Overview

The Barwon Coast Committee of Management and Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) are working to address erosion along the Barwon River at Ocean Grove.

The protection wall on the eastern riverbank near the Riverview Family Caravan Park and Barwon Estuary Walk is deteriorating.

In preparation for potential upgrade works, which includes a requirement to raise the barrier between the campsite and river by 500-1000mm, we’re seeking community and visitor preferences on the look and feel of an upgraded revetment at this site. This includes your ideas for the proposed safety rail on the caravan park side of the path.

Feedback can be provided below on three revetment design options, and on the placement of potential access points.

These views will be taken into account in the decision-making process.

Option 1

This option shows how the revetment could be repaired with more rocks and concrete infil. The increased height would be achieved through a new sea wall of between 700mm to 1000mm on the river side of the existing path way.

Option 1: Existing revetment is repaired with extra concrete and rocks. An additional low seawall constructed on the river side of the path, where possible (approximately 80% of pathway). A raised pathway built where construction of seawall is not possible (20% of pathway)

What are you views about this option ie. what do you like/don't like? You are welcome to submit as many responses as you like.

14 May, 2020

Anonymous says:

“AILA Victoria: Environmental impacts are unknown. Coastal Process Report is required. Poor visual amenity and only short-term solution.”

14 May, 2020

Anonymous says:

“Prefer to avoid concrete in waterways.”

14 May, 2020

Anonymous says:

“Option 1 seems to be cost effective while still allowing access and views.”

13 May, 2020

Anonymous says:

“Constructed wall could be replaced with a rock boulder edge terrace providing a Seating edge, viewing point, and acts as a safety barrier ”

13 May, 2020

Anonymous says:

“Similar to existing, but will require more maintenance than the other options. Concrete look not ideal”

13 May, 2020

Anonymous says:

“Option 1. Will look patchy, quick fix. They tried to infill the existing rock wall with concrete from Whitton Street years ago, terrible. ”

13 May, 2020

MDobbie says:

“Not favoured. Maybe short-term solution, patching existing revetment. Undesirable visual impact of proposed low wall, impeding view to river”

12 May, 2020

Anonymous says:

“It would be a great shame to build a wall and a fence along the river wall. Option 1 is the least intrusive.”

12 May, 2020

Anonymous says:

“I think Option 2 is the best one, this option is a patch job option 2 is long term and more t=like the wall up near the golf club.”

12 May, 2020

Anonymous says:

“Option 1 looks the closest to what is there now. That's our preference. Thanks for giving us the opportunity to choose.”

11 May, 2020

Anonymous says:

“The concrete in option one (and currently) is awful. Any opportunity to naturalise the environment and add vegetation should be taken!!”

11 May, 2020

Anonymous says:

“Looks like Option 2 or 3 would be better”

11 May, 2020

Anonymous says:

“Option 1 looks to be the least costly and seems to mirror what is already in place. Therefore, this would be our preference.”

11 May, 2020

Anonymous says:

“Option 1 seems the least disruptive and practical as it protects and conserves the natural environment”

11 May, 2020

Anonymous says:

“Extremely important to maintain ease of access to the beach, for families with young children & those with mobility disabilities. ”

11 May, 2020

Anonymous says:

“We camp in riverside and love the naturalness of this camping area with ease of access to river so we like option 1 with low wall as in no:2”

9 May, 2020

Anonymous says:

“It looks to me option 1 is the cheapest,fastest,and least invasive to the enviro ,with plenty of remaining access to the walk on the path ”

9 May, 2020

Anonymous says:

“Option 1. Keep existing rocks and extend with new rocks. Concrete is ugly.”

9 May, 2020

Anonymous says:

“I feel that option 1 is the best overall but the concrete is ugly, so I propose option 1 with the low wall as in option 2”

9 May, 2020

Anonymous says:

“This is the cheapest but not a smart long term investment. Concrete will look terrible compared to the other options. Especially 3.”

