Muizenberg walkway extension on the cards

The Kalk Bay and St James Ratepayers’ Association want to put the extension of the walkway, which currently runs from Muizenberg beach to St James, back on the agenda.

The original intention for the walkway, which was built in 1988, was that it extended from Muizenberg, all the way through to Clovelly, but due to funding issues at the time, the walkway ended in St James.

The association wants to revive the plan to extend the walkway to Kalk Bay area and are in the process of gaining the necessary paperwork and approval to pick up where the plan was left off and extend the
walkway from Danger Beach to Dalebrooke.

“The original construction of the walkway from Muizenberg station to St James pool was planned for continuation through to Clovelly, but it was put on hold due to funding. The council official for coastal management said the plans are still on file for the extension.

“Due to the lapse of the project at the time, we need re-negotiation on the project. We will take up the matter with local council in the week and join in dis-
cussion,” said association chairman Tony Trimmel

Mr Trimmel said the outlook for the project was positive because role-players such as the Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (PRASA), which owns the land along the railway line, had responded favourably.

The ratepayers’ association has also been in touch with the donor who funded the original walkway and things look good, they said.

“At the moment we have a dangerous situation where people walk on the railway line and we’ve had a couple of fatal incidents on the line over the years when people walk between the areas mentioned. We initiated the discussion and Prasa’s people came with the history of the walkway. An EIA (environmental impact assessment) report was done five years ago to asses a walkway from Kalk Bay to Clovelly,” said Mr Trimmel.

When the Echo approached the City of Cape Town for comment, Brett Herron, the mayoral committee member for transport and urban development, said because the project
was one being initiated by the rate-
payers’ association and not the City itself, they’d only be able to give input once the plans had been tabled before Sub-council 19.

Prasa did not respond to our request for their input, by the time this edition went to print.