Submission by
National Trust of Australia (Victoria)
Re: Barwon Heads Bridge Application for Permit P12310
Thank you for referring this application to the National Trust of Australia (Victoria). The Trust opposes the application on the grounds outlined in this submission.
Introduction
The Barwon Heads Bridge is an important timber bridge in a beautiful setting, and a Victorian heritage place with an uncommonly high, and undisputed, public profile. It is without doubt one of the most significant timber bridges in Victoria, and features prominently in the National Trust’s recent multi-award winning publication ‘Wooden Wonders: Victoria’s Timber Bridges’. The Trust strongly supports Advisory Committee’s persistent emphasis that the best heritage outcome should be achieved for this place.
Although the views of the National Trust differ in several respects,1 this submission defers from and considers itself bound by the ‘Barwon Heads Bridge: Report of the Advisory Committee’, January 2007. The Minister for Planning and the Victorian Government subsequently endorsed this report. The Advisory Committee report therefore forms the framework for this submission.
The current application however does not appear to have regard to either the general or particular recommendations of the Advisory Committee, in that:-
it has serious heritage shortcomings in relation to the loss of the existing bridge, and the loss of the key view of a major timber structure from downstream;
it rejects the Advisory Committee’s preferred outcome that ‘The existing Bridge be repaired and adapted as the road bridge at Barwon Heads’.
This submission considers firstly the Advisory Committee’s recommended options, secondly other possible options that might fit within the Advisory Committee’s parameters, and finally the option proposed in this application. The options are:-
Repair and reconstruct (as necessary) the existing bridge for road traffic. This is the Advisory Committee’s preferred option.
Repair and construct (as necessary) the existing bridge for road traffic, and if required build another smaller bridge adjacent for light uses (walking, cycling, and fishing). This is the Advisory Committee’s second preference.
Retain the existing bridge for light uses, and build a modern bridge for traffic adjacent.
Partially reconstruct the original style bridge and build a modern traffic bridge adjacent to it. This is the present VicRoads application, which, if approved, we would like to see modified.
Options
Repair and Reconstruct the Existing Bridge for Road Traffic.
This is the Advisory Committee’s preferred option. It states that it is ‘confident that a solution that retains and adapts the Bridge for road traffic is achievable and practical’. (Advisory Committee, p.2) It recommends that VicRoads and Heritage Victoria confer to resolve issues of detailed design in a way that achieves both structural and heritage objectives.
VicRoads’ appears to effectively ignore this recommendation. Its Supporting Documentation refers to the physical condition of the bridge, its ‘unsustainable economic costs’, safety concerns, and VicRoads’ statutory obligations regarding legal loads. All of this material was previously put to and fully considered by the Advisory Committee.
The primary justification for rejection of the Advisory Committee’s preferred option seems to be the SW Engineering Report. The costs for works provided in this report were controversial, being challenged by other experts during the Panel and Advisory Committee hearings. Even so, the Advisory Committee was fully cognisant of the SW Engineering Report when it made its recommendations.
Even if the high figures provided in the SW Engineering Report are accepted, they would not automatically mean that the Repair and Reconstruction of the Existing Bridge option is, as is asserted, ‘prohibitive’. (‘Heritage Victoria Application: Supporting Documentation for Barwon Heads Bridge Project’, October 2007, p.7) VicRoads is the owner and manager of a heritage place of very high significance. It is usual that for any heritage place additional costs will be incurred in order to achieve the best heritage outcome. Given the exceptional significance of this bridge, the widespread public support its preservation, the explicit concern of the Advisory Committee for the best heritage outcome, and the endorsement of the Advisory Committee’s recommendation by the State Government, expenditure of any significant additional money might be expected to conserve its heritage values.
The Supporting Documentation suggests that VicRoads’ does not really appreciate the basis of the Advisory Committee’s recommendation: that the bridge can be modified and still retain its heritage significance, and that, as per the Victorian Heritage Register citation, some such modifications have indeed contributed to the heritage significance of the bridge. The Supporting Documentation persists in enumerating the modifications have been made to the bridge since its construction which, it says, have the effect of ‘detracting from the original appearance of the bridge’. (Supporting Documentation, p.4)
VicRoads’ application shows little evidence of it being prepared to reconsider its original submissions in relation to implementing the Advisory Committee’s recommendations.
In contrast to Victoria, Western Australia has retained many timber highway and arterial bridges through a regime of preventative maintenance, application of timber preservatives, and cutting edge technologies for timber strengthening (such as use of carbon fibre, glass fibre and Kevlar).2 Refurbishment of timber bridges in WA typically involves replacement of structural timbers and construction of a new concrete deck, exactly as has been recommended by the Advisory Committee.
A recent example of this practice in Western Australia has close parallels with the Barwon Heads Bridge. The timber highway bridge at Denmark, a renowned resort town in Western Australia, was last year given such a major refurbishment. This substantial bridge (although much smaller than the Barwon Head Bridge) has new hardwood timbers, treated with preservatives, steel stringers, a 9.0 metre wide concrete deck (the exact width recommended by the Barwon Heads Advisory Committee), and Rectangular Hollow Section steel railings in a form which replicates the original timber traffic barriers. Because of the special local interest in the aesthetic significance of the bridge, this refurbishment was not entirely typical of WA bridges, all its timber members having been replaced ‘like with like’. The desired aesthetic impact of a timber bridge on an estuarine river has been achieved to an outstanding extent.
There is no evidence in the current application that ‘best practice’ and latest technologies regarding refurbishment of timber bridges within Australia has been investigated as a result of the Advisory Committee’s recommendations. Instead, the same arguments and same reports originally presented to the Advisory Committee have been presented to justify this application.
The current VicRoads application appears disinterested in exploring possibilities of varying the Advisory Committee’s preferred options in ways that might have cost and structural benefits.
