Get documents about "Semaphore Park Trial Public submissions summary
Description
public-trial pdf
Document Sample
Summary of the Semaphore Park trial breakwater public submissions
1 Background
A trial breakwater was completed at Semaphore Park in 2004-05 as the first stage of the
Semaphore Park Foreshore Protection Strategy (now part of the Adelaide’s Living Beaches
Strategy). The breakwater was designed to trap a portion of the sand drifting northward
along the coast for recycling back to eroding areas to the south. Sand also continues to flow
northwards past the breakwater, maintaining the supply of sand to beaches further north.
One of the evaluation criteria for the trial breakwater is that the community is satisfied that
the breakwater is necessary and performing as required.
In order to assess whether the evaluation criterion has been met, public opinion has been
canvassed via a public submissions form. More than 5,600 submissions forms were mailed to
residents immediately surrounding the trial breakwater, and were available in hard copy at
the City of Charles Sturt and City of Port Adelaide Enfield. The public submissions period was
open for three weeks, and was advertised twice in the Portside and Weekly Times
Messengers.
In addition, a public meeting was held on 24 October at the Semaphore Surf Life Saving
Club. The meeting was attended by approximately 60 people, and was an opportunity to
provide members of the public with information on the trial breakwater.
Seventy-one (71) public submissions were received, which are summarised in section two
below.
2 Public Submissions Summary
Question One
“How often do you visit Semaphore Park beach?”
Of the 70 submissions received, Figure 1 shows the frequency with which people visit the
beach. The chart shows that the majority of respondents (88%) visit Semaphore Park beach
weekly or more frequently. Only 5% of respondents visit Semaphore Park beach rarely or
never.
1
How often do you visit Semaphore Park beach?
41%
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
Rarely
7% Never
47% Not stated
1%
4%
0%
Figure 1
Question Two
“Has the trial breakwater affected your enjoyment of the beach at Semaphore Park?”
Figure 2 below shows a breakdown of how respondents’ enjoyment of the beach has or has
not been affected by the trial breakwater. The majority of respondents (70%) indicated that
the trial breakwater had either improved their enjoyment of the beach, or that their
enjoyment had not been affected by the trial breakwater. Roughly a fifth of respondents
(19%) reported that the trial breakwater had reduced their enjoyment of the beach.
This question also had the opportunity for comments on how respondents’ enjoyment of the
beach had been affected. Of those that provided a comment (44 respondents) the
comments can be grouped in the following way; positive comments, amenity concerns,
downdrift erosion concerns, and safety concerns.
Positive comments (20) related to improved beach amenity. Some reported that the
breakwater provides interest or improvement in the beach environment, attracting fish and
dolphins. The majority of positive comments related to an improvement in beach width and
stability.
Eleven (11) comments in this section were received relating to the impacts of downdrift
erosion. Many reported that the dunes and beach to the north of the structure have been
reduced significantly, and are concerned that there are no longer adequate buffers from
storms.
Other comments included concerns about amenity (12) in particular visual amenity (that the
breakwater is unattractive, particularly at low tide), and smell, from seagrass build up. Some
reported changes in the beach, including it becoming increasingly rocky or shelly north of the
trial breakwater.
Two comments related to safety, that the trial breakwater has changed localised conditions,
increasing currents.
2
Has the trial breakwater affected your enjoyment of
the beach at Semaphore Park?
11%
30%
Improved
Reduced
No difference
40% Not stated
19%
Figure 2
Question Three
“Have you noticed a change in the number of trucks on the Semaphore beaches?”
Figure 3 below shows that nearly half (45%) of respondents reported that they have noticed
less trucks on Semaphore beaches than previously. This is compared to only 13% that have
noticed an increase in the number of trucks. Significantly, a third of respondents (33%) were
unsure of any change in truck numbers.
Additional comments were invited, and they varied between those who had or had not
noticed a difference in the number of trucks. Some commented that there were fewer truck
movements in the area immediately surrounding the jetty, or that trucking was still apparent
but at different times or in different locations. Other comments expressed a need for
additional trucking to supplement the beach and dunes to the north of the trial breakwater
that have been subject to downdrift erosion.
Have you noticed a change in the number of trucks
on the Semaphore beaches?
33%
More
9%
Less
Unsure
Not stated
13%
45%
Figure 3
Question Four
“Do you think the Semaphore Park trial breakwater has performed as expected by protecting
this section of the coast and trapping sand and should be made permanent?”
3
Over a quarter (27%) of respondents reported that the trial breakwater has acted completely
as expected and should be made permanent. One third (29%) reported that it has
performed partly as expected. Approximately a fifth (18%) of respondents reported that the
trial breakwater has made the beaches worse, or has not worked as expected (‘not at all’).
Do you think the Semaphore Park trial breakwater
has performed as expected...and should be made
permanent?
17% 11% Completely
7%
Partly
9%
Neutral
Made worse
29% Not at all
27% Not stated
Figure 4
Additional comments on respondents’ observations of the performance of the trial
breakwater were invited. Fifty of the 70 respondents provided additional comments (some
provided multiple comments). Of these, 22 comments were positive, reporting that the trial
breakwater had worked as expected by stabilising that section of the coast. An additional
four comments specifically indicated that the beach had improved as a result of the trial
breakwater. Conversely, four comments reported that the beach quality and amenity had
been reduced. Dune erosion as a result of downdrift erosion was commented on by
16 respondents, with concern from an additional four respondents that there is no longer
sufficient dune and beach buffer to protect coastal properties from storms. Seven
respondents listed safety as a concern, and that potential risks need to be more effectively
managed.
Question Five
“Is there anything else we should know?”
The last question provided an opportunity for additional or alternative comments that were
not captured in the other questions. More than half (total of 43) of the 70 respondents
provided additional comments. The comments have been grouped into the following
headings:
Comment Number
received
Positive impact, breakwater successful, beach improved 10
Dune erosion, beach width, downdrift erosion 7
Amenity, visual impact, quality of water 7
Safety risks (incl. deeper water, currents, risk of drowning) 5
Beach/dunes now at greater risk from storms 4
Reduce trucking 3
Alternative methods of coast protection?
• Seawall 3
4
Comment Number
received
• Groyne 1
• Recycle sand from Largs/Semaphore 1
• Leave beach alone/restore natural sand flow 3
• Put breakwater in different location 1
• Construct breakwater from stone 1
• Build additional breakwaters 2
• Prevent stormwater run-off from entering the Gulf 2
• Sand dune revegetation 1
Hazardous beach condition (e.g. soft sand) 2
Breakwater damaged and in need of repair 2
Cost of breakwater 1
3 Additional Submissions
In addition, a submission was received from the Port Adelaide Residents Environment
Protection Group (PAREPG). This submission emphasises the importance of a holistic and
multi-faceted approach to coastal management that places importance on the
environment and ecology.
The main points in PAREPG’s submission are:
• Concern about the cost of the trial breakwater;
• That the trial breakwater by itself does not resolve coastal erosion; and
• How the trial breakwater will be managed in the future, as well as management to date.
Conclusion
The principal concerns raised by the public are downdrift erosion, visual amenity and
potential for storm damage.
The results of this consultation will be presented to the Coast Protection Board and the
Minister for Environment and Conservation, along with the results of the independent
technical review.
If it is decided to proceed with a permanent structure at the location of the trial breakwater,
the community will be advised of this decision and may have the opportunity to make further
comment during the development assessment process.
If it is decided to pursue an alternative protection strategy (or an alternative location for a
permanent breakwater) for Semaphore Park, the community will be consulted on that
alternative strategy.
5
Related docs
