Barwon Heads Bridge

SAVE BARWON HEADS BRIDGE RALLY Sunday 25th November 2007 2pm
The National Trust is submitting a strong objection to Heritage Victoria opposing the VicRoads application which effectively demolishes the Barwon Heads bridge. The words used by VicRoads such as DISMANTLE and RECONSTRUCT do not describe heritage conservation – the word RESTORE does, but this word is not seen in the VicRoads proposal.

Ten years ago people across Victoria were alerted to threats to their local timber bridges and the National Trust instituted a state-wide survey. Last year the Trust expert Timber Bridges Committee published Wooden Wonders – Victoria’s Timber Bridges.

This is what Wooden Wonders says about the Barwon Heads bridge …
After the destruction of the Hopkins River bridge in 2001, the one big Victorian timber estuary bridge that still survives is the 1927 Barwon Heads bridge. At 308 metres, the longest all-timber bridge ever built by the CRB and equally the longest of surviving Victorian timber bridges, it provided a major learning experience for CRB bridge engineers of several generations, and its current modified form represents the sum of that experience. … It is difficult to imagine the twin resorts without their historic lifeline … at the start of a new millennium this bridge constitutes a remarkable monument to an evolution of ideas in timber-bridge engineering since the 1920s, and incorporates design elements from various decades.

David Moloney was Project Manager of the survey and is the National Trust expert on timber bridges. David is in W. A. but this is his summary of what will be a detailed submission from the Trust to Heritage Victoria.
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. As the Advisory Committee stressed, it clearly deserves the best heritage outcome.

This application is a rejection of the Advisory Committee’s preferred outcome. 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.

The Trust submits that the application has not properly addressed the question of why the existing bridge can’t be repaired / reconstructed (as required) to a design adapted for modern road traffic. This was the option preferred and recommended by the Advisory Committee, and then endorsed by the Minister. Neither has the reason for rejection of the Advisory Committee’s second preference - an adapted bridge for road traffic only, with a light new structure adjacent for pedestrians, cyclists and fishers – been addressed in the application. The justification for the application is based essentially on VicRoads’ previous submissions regarding the structural limitations of the existing bridge, which have already been fully considered by the Advisory Committee.

Until a comparative assessments of the proposed option vis a vis the Advisory Committee’s options (at least) are provided, the Trust would submit that proper assessment of the application is not possible, and we would oppose it. Comparisons would need to be made between this option and the Advisory Committee’s options regarding heritage outcomes, as well as any relevant technical and economic issues that are thought to distinguish the current application. Without this information it is not possible to ascertain whether the Advisory Committee’s oft-repeated and over-arching criteria of the ‘best heritage outcome’ will be achieved by this application.

There are a number of specific questions which remain to be answered, for example:

*Whether loadings on crossheads were reassessed after relocation of the stringers above the piles, as recommended by the Advisory Committee.

*The extent to which cutting edge technologies re the strengthening of deteriorated timber structures (eg with carbon fibre, glass fibre and Kevlar) have been considered. Has the best expertise in Australia been employed to look at the Advisory Committee’s preferred options?

*Why the new concrete / steel and new timber bridges are proposed to be joined.

*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).

*The extent to which the proposed ‘1927’ bridge would retain existing fabric.

A full submission will be lodged
The Geelong and Region Branch of the National Trust totally supports its members in this locality and the community in their campaign to conserve this extremely significant structure.

Submission to Advisory Committee in 2006
Re:- VicRoads’ Application to Demolish Barwon Heads Bridge, H1848

Thank you for referring this application to the National Trust of Australia (Victoria). It has been difficult to consider the mass of reports presented by VicRoads in the time-frame; the reports had not been provided to the Trust by VicRoads prior to this application.

The Trust is strongly opposed to the application, on the grounds that it has not satisfactorily considered the State level heritage significance of the place, and has not adequately established the case for demolition.

1.0 SUMMARY
VicRoads has proposed the demolition with minimal regard to the heritage significance of the bridge, as previously identified by government and community organizations, and as expressed by the Barwon Heads community in the VicRoads consultation process. Most significantly, the application has not had due regard to the recommendations of its own heritage consultant regarding the significance of the bridge, the impact of the option it is now proposing, and potential economic mitigation of any extra costs involved in retaining the bridge. Similarly, it has ignored the findings of its landscape consultant regarding the importance of the existing bridge.