8 May, 2020

Anonymous says:

“Option 1 most cost effective and very similar to the existing.”

8 May, 2020

Anonymous says:

“What is causing the degradation? Very poor visual amenity, may have a negative environmental impact. Good the some plants are retained.”

8 May, 2020

Anonymous says:

“Option 1 seems to be the most cost effective while still allowing access and views. Perhaps concrete could be kept to a minimum. ”

8 May, 2020

Anonymous says:

“Option 1 is the least visually attractive particularly the concrete infill and the proposed concrete abutment to the sand. Keep natural look”

Option 2

This is option 2

Option 2: A new interlocked stone revetment. A raised pathway will be built along the entire length.

What are you views about this option ie. what do you like/don't like? You are welcome to submit as many responses as you like.

14 May, 2020

Anonymous says:

“AILA Victoria: Environmental impacts are unknown. Poor visual amenity and only short-term solution.”

13 May, 2020

Anonymous says:

“would be best to have a barrier wall between path and the new rock beaching, for safety and to provide informal seating ”

13 May, 2020

Anonymous says:

“Replace fence edge with terrace boulder edge with each step less than 500mm in height”

13 May, 2020

Anonymous says:

“Prefer option 2 or 3 or a hybrid of both; still need careful consideration access pathways/ramps to the beach for wheeled trolleys etc ”

13 May, 2020

Anonymous says:

“Option 2, As plants will be lost in this model maybe some pockets for planting can be included or plantings added to caravan park side.”

13 May, 2020

Anonymous says:

“Option 2 gets my vote for long term protection of caravan park and path infrastructure. ”

13 May, 2020

Anonymous says:

“Option 2. Please don't take short cuts when it comes to protecting the environment, river and vegetation. Build a safe track for young kids”

13 May, 2020

Anonymous says:

“Opt 2 seems best, and what about dredging river channel similar to Lakes Entrance as recommended by the Geologist some years ago?”

13 May, 2020

Anonymous says:

“I feel this is the best option, provided there is no damaged to the remaining mangroves between Dare & Lelean streets. ”

13 May, 2020

Anonymous says:

“i think option 2 looks the better option but is a little sad vegetation will be effected”

13 May, 2020

Anonymous says:

“Will the revetments extend up to Guthridge Street? This area gets very high too. Option 2 seems best to protect against rising sea levels.”

13 May, 2020

Anonymous says:

“Option 2 is our selection although it makes no mention of how high the path will be raised. Can you advise regarding this please?”

13 May, 2020

MDobbie says:

“Least preferred. Hard-engineered solution inappropriate in coastal setting. Loss of opportunity for river bank as multifunctional landscape ”

12 May, 2020

Anonymous says:

“This is the best of the 3, long term not as much maintenance. Will be Long lasting & cost less in the future.”

11 May, 2020

Anonymous says:

“Option 2 looks good. How about the sea wall all the way to the golf club/boat ramp. Surely this needs to be addressed??”

11 May, 2020

Anonymous says:

“Oprion 2 will look smart and less upkeep . Will be nive to have a raised walkway the whole way. ”

9 May, 2020

Anonymous says:

“Better than option 1 but option 3 will look the best and retain more vegetation. ”

8 May, 2020

Anonymous says:

“Option 2”

8 May, 2020

Anonymous says:

“Option should be low key as and fit with existing vegetation - local rocks and trees Is the board walk necessary”

8 May, 2020

Anonymous says:

“What is causing the degradation? Coastal process report is recommended. Very poor visual amenity, may have a negative environmental impact. ”

8 May, 2020

Anonymous says:

“Option 2 an effective long term solution which is consistent with existing and new walls near river and beach boat ramps. Need access steps”

7 May, 2020

Anonymous says:

“Option 2 is a hard engineered solution which would be out of place in a low energy location, and not preferred. ”

6 May, 2020

Anonymous says:

“OPTION 2 is best, with the fencing along the caravan park side to be the same as existing fencing and non intrusive to view.”

