Cottes­loe sea pool north, not south

Western Suburbs Weekly - - Western Opinion -

I TO­TALLY dis­agree with the lo­ca­tion of the salt­wa­ter ocean pool pro­posed by Trevor Saleeba for a num­ber of rea­sons.

It is di­rectly in line with the full blast of the south­west­er­lies with no ev­i­dent pro­tec­tion.

It in­trudes fur­ther on to a clearly iden­ti­fied and reg­is­tered Abo­rig­i­nal site of sig­nif­i­cance, Mudu­rup Rocks, which lies im­me­di­ately west of the Cottes­loe Surf Life­sav­ing Club and south-south­east of the Cottes­loe beach groyne.

It ex­tends onto the Cottes­loe Reef Fish Habi­tat Pro­tec­tion Area. It makes no pro­vi­sion for peo­ple with dis­abil­i­ties. Where are the handrails, ramps or hoists?

It iso­lates swim­mers from the Cottes­loe beach cul­ture by sep­a­rat­ing them from the sand with di­rect ac­cess into the ocean.

It is not clear how this de­sign meets Aus­tralian stan­dards for pool safety for chil­dren i.e. pool fenc­ing.

It en­croaches on part of the ocean sur­face used by surfers and kite surfers.

I am a man­ual wheel­chair user who loves swim­ming and who has been a mem­ber of the Cottes­loe Beach Pool Ac­tion Group for more than 15 years. Var­i­ous plans have been pro­posed over these years, The best from ev­ery point of view is the Locke/im­berger one on the north side of the groyne with shark pro­tec­tion, nat­u­ral sea wa­ter flush­ing, not sub­ject to sand or sea­weed drift and geother­mally heated. HIL­LARY RUMLEY,


Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Australia

© PressReader. All rights reserved.