Karawara Pedestrian and Cycle Access Plan

Share Karawara Pedestrian and Cycle Access Plan on Facebook Share Karawara Pedestrian and Cycle Access Plan on Twitter Share Karawara Pedestrian and Cycle Access Plan on Linkedin Email Karawara Pedestrian and Cycle Access Plan link

The feedback period for the Karawara Pedestrian and Cycle Access Plan closed on 11 November 2024. Thank you to everyone who provided feedback. The City has reviewed all submissions and made modifications in response to feedback.

The draft Karawara Pedestrian and Cycle Access Plan was supported at the Ordinary Council Meeting on Tuesday 25 February 2025. You can read the minutes on the City's website (External link).

The Plan will now be referred to the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage for endorsement.

The City of South Perth has developed a draft Karawara Pedestrian and Cycle Access Plan (the Plan) which identifies existing pedestrian and cycle access ways in the area. The draft Plan covers the whole suburb of Karawara including Curtin Primary School and Meath Care.

There are 32 Pedestrian Access Ways, also known as laneways or PAWs in Karawara. The City has developed a classification system to identify if each laneway/PAW is essential or non-essential in terms of how it’s used by pedestrians and cyclists in Karawara:

  • Essential - the PAW should be retained and kept open because it plays an essential role in connecting people to places.
  • Non-essential - the PAW could be closed without causing significant disadvantage when connecting people to places.

The draft Plan also proposes infrastructure improvements to the PAWs/laneways.

The City sought your feedback on the above proposals.

Feedback closed 4pm, Monday 11 November 2024.

Find out more and get involved

Information and documents on this page are available in alternative formats upon request.

The feedback period for the Karawara Pedestrian and Cycle Access Plan closed on 11 November 2024. Thank you to everyone who provided feedback. The City has reviewed all submissions and made modifications in response to feedback.

The draft Karawara Pedestrian and Cycle Access Plan was supported at the Ordinary Council Meeting on Tuesday 25 February 2025. You can read the minutes on the City's website (External link).

The Plan will now be referred to the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage for endorsement.

The City of South Perth has developed a draft Karawara Pedestrian and Cycle Access Plan (the Plan) which identifies existing pedestrian and cycle access ways in the area. The draft Plan covers the whole suburb of Karawara including Curtin Primary School and Meath Care.

There are 32 Pedestrian Access Ways, also known as laneways or PAWs in Karawara. The City has developed a classification system to identify if each laneway/PAW is essential or non-essential in terms of how it’s used by pedestrians and cyclists in Karawara:

  • Essential - the PAW should be retained and kept open because it plays an essential role in connecting people to places.
  • Non-essential - the PAW could be closed without causing significant disadvantage when connecting people to places.

The draft Plan also proposes infrastructure improvements to the PAWs/laneways.

The City sought your feedback on the above proposals.

Feedback closed 4pm, Monday 11 November 2024.

Find out more and get involved

Information and documents on this page are available in alternative formats upon request.

Ask a question

Do you have any questions about the draft Karawara Pedestrian and Cycle Access Plan? Ask them here! We'll either answer it on this page (and send you an email) or we'll answer you directly.

loader image
Forgot password?
Didn't receive confirmation?
Register Now
Seems like you are already registered, please provide the password. Forgot your password? Create a new one now.
  • Share What is the rationale for determining laneway #1 & #5 as essential while other laneways with similar settings are classified as non-essential? If all laneways classified as essential are closed, would this increase the risk of crime or anti-social behavior along the remaining open laneways? Is there a plan to mitigate this risk and protect properties located along these laneways and the greenway? on Facebook Share What is the rationale for determining laneway #1 & #5 as essential while other laneways with similar settings are classified as non-essential? If all laneways classified as essential are closed, would this increase the risk of crime or anti-social behavior along the remaining open laneways? Is there a plan to mitigate this risk and protect properties located along these laneways and the greenway? on Twitter Share What is the rationale for determining laneway #1 & #5 as essential while other laneways with similar settings are classified as non-essential? If all laneways classified as essential are closed, would this increase the risk of crime or anti-social behavior along the remaining open laneways? Is there a plan to mitigate this risk and protect properties located along these laneways and the greenway? on Linkedin Email What is the rationale for determining laneway #1 & #5 as essential while other laneways with similar settings are classified as non-essential? If all laneways classified as essential are closed, would this increase the risk of crime or anti-social behavior along the remaining open laneways? Is there a plan to mitigate this risk and protect properties located along these laneways and the greenway? link

    What is the rationale for determining laneway #1 & #5 as essential while other laneways with similar settings are classified as non-essential? If all laneways classified as essential are closed, would this increase the risk of crime or anti-social behavior along the remaining open laneways? Is there a plan to mitigate this risk and protect properties located along these laneways and the greenway?

