July 24, 2017 11:21 am

Residents near Surrey’s Hawthorne Park upset with road proposal

Fri, Jun 2: Surrey residents are angry that a proposed new road will go through a popular park. Catherine Urquhart reports.


Some Surrey residents are concerned about the future of Hawthorne Park’s ecologically sensitive area following a proposal from the city to build a new road through the popular park.

Resident Steven Pettigrew said he received a letter from the city saying it wants to axe a bylaw that protects the area to be able to build the road.

“This is something we’re very upset with as well because if they can do this to one park, they can do this to many parks,” said Pettigrew.

Story continues below

He said the road will also go through people’s homes, disrupting the neighbourhood.

The proposed two-lane road would connect 105A Avenue with 105 Avenue on the other side of Hawthorne Park. In addition, there would be a two-lane southbound roadway linking it to 104th Avenue.

Pettigrew said many people want to see the park protected, not only Surrey residents.

“We’ve also got many thousands of people that have signed [a] petition that we have. And across Surrey, all the people that live in Surrey, and even in Vancouver and Richmond and all these other cities, they also think that the park should be protected.”

READ MORE: Surrey residents concerned about new route planned through popular park

Pettigrew said the proposed road will be two lanes, plus parking and bike lanes, adding that the ecological foot print would be too damaging.

He said he will be challenging the removal of the bylaw at City Hall Monday afternoon.

But Councillor Mike Starchuk said the concept is still in the works.

In an e-mail, Starchuk said that even though the proposed road would take up land, the city purchased property close to the park that’s larger and would bring in more trees.

With files from Yuliya Talmazan

© 2017 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.

Report an error


Want to discuss? Please read our Commenting Policy first.