5 May, 2020

Anonymous says:

“Option 2 looks ugly and bulky. Will also take up river beach frontage and questionable how safe it is for kids/families.”

Option 3

Option 3: Revegetated riverbank with soil improvement works and shallow slope to river. A raised pathway will be built along the entire length.

Option 3: Revegetated river bank

What are you views about this option ie. what do you like/don't like? You are welcome to submit as many responses as you like.

14 May, 2020

Anonymous says:

“AILA VIC: Environmental impacts reduced & improved visual outcome with plantings & natural aesthetic. Restrict embankment height to 1000mm”

13 May, 2020

Anonymous says:

“Can erosion be addressed further out in the water as they do in some countries by creating natural barrier walls in the water?”

13 May, 2020

Anonymous says:

“would be best to have a barrier wall between path and the new rock beaching, for safety and to provide informal seating and for viewing. ”

13 May, 2020

Anonymous says:

“Replace fence edge with terrace boulder edge with each step less than 500mm in height. ”

13 May, 2020

Anonymous says:

“Either option 2 or 3, still need to consider access to the beach via ramps or pathways”

13 May, 2020

Anonymous says:

“If rocks are left loose People do move them, as play, & to get fish bait. Design 3 is not practical and is dangerous for swimmers. ”

13 May, 2020

Anonymous says:

“Extending the embankment (flatter) out to river will wash away with high tides & will allow public access any where irrespective of planting”

13 May, 2020

MDobbie says:

“Preferred option. Enhanced aesthetic & environmental values. Visual & physical proximity to river. Multifunctional as green infrastructure”

12 May, 2020

Anonymous says:

“Looks nice but would be washed away on higher tides/flooding more maintenance would be needed in future, this costs money, option 2 for me.”

12 May, 2020

Anonymous says:

“Option 3: Using native indigenous grasses to support the soil structure and the surrounding ecosystem.”

12 May, 2020

Anonymous says:

“Does the 1%AEP level consider climate change over 50 years? It must. Is option 1 even an option?”

11 May, 2020

Anonymous says:

“Is there an opportunity to dredge or widen elsewhere to add capacity to the system and reduce the additional embankment height? ”

11 May, 2020

Anonymous says:

“Safety rails are only needed for a 900mm+ drop. Batter the path or reduce the embankment height so there is still a river view at RiverView.”

11 May, 2020

Anonymous says:

“It would be better for the park amenity to batter from the top of path down to the road kerb, to eliminate the need for an obtrusive fence.”

11 May, 2020

Anonymous says:

“The CAD drawings are impossible to read, it’s hard to make an informed decision squinting at a ppt slide.”

11 May, 2020

Anonymous says:

“Love the naturalised bank in Option 3, it would be a great environmental gain.”

11 May, 2020

Anonymous says:

“I like the natural river bank look of option 3”

11 May, 2020

Anonymous says:

“My preference is option 1 - keeping the original vegetation and overall appearance. Also more economically viable.”

10 May, 2020

Anonymous says:

“3 appears to be most attractive option. There would be less beach the rock wall appears to be a gentler slope .Path will need to be wider.”

9 May, 2020

Anonymous says:

“Option three looks the nicest with the vegetation. But practically the high tides will devastate the vegetation. Go with option two.”

9 May, 2020

Anonymous says:

“Option 3. More cost but a nice natural river bank is a huge asset for the town. Restricted access to the caravan park better security”

8 May, 2020

Anonymous says:

“Environmental impacts may be reduced, good visual outcome with plants. Restrict the embankment height to 1m eliminate need for safety rail”

8 May, 2020

Anonymous says:

“Do not like use of concrete blocks or infill. Concern about maintenance and rubbish.Option 2 preferred”

8 May, 2020

daff_wallace says:

“Option 3 with regular seating along the wall/ pathway and access to caravan park and river is maintained. Natural look well planted out.”

Access Points