Most of the consultant reports commissioned by VicRoads to consider various impacts of the proposed options were not allowed to consider the option of retaining the existing bridge, as VicRoads has presumed that it will be demolished. And yet the question of whether the bridge should be retained is probably the most critical question needing to be resolved in this project. The consultants’ reports are therefore of limited use to the Heritage Council’s determination of this application. In as far as they compare Corridors One and Two, although VicRoads finds that Corridor One is favoured, the evidence seems to be inconclusive; and some critical findings of the reports would have been different if the heritage values of the existing bridge had been able to be included.

VicRoads’ case for demolition appears to be based on ‘undue economic hardship’, in that its engineering consultant’s estimates for maintaining or replacing the existing bridge are excessive. These figures do indeed appear to be very high, and the Trust strongly submits that they require additional expert scrutiny. They should not be accepted at face value as the basis for demolishing the bridge. Also, the VicRoads economic hardship case is not based on a benefit-cost analysis of the various route options, as is the usual practice both in Victoria and interstate for new road or bridge works with major potential impacts. These issues would not be able to be fully canvassed if Heritage Victoria recommends that a demolition permit be issued.

The Trust submits that the application has not established a persuasive case for demolition of a place of State level heritage significance. We strongly oppose this application for a permit to demolish the bridge.

2.1 Heritage Victoria’s Assessment of the Heritage Significance of the Barwon Heads Bridge.

The Barwon Heads bridge is an exceptionally long timber beam road bridge of 34 spans built over the Barwon River estuary at Barwon Heads in 1927. Despite recent modifications such as the discreet addition of some steel beams and a 7.3 metre wide concrete and bitumen deck that better meets contemporary traffic needs, the bridge retains much of its historical integrity. The sympathetic modifications have preserved the essential form and aesthetics of a traditional timber bridge with its original driven-pile timber piers, twin pairs of cross-bracing, round timber corbels, old timber stringers, timber crossheads, timber abutments, and timber side railings. 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. Set amongst attractive sand dune vegetation at its eastern end, it provides an impressive and aesthetically-appealing profile when viewed from the river banks and is an historic gateway to the town. The bridge forms a link between major Victorian recreational and tourist districts.

It is of historical, aesthetic, and scientific (technical) significance to the State of Victoria.

It is of historical significance for 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 1920s. It was a major work in this program, which built some of Victoria's most famous coastal and alpine roads. The bridge was originally planned as a link in a proposed extension of the Great Ocean Road. It is the only surviving large timber bridge associated with the 'Tourist Road' program. It is a rare surviving example of a historic timber bridge whose construction helped to shape a town's settlement.It is of aesthetic significance 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. The only other comparable historical timber bridge in an estuarine setting, the Hopkins River Bridge at Warrnambool, is scheduled for replacement. 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. At 308 metres, it is the second longest timber-piered bridge in Victoria and the longest bridge with timber stringers. The only other largely timber bridge of comparable length in Victoria, Kirwan's Bridge at Nagambie (310 metres), has had its original timber stringers replaced with steel beams throughout. The durability of the original Barwon Heads Bridge owes much to research into Australian hardwoods at Sydney and Melbourne Universities during previous decades. The bridge exemplifies the whole evolution of timber bridge construction practice from the 1920s until modern times. 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 historic appearance. It is a monument both to the 1920s, and to CRB engineering ingenuity over many decades. It is one of very few CRB timber bridges from the 1920s still in operation.”

Under ‘Additional Information / Comparisons’ the Heritage Victoria website elaborates:-

“As one of Victoria's two longest timber road bridges, and almost certainly the longest all-timber bridge ever constructed by the CRB (and of course the longest remaining), the Barwon Heads Bridge is clearly of high significance. In the context of its magnificent estuarine river setting, the bridge makes both an impressive spectacle when viewed from the banks, and an excellent viewing platform for holiday makers and tourists.

In evaluating this bridge, it is necessary to bear in mind both its historical significance as a large artefact from the era before timber bridges were constructed specifically for motor traffic, and its importance as a bridge exemplifying the whole evolution of CRB bridge-construction practice from the 1920s until the CRB early 1980s. No other timber river bridge in Victoria has managed to go through so many transformations at the hands of CRB engineers, to meet ever-changing traffic needs, and yet retain so much of its structural integrity and its historic timber aesthetic.