While Western Australia is prepared to splice new piles underneath the new concrete decks of its timber bridges, other options are also available that might make repair of crossheads and piers easier. These include the use (as has been practiced in New South Wales) of the product ‘Boral-Hancock Plywood Bridgewood’ (ie plywood), or laminated timber, for decking instead of concrete.
As well as facilitating repairs, it is possible that such lighter decking material might also make it possible to utilise timber rather than steel stringers. Or, at least the possibility of combined timber and steel stringers, that might enable a more original structural style, and improved aesthetics.
Other variations to achieve better heritage results might be possible. For example, retention of at least one span in its original condition would be desirable, and might be possible (eg in the short span between piers 23 and 24, which is additionally significant in originally being designated as a lift span).
The Lovell Chen ‘Heritage Impact Statement, Barwon Heads Bridge Barwon Heads, prepared for VicRoads’ (October 2007) assesses the details of VicRoads’ current application in relation to every component of the structure.
In terms of the major issue of the compliance of the current application with the major recommendation of the Advisory Committee, it concludes that the current proposal is a ‘repair’ that is in reality a once-off ‘reconstruction’. (p.18) It does not however address the major element of the Advisory Committee recommendation that the bridge be repaired (or reconstructed) for road traffic purposes. It will not be preserved as a road bridge.
While the Lovell Chen report discusses the issues of crossheads and stringers (pp.7-9) as identified by the Advisory Committee, it does not make any significant positive statements regarding them in terms of the key issues identified by the Advisory Committee. For example, VicRoads does not appear to have attempted any response to the recommendation that loadings on crossheads be reassessed after relocation of the stringers. Instead, the Heritage Impact Statement addresses this issue only in relation to the current proposal, making completely irrelevant statements about steel stringers being located above the piles in the modern bridge.
Similarly no definite statements, or arguments are presented regarding the key question of why the proposed VicRoads option is preferable. The report simply states that consultation with Heritage Victoria has occurred, as recommended by the Advisory Committee, and the current proposal ‘has evolved out of that process’. (p.19) The current proposal is presented as a ‘widening’ and ‘continued use’ of the existing bridge, to ‘reflect the layered change of the fabric.’ (p.20) In the view of the Trust this interpretation is too much of a stretch. It does not represent a credible justification as to why, as is required by the Advisory Committee, the current proposal might represent the ‘best heritage outcome’. (p.19)
The Trust also takes issue with some key statements in Lovell Chen’s analysis of the impact of the current application on the heritage significance of the bridge (pp.20-21):-
Historical Value: the association with the Tourist Road program in the 1920s will be significantly diminished, as virtually none of the fabric of the original bridge will be retained.
Social Value: the Trust disagrees that the ‘landmark qualities’ of the bridge ‘will be maintained and reinforced’. An iconic view of the bridge (from the downstream side) will be lost.
Educational / Scientific Value: the Trust disagrees that the values of education and demonstration regarding the developments in timber bridge technology ‘will be held’. The retention of the existing bridge, or even part of it, would retain such values.
Representative Value: as the last surviving large timber bridge in an estuarine setting will be significantly diminished. The setting of the proposed new timber bridge will in fact be altered to a major extent by the adjacent modern bridge.
Good Design / Aesthetic Value: it is stated that the proposed new bridge would ‘still retain sufficient values to ensure that the community understands its origins and the nature of its importance’. This might be the case, but its significance can not but be diminished by the great modifications, and it manifestly does not represent ‘the best heritage outcome’ for the bridge.
Repair and Construct the Existing Bridge for Road Traffic, and Build a Smaller Bridge Adjacent for Light Uses.
The Advisory Committee recommends that: ‘If the existing Bridge cannot be adapted to meet all identified needs then pedestrian and cycle bridge be constructed adjacent to the Bridge. The design, width and separation of the Bridge be determined primarily on heritage grounds in accordance with the requirements of the Heritage Act’ (p.3, Advisory Committee Report).
As with the above option, there appears to have been no consideration of this option in the current VicRoads’ application.
Retain the Existing Bridge for Light Uses, and Build a Modern Bridge for Traffic Adjacent
If VicRoads is able to provide evidence that the Advisory Committee’s preferred options, or variations of them, are technically or economically prohibitive, numerous other options will be possible. The application informs that VicRoads has considered some of these, and had a discussion about them with officers of Heritage Victoria, but it doesn’t say what they were. All options, including the Advisory Committee’s preferred options, should be compared side by side in terms of heritage outcomes, construction costs, expected maintenance costs, expected life-span, and any other criteria that VicRoads considers relevant.
In the Trust’s view one such option preferable to that now proposed is to repair and refurbish the existing bridge for light traffic use (pedestrian, cycling, fishing), and construct a modern bridge nearby.
The primary advantage of this option would be that it has the potential to retain the existing bridge. While major repairs would still be required, it could be expected that these would be less substantial and extensive as would be required for the option to carry traffic to T44 loadings. Much more of the existing bridge could be preserved than is currently proposed in the reconstructed or ‘replica’ bridge.
Additional and ongoing maintenance would be required. While bridge managers might regard this as undesirable, it is something that is appropriate in terms of conservation principles. It is also desirable in that it will ensure that skills for the maintenance of timber bridges are maintained within Victoria’s premier bridge builder and manager. Without such skills no timber bridges, including those on the Heritage Register, will be able to be properly maintained and preserved in the future.
Partially Reconstruct the Original-Style Bridge and Build a Modern Traffic Bridge Adjacent.
This is the option for which VicRoads is now seeking a permit.
The merits of the application are that it is proposed to reconstruct the original bridge design in its original location. However, this would only be approximately two-thirds of the width of the original structure. While it is proposed to be ‘close’ to the original design (Supporting Documentation, pp.4-5), authenticity of detail will be critical in determining whether such a structure can retain the heritage value of the existing registered structure: further comparative information with the 1927 bridge, regarding for example the height, fixtures, and other design detail is required. The means of fixing decking planks, originally a cause of deterioration in stringers, would need attention.