    Pelkm asked 5 months ago

    Hi, and thanks for your question.

    PAW No. 1 is proposed to be classified ‘Essential’ as it provides north-south movement between Jackson Road, Abjornson and Henley Streets and Curtin Primary School. The City’s audit found it to be well used with its design ensuring good sightlines and no concealment indentations. Mature trees and visually permeable fencing along one side further enhance pedestrian amenity.  

    PAW No. 5 is also proposed to be classified ‘Essential’ to ensure the long term north‐south connectivity between Jackson Road and Gillon Street via PAW No. 29. This is necessary in light of the recommendation to formalise the current inaccessible state of PAW No. 6.  

    The possible role within the movement network of PAW No. 2 is duplicated by PAW No. 1, with both terminating in the same location on Abjornson Street. In the same way, the north‐south route that is not provided by PAW No. 6 is provided via PAW No. 5, linking to both PAW Nos. 29 & 31. 

    PAW No. 28 is the subject of a current closure application with the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage. There are currently no other requests to close PAWs. 

  • Share When and why laneway #2 and #6 became in accessible to the public? Are they now owned by City of South Perth or the State government? on Facebook Share When and why laneway #2 and #6 became in accessible to the public? Are they now owned by City of South Perth or the State government? on Twitter Share When and why laneway #2 and #6 became in accessible to the public? Are they now owned by City of South Perth or the State government? on Linkedin Email When and why laneway #2 and #6 became in accessible to the public? Are they now owned by City of South Perth or the State government? link

    When and why laneway #2 and #6 became in accessible to the public? Are they now owned by City of South Perth or the State government?

    Pelkm asked 5 months ago

    Hi there and thanks for your question.

    PAW Nos. 2 & 6 have been inaccessible for many years with fencing to the Karawara Greenway inhibiting access. Whilst exact dates are unknown for PAW No. 2, it is likely that PAW No. 6 was fenced off after 1981. The land is owned by the State of Western Australia.

  • Share PAW No. 32, Non-Essential, the recommended infrastructure improvements refer to 'trial fencing off concealment indentation for a 12-month period'. What and where is the 'concealment indentation' ? on Facebook Share PAW No. 32, Non-Essential, the recommended infrastructure improvements refer to 'trial fencing off concealment indentation for a 12-month period'. What and where is the 'concealment indentation' ? on Twitter Share PAW No. 32, Non-Essential, the recommended infrastructure improvements refer to 'trial fencing off concealment indentation for a 12-month period'. What and where is the 'concealment indentation' ? on Linkedin Email PAW No. 32, Non-Essential, the recommended infrastructure improvements refer to 'trial fencing off concealment indentation for a 12-month period'. What and where is the 'concealment indentation' ? link

    PAW No. 32, Non-Essential, the recommended infrastructure improvements refer to 'trial fencing off concealment indentation for a 12-month period'. What and where is the 'concealment indentation' ?

    Marty asked 6 months ago

    Hi there and thank you for your question.

    A concealment indentation is an area where people are out-of-view when you are going down the laneway/PAW. In PAW No. 32, it is at the southern end of the laneway, indicated by an arrow in this image:

  • Share If a PAW is closed, what will be put in its place? on Facebook Share If a PAW is closed, what will be put in its place? on Twitter Share If a PAW is closed, what will be put in its place? on Linkedin Email If a PAW is closed, what will be put in its place? link

    If a PAW is closed, what will be put in its place?

    Jeff asked 6 months ago

    Hi and thank you for your question.

    In most situations, the land the PAW is on is purchased by the adjoining landowners. For more information, read our frequently asked question ‘What will happen to the PAWs/laneways proposed to be non-essential?’.

  • Share The Draft Access Plan alludes to requests to close PAWs by residents - what are some of the reasons? One could be led to believe it's crime-related; however, the plan states that there are low incidences of graffiti, a marker of anti-social activity, and the CPTED Assessment only relates to the potential of crime, not the actual incidence of crime. I am conscientious to my neighbours' requests, so would like to understand what has led to their requests. on Facebook Share The Draft Access Plan alludes to requests to close PAWs by residents - what are some of the reasons? One could be led to believe it's crime-related; however, the plan states that there are low incidences of graffiti, a marker of anti-social activity, and the CPTED Assessment only relates to the potential of crime, not the actual incidence of crime. I am conscientious to my neighbours' requests, so would like to understand what has led to their requests. on Twitter Share The Draft Access Plan alludes to requests to close PAWs by residents - what are some of the reasons? One could be led to believe it's crime-related; however, the plan states that there are low incidences of graffiti, a marker of anti-social activity, and the CPTED Assessment only relates to the potential of crime, not the actual incidence of crime. I am conscientious to my neighbours' requests, so would like to understand what has led to their requests. on Linkedin Email The Draft Access Plan alludes to requests to close PAWs by residents - what are some of the reasons? One could be led to believe it's crime-related; however, the plan states that there are low incidences of graffiti, a marker of anti-social activity, and the CPTED Assessment only relates to the potential of crime, not the actual incidence of crime. I am conscientious to my neighbours' requests, so would like to understand what has led to their requests. link