The humble timber-beam or 'pile-and-stringer' type of bridge has played a major role in Victorian bridge history. Although the use of simple round-log stringers was common in Victorian bush situations from early days, in colonial times such bridges were generally considered inferior by engineers of the Public Works Department, who favoured British design practices such as squared-timber beams, shaped timber corbels, support struts and often 'full caps' of squared timber morticed to the tops of round-timber piles. Such features of traditional European timber-beam bridge design continued to be used with Victorian eucalypt hardwoods until the early part of this century.
The results of systematic research into the structural qualities and durability of various native Australian timbers species began to be published by Professor Warren of Sydney University Engineering Department in the years around 1890. Warren's early research results relating to Australian hardwood timbers (including some Victorian species) were summarised in his book Australian Timbers, in 1892. Melbourne University's Engineering Department, under Professor WC Kernot, conducted similar enquiries and experiments with native timbers before the turn of the century, and James Mann of that department published a book in 1900, entitled Australian Timbers, which collected and summarised the then-known Australian data (including Warren's). Mann up-dated his information in summary form in 1904, with an article on 'Australian Timbers' in the Proceedings of the Victorian Institute of Engineers.

As a result of this research, the first timber bridge designs specifically adapted to the qualities of Australian timbers were produced by staff and former students of Sydney University's Engineering Department, during the 1890s. At this time Professor Kernot of Melbourne University was more interested in the use of iron and steel in bridge construction. Although simple 'log-beam' bridges had often been built for convenience by pioneering colonial bridge builders, it was this academic research that helped clearly establish an understanding that timber stringers in the round could actually provide superior structural properties to milled or hand-shaped square timber beams. The use of round timber stringers gave greater strength, better protection against rot and freedom from the twisting and bowing or sagging sometimes associated with the use of squared-hardwood timbers in bridge members. Old practices, however, could be hard to change amongst naturally conservative engineers, and thus old European style bridge carpentry with squared timbers continued to be used in some parts of northern Victoria well into the twentieth century. Even where round log-stringers came into vogue in Victoria early this century, the outer faces of the outer stringers were often squared with the broad axe and adze to conform to traditional appearance of 'proper' bridge timbers.

In the earliest CRB ventures CRB into timber bridge construction, examples of the squaring of stringers are known, as would have been typical for the period (eg. Calulu Bridge, 1922). However, by 1927 when the Barwon Heads Bridge was built, CRB round stringers and corbels had become the standard CRB specification. When originally built, the Barwon Heads bridge had a 6.4 metre wide transverse-planked timber deck (including 1.5 metre footpath) typical of the horse-transport era, except for the addition of spiking planks. Fixed to the upper surface of the stringers, spiking planks were designed to counter the widespread problem of premature stringer decay associated with damage from the direct spiking of timber decking into log stringers.

Enough was then known about the qualities of various Australian timbers for New South Wales turpentine to be imported for the piles, because of its resistance to the Teredo worm's attacks in tidal waters. In line with long-standing New South Wales practice (and James Mann's Victorian timber research) sturdy ironbark timbers were used for the pier cross-braces and crossheads. Superstructure members, regarded as more readily replaceable in situ, were of selected Otway Ranges messmate timber which was more readily available and economic. The smaller ironbark timbers used in pier construction were probably also still available from nearby Otway forests. The application of Australian engineering research in CRB bridge construction practice has contributed to the longevity of this particularly historical artefact, and to the long-term endurance of its vulnerable timber piers in particular. Following completion the Barwon Heads Bridge, it was proudly announced in CRB's annual report for 1927 as 'the longest timber bridge yet erected by the Board' and 'an important part of the project for providing a continuous scenic highway along the south-western coast of Victoria'. The report specifically added that 'the quality of materials and workmanship put into the structure was exceptionally good'.

Very few transverse-decked bridges built by the Victorian Country Roads Board before 1930 survive today in a recognisable form. The largest two examples still with their original transverse deck style intact are the low-level Tyers Road Causeway Bridge over a Latrobe River floodplain (25 spans, 166.0 m overall length, built 1920-1 and now out of use) , and the Calulu Bridge over the Mitchell River at Lindenow (130.0 m overall length, originally built 1922 with ten 7.6 m timber stringer spans and three 18.3 m timber trusses, the latter now replaced by steel girders) . Though the original deck of the Barwon Heads Bridge has been replaced several times, it retains its significance as the longest transverse timber-decked bridge built by the CRB and very probably the longest timber bridge ever built by this authority. It is approximately twice the size of these other transverse timber deck bridges.