What is proposed is effectively a replica, not of the bridge as it is now, but as it was when originally constructed. While the Burra and other heritage charters do not prohibit construction of replicas, these are only countenanced within very strict parameters. In the Western heritage tradition, it is generally not acceptable to construct a replica of a place that already exists. If this needs to occur because of the condition of the materials, every effort should be made to identify and reuse all materials possible. The original ‘foundation’ (in this case the substructure piles) should also be utilised.
The disadvantage of the current proposal is that it cannot be specific about how much of the existing structure can be re-used. However it envisages very little of the existing fabric would be reused: only walers and cross bracing, some crossheads, and one or two piles. Might not some existing stringers be able to be used?
The extent to which the proposed new timber bridge would conform with and differ from the original 1927 bridge construction (apart from its obvious major width reduction) needs to be detailed.
The major shortcoming of the proposal is its impact on views to and from the timber bridge.
The proposal would destroy what is arguably the most significant postcard view of Barwon Heads, the bridge from the seaside estuary and bluff.
While views to the upstream side of the bridge (such as those that appear in ‘Wooden Wonders: Victoria’s Timber Bridges’) would be preserved, they will be diminished somewhat by a clutter of additional new piles on the modern bridge.
If Heritage Victoria is of a mind to approve this application, the Trust submits that it seek modification to the design of the proposed modern bridge along the following lines:-
Primarily, that the proposed modern bridge be redesigned. While the existing proposal has merit in that it is sympathetic to the proposed timber bridge in terms of height, and in terms of its matching spans and piers, it is basically a standard steel girder design. Construction of a more elegant, less visually intrusive, and more overtly modern and distinctive bridge, in keeping with the scale of the timber bridge, is likely to be possible. The steel girders of the modern bridge could be eliminated in favour of an elegant all-concrete construction with a shallower superstructure allowing better views of the bridge behind. Also, instead of the clutter of multi-piled concrete piers, a single column might be used. It is probable also that the length of spans could be increased and number of piers could be reduced in a modern structure to one for every two, or perhaps three, of the piers on the adjacent timber bridge (subject to the depth of the deck of the new bridge not exceeding that of the timber bridge at its various points).
The separation of the proposed timber and the modern bridges. There is no apparent reason for it in terms of heritage outcomes. Even a small gap (eg a metre minimum) would be better.
A reduction of the carriageway width of the new bridge to 9 metres as proposed by the Advisory Committee would slightly reduce its visual presence and aesthetic impact. There is no obvious reason why priority should be given to ‘semi-professional’ cyclists over heritage given the significance of this bridge.
Conclusion
The application constitutes a rejection of the recommendation of the Advisory Committee and the State Government. No sufficient justification has been made as to why this has occurred, or how this proposal compares with the Advisory Committee’s preferred options in terms of heritage, economics or other relevant criteria.
The Trust submits that the application will have a major impact on the heritage significance of the Barwon Heads Bridge, and will not achieve the Advisory Committee’s oft-repeated and over-arching criterion of the ‘best heritage outcome’.
The Trust would like to be represented at any hearing in relation to this application.
Please do not hesitate to contact myself, or David Moloney at the Trust should you have any queries in relation to this submission.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Steven Cooke
Conservation Manager
1 Primarily in relation to the preferred location for a new bridge. We also retain reservations regarding the justification for a T44 load-capacity of a bridge situated in Barwon Heads.
2 Lloyd Margetts, ‘The Conservation of Large Timber Structures’, paper presented to the 14th National Engineering Heritage Conference, Perth, November 2007. Mr Margetts drafted the timber bridge maintenance sections for the Austroads Bridge Management Manual in 1989/90, and was a member of the committee that produced the Austroads Guide to Heritage Bridge Management.
Copy of group email sent to local members
Friends of the Barwon Heads Bridge Inc
PO Box Barwon Heads 3227
18/11/2007
To Michael Crutchfield MLA
Dear Michael,
As you may recall on 27th July 2006 the then Minister for Planning Mr Hulls issued a media release titled "Historic Barwon Heads Bridge Here to Stay!" In this Mr Hulls said, "Today’s decision will make sure it stays". He did not say some of or even most of the bridge – surely this statement means the whole bridge!
No where do I see any reference to only saving half the bridge!
Yet as you are undoubtedly aware Vicroads has made an application to Heritage Victoria for redevelopment of the Barwon Heads Bridge. And what does this application entail – chopping the bridge in half lengthwise and building a new steel and concrete structure for road traffic next to it. In the end the old bridge would become a glorified footpath making up only around 25% of this new bridge. Our historic and heritage listed icon would be basically destroyed in the process.
Now I have re-read all the statements and press releases. I was down by the river the next year when the new Minister for Planning Justin Madden announced with great fanfare the results of the Advisory Panel report and again I see no mention or even hint that the Bridge would be cut in half.
Were we lied to or were the original promises more a "half non-core promise" and basically a pre-election stunt to gain our votes?
In that same media release it stated "Not even Bob Jelly would have stood a chance against local members Elaine Carbines, Lisa Neville and Michael Crutchfield, who lobbied hard in defence of the bridge and on behalf of an over whelming number of local residents."
So I hope someone who lobbied so hard would like to clarify what looks like a broken promise and let us all know what you and the Government is going to do.
I await your reply.
Bernard Napthine
President Friends of the Barwon Heads Bridge Inc
********************************************************************************
Copy of group email sent to minister
As you may recall on 27th July 2006 the then Minister for Planning Mr Hulls issued a media release titled “Historic Barwon Heads Bridge Here to stay!” In this Mr Hulls said, “Today’s decision will make sure it stays”.
No where do I see any reference to saving only half the bridge!
Now Vicroads has made an application to Heritage Victoria for redevelopment of the Barwon Heads Bridge. And what does this application entail – chopping the bridge in half lengthwise and building a new steel and concrete structure for road traffic next to it. In the end the old bridge would become a glorified footpath making up only around 25% of this new bridge. Our famous and heritage listed icon would be basically destroyed in the process.
