24 November 2012

Footpaths;1.2 metres v 1.8metres

I have had a discussion on this mater over the last few days with constituents and staff. Council made a decision a few years ago to reduce the width of the paved surface from 1.8m to the minimum allowed by regulation, 1.2m.
Why did we do this?
Initially to increase the area not paved to allow for greater water penetration of the soil and to reduce run off. This in  turn would reduce the volume of storm water in any rain event and reduce the chance of flooding.
This year's accelerated footpath budget of $1,500,000 would have cost $2,000,000 with the additional width. Over a length of time this allows for many more footpaths to be completed and enjoyed by residents.
The additional cost is caused by having to cut back the concrete plinth that many fences have that often extends underneath the surface up to 150ml and the removal and disposal of the additional soil that has to be removed.
The resident is then left with a small gap between their fence and the paving and a larger gap between the paving and the curb. The dilemma is then what to do with these areas? Many choose to have dolomite in the areas and simply leave them as bare land. However, many also landscape the areas with lawn or plants.
The street scape can look fantasic when all residents on any one street decide to do this.

1 comment:

  1. I much prefer the smaller paved surface and the capacity to plant on the verge.