EDITOR – I attended the meeting at the Sharks Board dealing with the proposals for a tidal pool and these are my observations.
Some time ago, while on the promenade, I was asked to answer a questionnaire.
Was I one of the approximately 135 beach-users the consultants’ survey noted? There were at least 50 others interviewed on that day, so question the numbers they recorded!
That questionnaire referred to a proposal to construct a tidal pool at uMhlanga, and the impact it would have on our beachfront.
It now appears all these consultants, on behalf of eThekwini Municipality, are addressing this issue as both the tidal pool and sand conservation, which might raise the question of why one has to propose a tidal pool to control sand erosion when there are other means to deal with the latter without a pool.
Up and down our coast, tidal pools are derelict to a large extent and not used as much as some might think, and for significant reasons among which are water pollution, pool sediments, fouling and of course the regular problems of sand ingress consequent to tidal movements.
It’s been suggested a tidal pool will either save the loss of visitor ‘spend’ or, as they would like to think, increase that ‘spend’.
Along the uMhlanga beach-front, we have two major hotels, a number of apartment blocks many, if not all, have their own pools properly maintained, so one might ask why those residents and visitors would want to use a public tidal pool with all its attendant issues.
I would venture to suggest the tidal pool might attract only local visitors which is not likely to attract any significant additional ‘spend’. Why would it, simply by having a tidal pool?
Nobody is saying who is driving this proposal, despite many questions asked.
‘No, to the Tidal Pool’
uMhlanga