I was down by the river earlier this year when you as the new Minister for Planning announced with great fanfare the results of the Advisory Panel report and again I see no mention or even hint that the Bridge would be cut in half. There were several scenarios presented to the Panel (and hence us the people of Barwon Heads) but nothing like what has now been dumped on us – an option that shows no respect to the wishes of the community.
One can only wonder why Vicroads are doing this when a major comment by the Panel in its summary states “We are confident that a solution that retains and adapts the Bridge for road traffic is achievable and practical.”
Vicroads appears to have completely ignored the Advisory Panel Report and come up with a never before seen option for the bridge. An option we believe destroys its historical significance and flies in the face of this Governments promise of saving the bridge. Is this Vicroads running the show or the Government through the Minister for Planning?
Were we lied to or was this simply a pre-election stunt to gain our votes?
Or is there a very good explanation for this new attack by Vicroads on the bridge? I can only presume you would like to clarify what looks like a broken promise and let us all know what you and the Government is going to do.
I await your reply.
Bernard Napthine
President Friends of the Barwon Heads Bridge Inc
*************************************************************************
APPLICATION BY VICROADS FOR REDEVELOPMENT OF
THE BARWON HEADS BRIDGE
SUBMISSION BY FRIENDS OF THE BARWON HEADS BRIDGE INC
Summary
At a recent meeting the members of the Friends of the Barwon Heads Bridge Inc, the members unanimously passed the following motion:
“That the Friends of the Barwon Heads Bridge totally reject the current proposal by Vicroads for the Barwon Heads Bridge”
We rejected this new proposal based on the following reasons –
The heritage significance of the bridge
The changes involved appear to be in breach, in several areas, of the Burra Charter
Vicroads appears to have been very selective in the way they have adopted certain elements of the Advisory Panels report and yet totally ignore other recommendations. Plus information provided by Vicroads has been of a fragmented and incomplete nature thus making it virtually impossible to know the full details of the project from costing to safety issues.
These suggested changes would not only affect the historical and heritage values but also completely destroy the bridge as a major tourist attraction.
The connection, be it the historical connection or purely on an individual level, with the community and people of Barwon Heads will be destroyed.
The State Government promised the people of Victoria that the bridge “was here to stay.
In the following pages of our submission we will expand on all of these points in the hope that Heritage Victoria will see that the current Vicroads proposal is not only against the wishes of the people of Barwon Heads but many in the Region and in fact the whole State, and also against best practice. Instead of helping preserve a heritage listed structure for future generations it is really the destruction of it! The use of words like “adaptation” and “altered” cannot hide the fact that the historical and heritage listed bridge we know and love will exist no more.
Heritage significance of the bridge
The Barwon Heads Bridge, its abutments and land 5 metres either side of the bridge, is included on the heritage register.
The bridge has been included on the register because it has historical, aesthetic and scientific (technical) significance to the State of Victoria.
It has historical significance, amongst other things, because of “… its association with the Country Roads Board ‘Tourist Road’ program, a State Government-funded initiative that responded to increased motor car ownership and the growing popularity of motor touring during the 1920’s.”
It is of aesthetic significance, amongst other things, “… as a rare historic timber bridge in an estuarine setting. This particularly long, and low, timber bridge is a significant and sympathetic historical component of an outstanding natural and cultural landscape, and provides memorable marine views.”
It is of scientific (technical) significance:
“… for its exceptional size, and as the best illustration of sympathetic modifications to a major timber bridge over time. … No other timber river bridge designed in an era still dominated by horse-drawn vehicles has survived so many modifications to meet changing traffic needs, and yet retains so much of its structural integrity and historical appearance. It is a monument both to the 1920’s, and to CRB engineering ingenuity over many decades. It is one of very few CRB timber bridges from the 1920’s still in operation.”
Burra Charter
I doubt anyone would question that despite changes over the years to the wooden bridge over the Barwon River in Barwon Heads (referred to as the Barwon Heads Bridge or here as simply the Bridge) still maintains its basic heritage values and certainly its historic significance. “The Barwon Heads Bridge was classified with the National Trust in 1997 and placed on the Victorian Heritage Register in November 1999. The Bridge is considered to be of significance due to its age, length, form of construction and continued use through the transition from horse to motor vehicle. It is also of historical importance due to its contribution in the development of the Barwon Heads and Ocean Grove settlements”. (1)
The Advisory Committee in their summary stated, “Having heard the evidence and submissions and considered all the matters we have reached the overall conclusion that if the Bridge can be adapted to provide more appropriately for pedestrians, cyclists and with adequate vehicle lanes while maintaining heritage values in accordance with the Burra Charter then this is clearly the superior option.” (2)
So the immediate questions are –
Does this new plan meet the Burra Charter?
Would this current plan be classed as an “adaptation”?
In the Australian ICOMOS information on the Burra Charter it states “The Burra Charter advocates a cautious approach to change: do as much as necessary to care for the place and to make it useable, but otherwise change it as little as possible so that its cultural significance is retained”. (3)
In a letter from Ray Tonkin (Executive Director Heritage Victoria) to Duncan Elliott (Vicroads South Western Region) he said, “My first concern is that any proposal has regard to the cultural heritage significance of the place. Clearly therefore the retention of the bridge with minimal change, or changes that will have a minimal impact on the existing form and structure of the bridge would be preferred” (4)
Clearly the approach that needs to be taken is one of minimal change. This is particularly so where the registration of the bridge on the register is on three grounds – historic, aesthetic and scientific (technical). The current application is a far cry from these sentiments and would have to be said to be at odds and even in direct conflict with the principals of the Burra Charter and protection of heritage listed structures.
