Pathways

In 2011 the Shire reviewed the pathway strategy that was adopted in 2006 with the intention of setting out priorities until 2022. Meetings were held at Aireys Inlet in June and July 2011, with advertisements placed in local press, but individual ratepayers were unfortunately not notified.

AIDA supports walking as the preferred way of getting around and enjoying our coastal townships and our natural surroundings. It was AIDA’s proposal early in 2004, for the development of an Aireys Inlet Pedestrian Strategy, which ultimately led Council to develop the current Pathways Strategy for the Shire in 2006. We supported the 2006 Pathways Strategy because it included only gravel paths in Aireys Inlet to Eastern View and our endorsement of the strategy was based on that specification. AIDA’s current viewpoint remains largely unchanged. We now understand that – so long as the pathway system is designed to be safe and convenient – opposition to concrete pathways has become even firmer in the local community since 2006.

Regarding the current review, we recommended that the key priorities for the design and implementation of the Pathways Strategy in our area should be:

1. Protection of our informal local coastal village character by constructing any pathways in compacted gravel of a suitable standard, rather than of concrete, and employing an informal curved design rather than straight alignments;
2. Retaining wherever possible the shared use of residential roads for both pedestrians and vehicles;
3. Completing the establishment of a strategic framework of main pedestrian links between the key parts of our townships and also the key surrounding environmental attractions;
4. Establishing additional pedestrian crossings over the Great Ocean Road;
5. Where appropriate and required within residential areas, creating a limited number of pedestrian cross connections with the main strategic pathway framework;
6. Establishing strategic linkages with the pathway systems of GORCC and DSE;
7. Enhancing pedestrian connections with beaches, cliff tops and surrounding bushland, so as to provide improved recreational opportunities and reduced need for local car use and car parking.

At recent meetings about the shire’s pathway strategy review, it was clearly expressed that Aireys Inlet and district wanted curvilinear pathways made of gravel or granular sand. Concrete or exposed aggregate surfaces were not wanted, although it was agreed that sometimes these surfaces would be necessary – especially on steep slopes.

In a subsequent meeting with council officers, the shire’s viewpoint was expressed to AIDA. Director of Infrastructure, Sunil Bhalla, pointed out that the shire was guided by the Road Management Act. He said that the Act requires that roads be inspected at least once a year, and this is the frequency also used by the shire for paths. Sunil felt that, with a once a year inspection, the shire could not guarantee that all paths would be safe and the shire free of risk due to inadequate maintenance.

So we have a conflict between the desires of ratepayers and what the council sees as both responsible use of infrastructure funds and a ‘policy defence against litigants’. As stated in the August newsletter, AIDA remains convinced that our original proposal for gravel paths in our region is the correct solution.

AIDA notes that GORCC has not used concrete for the pathways it is constructing in Aireys Inlet (see photo below of the portion of the Surf Coast Walk between the Painkalac Bridge and the Aireys Inlet Reserve). The shire and GORCC therefore seem to have reached quite different conclusions with respect to the maintenance costs and risks of non-concrete pathways.

Gary Johnson  AIDA Newsletter December 2011

Which Path to Follow? (Update April 2012)

The Surfcoast Shire’s draft 2012 Pathway Strategy Review – updating the 2006 version – was released in early 2012. However, at their 22 February meeting Surfcoast Shire councillors decided to confer on whether to amend its Pathways Strategy, or to drop it altogether and consider new ways of planning and funding pathways. The strategy has been controversial, especially since last year residents in Jan Juc rejected levies for footpaths, which many had opposed. As noted above, in recent years AIDA has made detailed submissions to the shire, supporting pathways which are either gravel or ‘natural’ (mown grass) and necessary to facilitate pedestrian access. We have consistently opposed other surfaces as out of keeping with the preferred rural character of our communities.