    The Draft Access Plan alludes to requests to close PAWs by residents - what are some of the reasons? One could be led to believe it's crime-related; however, the plan states that there are low incidences of graffiti, a marker of anti-social activity, and the CPTED Assessment only relates to the potential of crime, not the actual incidence of crime. I am conscientious to my neighbours' requests, so would like to understand what has led to their requests.

    Jeff asked 6 months ago

    Hi there. Thanks for your question.

    Previous requests to close PAWs primarily focussed on concerns that they can facilitate criminal activity such as break-ins and thefts and/or anti-social behaviour.

    These reasons were included in the most recent request for closure of PAW No. 28 between Koolunda Court and Yallambee Place received in 2020. The Council report of 15 December 2020 outlined the following: The rear pedestrian laneways have been long identified as a source of antisocial behaviour and access points for break-ins and thefts. Community engagement projects and reports to Council since 2006 have all raised the recommendation to close the rear pedestrian access ways. The PAW that is the subject of this petition was utilised as a test of the process to close the PAWs of this type in the Karawara area- this was attempted by the Council in November 2014. 

  • Share How does PAW usage monitoring account for demographic and socioeconomic factors, such as age? My elderly and mobility-restricted family members, though not regular users of the PAWS, rely on them to move around safely and efficiently through the suburb to access the main roads, public transport, and shops. Restricting or re-routing access to these destinations will severely inhibit their quality of life, and indeed, their dignity. From reading the Draft Access Plan, I am unclear how these factions of the population have been considered. on Facebook Share How does PAW usage monitoring account for demographic and socioeconomic factors, such as age? My elderly and mobility-restricted family members, though not regular users of the PAWS, rely on them to move around safely and efficiently through the suburb to access the main roads, public transport, and shops. Restricting or re-routing access to these destinations will severely inhibit their quality of life, and indeed, their dignity. From reading the Draft Access Plan, I am unclear how these factions of the population have been considered. on Twitter Share How does PAW usage monitoring account for demographic and socioeconomic factors, such as age? My elderly and mobility-restricted family members, though not regular users of the PAWS, rely on them to move around safely and efficiently through the suburb to access the main roads, public transport, and shops. Restricting or re-routing access to these destinations will severely inhibit their quality of life, and indeed, their dignity. From reading the Draft Access Plan, I am unclear how these factions of the population have been considered. on Linkedin Email How does PAW usage monitoring account for demographic and socioeconomic factors, such as age? My elderly and mobility-restricted family members, though not regular users of the PAWS, rely on them to move around safely and efficiently through the suburb to access the main roads, public transport, and shops. Restricting or re-routing access to these destinations will severely inhibit their quality of life, and indeed, their dignity. From reading the Draft Access Plan, I am unclear how these factions of the population have been considered. link

    How does PAW usage monitoring account for demographic and socioeconomic factors, such as age? My elderly and mobility-restricted family members, though not regular users of the PAWS, rely on them to move around safely and efficiently through the suburb to access the main roads, public transport, and shops. Restricting or re-routing access to these destinations will severely inhibit their quality of life, and indeed, their dignity. From reading the Draft Access Plan, I am unclear how these factions of the population have been considered.

    Jeff asked 6 months ago

    Hello and thank you for your question.

    The draft Plan has been developed in accordance with the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage’s ‘Procedure for the Closure of Pedestrian Access Ways – Planning Guidelines 2009’. It recognises the importance of connectivity and the role played by Pedestrian Access Way (PAWs) in the movement of pedestrians and cyclists across and within Karawara. It has been designed for all age groups and all levels of mobility. The infrastructure recommendations have been selected to improve overall useability and accessibility. Key examples of this include:

    1. Increasing footpaths around bollards and signposts to provide a 1.5m clearance which will enable wheelchairs, prams, mobility walkers greater ease of use
    2. Where currently not available, it is proposed to extend the footpath from the PAW to the street edge to improve legibility and accessibility for all users
    3. A range of new signage proposed is also proposed which will assist identifying PAWs and navigating the network of PAWs and Greenway areas of public open space.

    For more information, please read our frequently asked questions ‘What will happen to the PAWs/laneways proposed to be essential? And ‘What will happen to the PAWs/laneways proposed to be non-essential?’.

Page last updated: 04 Mar 2025, 03:45 PM