During the Advisory Committee hearing several possible options for redevelopment of the bridge were put forward. Most tried to adhere to these principals. This current proposal was NOT only not one of the ones put to the public. It is the worst possible scenario for the actual Bridge. In this new option the old bridge is basically chopped in half. The bridge would be in reality cut all the way down the middle lengthwise. Only about half will be retained, and this is as a glorified footpath, not a bridge for vehicles as in the past. Surely this is against the Burra Charter!
At the very least, it significantly compromises the aesthetic significance of the bridge and runs contrary to its historic significance which acknowledges that incremental changes to the bridge have been made over time. VicRoad’s proposal fails to sensitively address these grounds: the very basis on which the bridge was included on the register.
Vicroads have made application “for a permit for the reconstruction and adaptation of the Barwon Heads Bridge” (5).
When reviewing the Burra Charter we find the following –
Article 15 Change. 15.1 Change may be necessary to retain cultural significance, but is undesirable where it reduces cultural significance.
Article 21 Adaptation 21.1 Adaptation is acceptable only where the adaptation has minimal impact on the cultural significance of the place
Surely this proposal is not minimal and I doubt anyone could argue that it would not significantly reduce the heritage values of the bridge and place. For again if we look at the Burra Charter Place as listed in Article 1 Definitions Place means “site, area, land, landscape, building or other work or group of buildings or other works and may include components, contents, spaces and views.” Not only does this Vicroads proposal see the destruction of half the bridge it also affects the area – for the Barwon Heads Bridge should not be considered in isolation from its immediate surroundings of the river, spit and bluff – and certainly the views.
Then again we really have to question is the work needed to construct this bigger steel and concrete bridge a change or adaptation or really an addition to the old bridge. We would in fact argue that this Vicroads proposal is an addition (being in reality a new road bridge) and hence must be considered a New Work. The Charter in Article 22 New Work states 22.1 “new work such as additions to the place may be acceptable where it does not distort or obscure the cultural significance of the place, or detract from its interpretation and appreciation”.
Simply looking at the proposal from this angle one would most certainly say the current heritage listed bridge would be obscured, distorted and the new work would detract from its appreciation. So again we cannot see how this Vicroads proposal meets its obligations under the Burra Charter and satisfies the recommendations or the Advisory Committee!
When we again look at the Charter in Article 4 we see at 4.2 “the use of modern materials and techniques must be supported by firm scientific evidence or by a body of experience”. When viewing Vicroads proposal we find they plan to use steel and concrete not wood as to be in keeping with the current bridge. The main reason for this seems to be financial not scientific. During the Advisory Committee hearing elements of Vicroads argument and cost estimates were questioned by Peter Yttrup, a known expert on wooden bridges. We feel these factors have not been explored or explained sufficiently. There appears to have been no thought given for possible new technologies that could make the use of wooden materials more viable. And once again, we question why other options (that did less damage to the bridge and could use wood etc) were rejected in favour of this proposal.
All in all it is extremely hard to see how this new bridge as proposed by Vicroads meets the Burra Charter obligations.
Financial or practical engineering considerations should be placed second to the heritage considerations. While we don’t want to see the bridge become a ‘white elephant’ because it can’t cope with modern needs, there is surely an option that takes far better account of the heritage significance of the building and the Burra Charter principles than what is proposed. We are certain that there are alternative options that far better respect the heritage of the bridge while also satisfying Vicroads’ financial and practical engineering considerations.
Vicroads selective use of the Advisory Committees report & lack of info.
From the outset the Friends of the Barwon Heads Bridge felt the best way to have the bridge saved and then restored was by taking all the traffic off it and building a new traffic bridge elsewhere. (Plus it helped solve other Barwon Heads traffic issues etc) We fought hard to protect the bridge from demolition by Vicroads. In fact we advocated for an Advisory Committee to be established and we happily participated, as did many others.
As we know the Advisory Committee recommendation retaining the current location for all traffic through the town – the Geelong Road option was rejected. Although we all felt this was a negative step, as it did not look to the future, it did give us some hope for our beloved old bridge. We would go by the umpire’s call.
In the Summary on page 1 it states: “The Barwon Heads Bridge is in need of significant repair and restoration and the replacement of a number of the elements of the Bridge.” (6) From this we concluded that the most likely outcome would be one that retained much of the old bridge. The words “repair” and “restoration” were of some comfort. Demolition was out and all the various maps and bridge designs we were shown by Vicroads, in the hearings, still had the heritage-listed bridge there!
Even the later statement “The question is not whether work on the Bridge is required – it is how should the work be carried out”. And later “ We are confident that a solution that retains and adapts the Bridge for road traffic is achievable and practical” definitely showed a desire by the Panel to keep the Bridge. To us the bridge was saved especially considering Government comments that the Bridge “was here to stay”.
Nowhere do we see any reference to removing half the old bridge. No where do we see any plans for cutting the bridge in half. No where do we see any mention of keeping only half the bridge and making it into a footpath. No where do we see any designs or plans of a new steel and concrete bridge built onto the old historic bridge. If Vicroads is serious about also following the Advisory Committee’s decision why has it presented a plan that varies so widely from it and why was it kept secret until now?
On page 2 of the Summary, under Preferred Option (in bold print) is the following, “The existing Bridge be repaired and adapted as the Road Bridge at Barwon Heads.” The report recommends “the piles be replaced in timber” and later “with widening of the deck”. These and other recommendations look very similar to the Option A2 Rebuild and Widen, which was displayed by Vicroads. In Vicroads report Appendix A - the table of each Option is checked against 12 different criteria and is acceptable in nearly all, preferred in one and said to be non-acceptable in one only (although this is with some clarification in the footnotes). We can only keep asking why this Option was rejected as it seems far superior than the model now on display where of this new bridge the old bridge would make up a mere 25% of the structure. Where as in the Option A2 the old bridge was kept almost intact and would make up 70% of the widened bridge.
