 Permanent Avenue 1 Baringa Road Belfield 2191 2 Clarence Street 1 Punchbowl Road 1 Omaha Street 1 First Avenue 1 Baltimore Street Ashfield 2131 1 Goodwin Avenue Belmore 2192 1 Cecilia Street


Suburb No Street Name Summer Hill 2130 1 Lorne Street Strathfield 2135 1 Long Street Regents Park 2143 1 Wilson Avenue

A2 Additional general comments from the survey The following comments are single comments from the returned surveys, i.e. no more

than one person made each comment. Water quality and in-stream health

• Remove sediment so current can remove pollution and garbage • Concerns about odour at low tide in boat harbour area • Concerns about sewerage discharge street drainage • Needs to be stopped at its source, not in river • Litter traps on storm water drains required

Paths

• Fully support creation of paths • Retain cycle path during construction • Clarify if walking/cycle paths will be on both sides of the river • Clarify if final path at Ewen Park will be wider than current path

Landscape character and facilities

• Is pleasant now, leave it alone • Playgrounds require more shade • Concerns about vandalism • Cafes along river required

Wildlife

• Clean water ponds for frogs and birds required • Concerns that certain wildlife will destroy environment

Fence

• Fence along Canal Road unnecessary • Concerns about costs of fence along Canal Road

Planting

• Would like to see species other than indigenous planted Vegetation

• Revegetation in South Strathfield is visually appealing Litter

• Place bins along paths Consultation

• Waste of time Crossing

• Pedestrian crossing across Wardell Road on south side of river desirable

COOKS RIVER BANK NATURALISATION PROJECT FINAL REPORT COMMUNITY CONSULTATION OUTCOMES PREPARED BY TBLD P/L MAY 2009 FOR SYDNEY WATER

ATTACHMENT B

Cooks River Bank Naturalisation Project Newsletter and Survey

cooks river bank naturalisation project · 2013. 3. 19. · canterbury road • plans, clarify why...

Documents