Vicroads new bridge option as mentioned is made of steel and concrete not the wooden piles as recommended. Safety issues with this bridge exist in particular those involving pedestrian use and crossing points. Fishing platforms, missing from the initial diagrams were only added much later. Questions regarding lighting have not been answered fully. We have been told at various meetings with Vicroads that certain decisions to ignore the Panel were due to cost considerations, but never seen the full budget for this option.
There are far too many questions that Vicroads fails to answer and when they attempt to do so it is really an exercise in spin. For example Vicroads have just released an information bulletin for the people of Barwon Heads and Ocean Grove. The second paragraph reads “The proposal includes a significant portion of the north side of the existing bridge being restored to its 1927 form using a combination of original and new timbers” (7). This is miss leading, as it appears to indicate more of the old bridge is saved than in reality. Yes a significant portion of HALF the bridge will be saved. But when read quickly it seems to indicate a LARGE part of the old bridge is to be kept.
The next paragraph reads “Under the proposal, the south side of the bridge will be altered to cater for modern traffic needs.” Sorry did they say “altered”. I would say it’s more like removed, taken away or possibly re-used to rebuild the old timber section (now footpath). Their application clearly states the use of steel and concrete to “redevelop” – this is a far cry from “altering the south side”.
We have never been given the full story, provided all the accurate information or been drip-fed pieces of it in such a way as to not really know what is happening. We believe Vicroads has not properly addressed the question of why the existing bridge cannot be repaired or adapted to a design for modern traffic. Until a more comparative assessment of the new Vicroads option to the Advisory Committee’s options are provided, with full cost analysis, we feel a proper discussion of the Vicroads application cannot take place.
This proposal is not an adaptation of the bridge. It does not use traditional timber materials. It uses steel and concrete. It is really no better than leaving the old bridge in place and building a new bridge next to it. As Vicroad’s heritage expert, Mr Lovell, commented, this approach potentially devalues the significance of the old bridge because its usefulness is greatly diminished (6). He stated, amongst other things, that:
“Duplication … is not a preferred outcome from a heritage perspective. Should it be pursued the preference would be for the downstream location which impacts less on nearby heritage places and would maintain the ability to view the stringer and corbel detail on the upstream side of the existing bridge.
…
… a modified reconstruction which utilised timber piled piers and incorporated those elements which generated the ‘timber-look’ of the existing bridge would largely address the aesthetic and social values of the Bridge and in this regard deliver a structure which responded to aspects of the popular appreciation of the Bridge as an historic structure.” ((6) at p. 67)
In Vicroad’s proposal, the remaining half of the old bridge is no longer to be used for vehicular traffic, its historical raison d’etre.
Quite apart from these issues, the scientific (technical) grounds for inclusion of the bridge need to be considered. The significance of the bridge is in large part derived from its, now virturally unique, timber structure. While the road surface has changed, the timber structure, its essential character, has remained mostly intact. Vicroad’s proposal challenges the bridge’s essential character. The timber structure will no longer be visible on one site as it will be replaced by a modern concrete and steel structure. This proposed approach is surely a complete denial of its acknowledged technical significance, isn’t it?
Heritage Values and Tourist Icon
There is absolutely no doubt this bridge is of heritage and historical significance. There is no questioning its credentials by all parties involved. A review of the Victorian Heritage Register will soon reveal the reasons for this, from its “exceptionally long timber beams” to “its association with the Country Roads Board ‘Tourist Road” program”. The question is seeing the Bridge is in a poor state of repairs how do we maintain it and keep while maintaining and respecting these values. As mentioned earlier the Burra Charter gives us the guidelines to judge these changes by and we should do all in our power to adhere to them. Unfortunately too many times we hear the cry “but that option is more expensive” or other excuses. If we are to be serious about the protection and preservation of our historical icons then we must look further than these standard replies from Vicroads. For although we cannot save all of our history sometimes we simply must – and this is such a time!
Would Sea Change have been filmed in Barwon Heads if instead of the lovely old wooden bridge we had a much larger steel and concrete structure? I think most would answer NO! When we look at almost any brochure, be it from Bellarine Tourism, the City of Greater Geelong or other group - what is the photographic icon of Barwon Heads? The Bridge, but not just the Bridge it is also the river, the beaches along the riverbank and the Bluff. In fact “A major consideration in choosing the site for this bridge was its proposed tourist function and the desire to provide scenic views of the ocean and broad Barwon River Estuary”, and “is an historic gateway to the town”. (8)
We are now risking all of this. It is not just the film industry, it is the growing wedding market (more and more people are choosing to be married on the beach or over looking the bridge and estuary), it’s the day-trippers, seasonal holiday-makers and even international visitors. Vicroads did minimal Economic Impact studies when comparing the original two Corridor Options but nothing has been done in looking at the impact of possible current design choices on tourism. As a business owner myself I know how much the town relies on tourism. It would not have to be a significant drop to see businesses affected. Plus visitors would experience a different holiday as a bigger bridge would see a loss of beach and parking plus increased heavier traffic impact on the quiet of the riverside beaches and parks.
Safety for locals and visitors would be of concern as adequate road crossings have still to be suitably established – not a good outcome when you have 2 public camping areas on each side of the river. Barwon Heads and Ocean Grove are only several kilometres apart and in this current climate of trying to promote walking and cycling we are not getting the best outcome. We are in fact making the situation more dangerous with this new design when we thought one of the aims of this project was to provide “safe and efficient travel for all road users” and “ pedestrian and cycling connectivity”.
I feel we cannot risk lives and what is a vital industry to the town. More time needs to be spent looking at these vital issues.
The iconic status of the bridge is largely due to its high aesthetic qualities which have been recognised in the bridge’s heritage signficance. The proposed improvements will completely destroy the aesthetic qualities of the bridge. Surely on this basis alone, it can’t be allowed to proceed?
Connection between the Bridge and the Community
This is what people know and love. It has always been and still is a part of the fabric of the town and the people. But it is not simply the physical structure of the Bridge; it is the essence and spirit of the area. It is the fact it has not changed too much in an ever-changing world. It is a connection to the days of quieter times, it is a reminder of the village character of the town – something we simply do not want to see destroyed or lost. We want to see future generations to have this and enjoy this to experience this!
But it is also more than that it has connections and symbolism everywhere, from the grudge football matches between Barwon Heads and Ocean Grove being called “The Battle of the Bridge” to its use on the Barwon Heads Traders and Tourism Logo.
There is also the more personal connection. Ask any resident or even visitor and they will tell a story or a connection to the bridge. There are things like my memories from childhood of catching a fish off the bridge; others have mentioned things like a first kiss under the bridge or even being married near the bridge. There are family stories of holidays and swimming or sailing near the bridge. Older residents recall sandbagging to save the bridge during times of floods. Some recall the drilling of holes for explosives to be placed in case it needed to be blown up if the Japanese invaded in the Second World War.
The history of a place to the community just cannot be measured that easily and should not be discarded or destroyed that simply.
State Government promises that the Bridge “was here to stay”.
I realize this is not a true concern of Heritage Victoria in assessing Vicroads application but feel it cannot go without some comment as it is certainly part of the reason why many people in Barwon Heads are against the current proposal.
In his media release the then Minister for Planning Mr Hulls said “This evocative old bridge is one of the Bellarine Peninsula’s most loved and photographed landmarks” and “Today’s decision will make sure it stays”. (9) “This decision reflected the mood of the local community, whose submissions overwhelmingly argued that demolition would destroy something of great value to Victorians”. Later Mr Batchelor said, “the one certain outcome is the Barwon Heads Bridge will remain one of the most recognisable landmarks of the Geelong region”. (9)
These statements reinforce the iconic status and important tourist values this bridge has and more importantly the great feeling within this community for the Barwon Heads Bridge. They promised it would be saved and we hope that Heritage Victoria will look at our reasons and also make sure this Government keeps its promises to the people by rejecting this proposal from Vicroads.
I attach a copy of the group’s submission to the Heritage Council about Vicroad’s previous application for your information.
I would appreciate the opportunity to be heard at any hearing convened by the Heritage Council to consider this proposal.
30 November 2007
Bernard Napthine
President
Friends of the Barwon Heads Bridge Inc.
PO Box Barwon Heads VIC 3227
End Notes:1. Vicroads Barwon Heads Bridge Project – Executive Summary p4
2. Barwon Heads Bridge Advisory Committee Report Jan 2007 p1
3. Australia International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS)
4. Letter dated 18/8/2006 from Ray Tonkin to Duncan Elliott file PL-HE/03/0687
5. Vicroads Barwon Heads Bridge Project – Executive Summary p5
6. Barwon Heads Advisory Committee Report Jan 2007
7. Vicroads Barwon Heads Bridge Information Bulletin – November 2007
8. Victorian Heritage Register
9. Media Release – Minister for Planning and Minister for Transport 27/7/06
********************************************************************
At the meeting on Nov.14, the Barwon Heads Association passed the following motion:
“The Barwon Heads Association strongly opposes the VicRoads bridge as detailed in their October 2007 Heritage Victoria Application”.
The grounds upon which this was passed were:
1. Heritage. The design calls for the demolition of half of the present bridge. A steel and concrete structure would then be added on the southern side so that the bridge would become 6.5 metres wider. This completely ignores the heritage values of the last remaining wooden bridge over an estuary in Victoria.
2. It is extremely important to our community that Heritage Victoria manages the heritage aspects of this application from VicRoads so that heritage conservation principles and best practice are applied in approving any modifications. Heritage conservation is recognised as a key element of sustainability. We strongly urge Heritage Victoria to apply the Burra Charter, the nationally accepted standard for heritage conservation practice in Australia.
3. Character. VicRoads propose large roundabouts and/or traffic lights to cope with the increased width of the bridge, destroying the visual and physical amenity of the area. The 3 alternative designs being considered for traffic management on the Barwon Heads side of the bridge are out of character to the village of Barwon Heads and threaten the heritage status of the bridge and its surrounds.
4. Heavy Vehicles. There is a conflict between heritage values and the application by VicRoads to modify the bridge to cater for heavy trucks. Heritage Victoria should recognise that its obligation to create new life and a sustainable future for well loved places does not enable it to approve a design that has the capacity to destroy the character of the village of Barwon Heads.
The Association therefore requests you to write to Heritage Victoria supporting the Association’s stand and rejecting this bridge. Please send your letters to:
Heritage Victoria Level 7
8 Nicholson Street
East Melbourne 3002
before the closing date of 30 November 2007
David Freeman President/acting Secretary - Barwon Heads Association
Geoffrey Waite Project Manager - Opposition to the VicRoads bridge proposal
*********************************************************************************
OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSAL BY VIC ROADS TO MODIFY THE BARWON HEADS BRIDGE - A HERITAGE STRUCTURE
I strongly object to the application by Vic Roads to modify the Barwon Heads Bridge “the Bridge” which is listed in the Victorian Heritage Register. I urge Heritage Victoria to reject the submission from Vic Roads for the modification of the Bridge. It is important that Heritage Victoria recognizes that both the Bridge and the village of Barwon Heads are linked and that the place, as well as the object, is special to the community. The proposal from Vic Roads to modify the Bridge by applying two totally different styles for each side will cause damage to the significant fabric of the place, and will destroy the cultural and iconic significance of the Bridge.
I remind Heritage Victoria that the National Trust classified the Bridge because of the following:
The 1927 Barwon Heads Bridge is of State significance for its exceptional size, its estuarine setting on an historic tourist road, and is the best illustration of sympathetic modification to a major timber bridge over time…….Its CRB origins indicate that was always considered of State rather than purely municipal significance.…..The Barwon Heads Bridge is both a significant historical artifact from the 1920s and a monument to the CRB engineering ingenuity over many decades. A discreet use of steel, concrete and bitumen modifications meet contemporary traffic needs, but the original timber-pier pattern, old timber stringers and corbels and traditional timber railings preserved much of its historic 'timber-look' authenticity and aesthetic appeal.
Not only are the views from the Bridge important, but the views of the Bridge are equally important. The view of the Bridge from the Bluff is iconic, and should not be replaced with a nasty concrete structure which is inflicting itself on this gentle environment.
Its replacement with the proposed design by Vic Roads would be a major blow to Victorian Heritage and the community of Barwon Heads. Vic Roads has again failed to provide adequate analysis of why it has given the Heritage listing of the Bridge such little weight. It appears to me that the reasons for its listing are now confirmed and in fact are now more important due to the influence of the ABC television program “Sea Change”. The Sea Change phenomena also brings with it positive connotations of a change to a better life, usually out of the city. What irony for the “icon” of this change to be modified and replaced with a partly concrete bridge.
Even Lovell Chen in their Heritage Impact Statement conclude that: the evidence of the adaptation of the bridge will be lost as will the association with original fabric.
But the analysis in the Lovell Chen report fails to confront any of the significant heritage issues. It is fine to look in depth at indigenous matters, however sadly most indigenous occupiers have gone. There are many other significant risk areas that have not been identified and analyzed. The micro analysis on the use of appropriate materials is only a small component of heritage values and impacts.
The Sea Change phenomena brings with it positive connotations of a change to a better life, usually out of the city. What irony for the “icon” of this change to be modified and replaced with a partly concrete bridge.
The Vic Roads proposal suggests major traffic works at each end of the Bridge which are totally unsuitable to the village of Barwon Heads and the Ocean Grove spit and will destroy its situation in the most beautiful estuarine setting on the Victorian Coast.
ACCESS: -A key challenge is to provide access in a way that is safe, can be maintained in the long-term, and protects coastal biodiversity.
Policy
Offer fewer, but more well-maintained, environmentally sensitive and safe access points
Have direct coastal access roads as feeder roads and avoid running roads parallel to the coast.
Remove or relocate existing parallel roads, or poorly located roads or car parks where possible.
Minimise traffic impacts on resident and visitor enjoyment of the coast including ‘park and ride’ schemes, township by-passes and minimal car parking on foreshore land.
Encourage other types of transport in coastal townships, such as walking and cycling.
TOURISM AND VISITATION - Domestic and international tourism is extremely important for local communities and the economy along the Victorian coast.
Policy
Support tourism that benefits the local community and statewide and regional economies without damaging the coast or detracting from other users’ experience of the coast.
SAFETY, RISK AND CLIMATE CHANGE - Increased storm events in the coming years potentially increase the risk of coastal erosion, causing unstable cliffs and shorelines. This is likely to impact on infrastructure and the safety of beach users. An increase in visitation – combined with these risks – is likely to result in more emergency events.
Policy
Locate, or investigate relocating, infrastructure further inland from erosion and/or flood prone sites.
Ongoing actions
Do risk audits on coastal Crown land.
Implement programs to help coastal managers address risks with ageing infrastructure, aquatic safety, access, and emergency response
BEACH RENOURISHMENT AND PROTECTION Engineering solutions, such as groynes and seawalls, are sometimes effective but can cause erosion problems further along the coast if they are not well-designed and sited. These traditional solutions may no longer be feasible options along the Victorian coast under the impacts of climate change.
Policy
Re-use historic buildings, features and sites as the preferred strategy to ensure long-term conservation.
Encourage tourism ventures that use historic buildings and features.
New actions
Develop a strategy to respond to likely impacts of climate change on heritage places, including Indigenous historic sites.
Ongoing actions
Identify historic sites and places on public land and include them on asset registers (HV)
Provide interpretation of historic sites(HV)
Support professional development programs that help coastal managers protect heritage sites on public and private land.
Implement the Victorian heritage strategy (HV).
I strongly urge Heritage Victoria to refuse the application by Vic Roads to modify the Bridge on the following basis:
*The designs submitted do not reflect adequate consultation with Heritage Victoria. They fail to maintain heritage values and restore the Bridge in accordance with the Burra Charter. It is considered that the proposed modification is a breach of the Burra charter and makes a total mockery of the Heritage classification of the Bridge and heritage values in general.
*The proposal by Vic Roads will totally destroy the iconic status of the Bridge and will take away the main differential between Barwon Heads and other towns.
*The 3 alternative designs for traffic management on the Barwon Heads side of the Bridge are totally unsuitable to the village of Barwon Heads, threaten the heritage status of the Bridge and its surrounds and have a negative impact on the village ambience of Barwon Heads.
*There is a conflict between heritage values and the application by Vic roads to modify the Bridge to cater for heavy trucks. Heritage Victoria needs to recognize that its obligation to create new life and a sustainable future for well-loved places and objects does not enable it to approve a design that has the capacity to destroy the village of Barwon Heads over the lifetime of the modified structure. A sustainable future requires a more balanced approach to the restoration of the Bridge which does not cause more harm than good.
*The proposed modification fails to protect the natural and cultural heritage of the Barwon Heads estuary, the Spit between Barwon Heads and Ocean Grove, and the village of Barwon heads. Environmental impacts have not been properly considered, especially the close proximity to the Marine Park.
*There is no apparent risk framework which considers the risks in an integrated and complete manner.
*This is an old fashioned engineering solution and does not take into account the risks that will result from the impacts of global warming, and is in direct conflict with the Victorian Coastal Strategy.
*Much of the supporting data relied upon by Vic Roads is dated.
If Heritage Victoria approves the Vic Roads application to modify the bridge, I request that it justifies its approval in accordance with the principles for the heritage of Victoria and the reasons why it has not applied the Burra Charter.
The town is again relying on Heritage Victoria to help it understand and deal with its options and protect its interests. There is a lack of evidence that the submission by Vic Roads to significantly modify the Bridge is the only option available to it.
Yours sincerely
Sandra Gatehouse