In terms of overall length and number of spans, the only surviving largely timber road bridge that compares with the Barwon Heads Bridge is Kirwans Bridge over the Goulburn River north of Nagambie. Originally built in 1890, this impressive structure of 55 spans and 310 metres overall length is today the longest timber decked road bridge in Victoria. It is, however, not in its original form, with a superstructure that was entirely rebuilt after 1930, replacing the original squared-timber beams with rolled-steel-joists and a longitudinally-planked timber deck of standard CRB design that is considerably narrower than the original deck. Whilst Kirwans Bridge is of State Significance due to its exceptional timber deck length, unique 'kinked' deck alignment and rare surviving remnants of original strutted-corbels, it is not directly comparable to the Barwon Heads Bridge. It was not originally built by the Country Roads Board, retains only scant remains of its original timber stringers and has less integrity in its overall historic form than the Barwon Heads Bridge. It is also less than two metres longer than the Barwon Heads Bridge.

The Barwon Heads Bridge is also a rare historic timber bridge in an estuarine setting. The only Victorian timber railway bridge in a coastal setting is the now disused Kilcunda Bridge on the former Wonthaggi line. The only other timber road bridge of significant age and size in an estuarine location is the 24-span truss and timber stringer bridge over the Hopkins River estuary at Warrnambool. This bridge was listed on the Victorian Heritage Register but is now scheduled to be demolished and replaced by a modern bridge.

Rarity: One of Victoria's two longest timber road bridges, and almost certainly the longest all-timber bridge ever constructed by the CRB. The Barwon Heads Bridge is also a rare historic timber bridge in an estuarine setting.”

2.2 The National Trust Assessment of the Heritage Significance of the Barwon Heads Bridge.

The National Trust classified the bridge at the State level of significance in February 1997. The Trust’s Statement of Significance is similar to that of Heritage Victoria. Its opening paragraph states:-

“The 1927 Barwon Head Bridge is of State significance for its exceptional size, its estuarine setting on an historic tourist road, and as the best illustration of sympathetic modifications to a major timber bridge over time. The 308 metres deck length makes it one of the two longest timber road bridges in the State, and it is believed to be the longest all-timber bridge ever built by the Country Roads Board.”

In summary, the National Trust submits:-

The bridge is Indicative Place No.102760 in the Register of the National Estate. Its assessment has not been completed. Its interim Statement of Significance for the bridge is as follows:-

“It is of historical significance for 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 1920s. It was a major work in this program, which built some of Victoria's most famous coastal and alpine roads. The bridge was originally planned as a link in a proposed extension of the Great Ocean Road. It is the only surviving large timber bridge associated with the 'Tourist Road' program. It is a rare surviving example of a historic timberbridge whose construction helped to shape a town's settlement.

It is of aesthetic significance 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. The only other comparable historical timber bridge in an estuarine setting, the Hopkins River Bridge at Warmambool, is scheduled for replacement.

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. At 308 metres, it is the second longest timber-piered bridge in Victoria and the longest bridge with timber stringers. The only other largely timber bridge of comparable length in Victoria, Kirwan's Bridge at Nagambie (3 10 metres), has had its original timber stringers replaced with steel beams throughout. The durability of the original Barwon Heads Bridge owes much to research into Australian hardwoods at Sydney and Melbourne Universities during previous decades. The bridge exemplifies the whole evolution of timber bridge construction practice from the 1920s until modem times. 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 historic appearance. It is a monument both to the 1920s, and to CRB engineering ingenuity over many decades. It is one of very few CRB timber bridges from the 1920s still in operation.”

3.0 VICROADS’ CONSULTANTS’ ASSESSMENTS OF THE BRIDGE AND CORRIDOR ROUTES.

Most of VicRoads’ consultant studies are of little value in determining its case for demolition of the existing bridge, as VicRoads has not allowed retention of the bridge to be included as an option for their consideration.

VicRoads has effectively ignored the above assessments of the cultural heritage significance of the Barwon Heads Bridge, as well as the recommendations of its own heritage and landscape consultants.

3.1 The ‘Cultural Heritage Study of the Options for Replacing the Barwon Heads Bridge’ (March 2006), by David Beauchamp for VicRoads.

The Beauchamp report acknowledges that the bridge is of high (State level) heritage significance. In regard to the impact of the demolition on cultural heritage values, VicRoads’ heritage consultant states that:-

There is no evidence that VicRoads has sought to further examine ways in which the bridge might be able to be conserved, as recommended. Rather, it has lodged an application for demolition.

VicRoads’ decision to ignore its advice regarding the indisputable impact of demolition on a place of State cultural heritage significance is in stark contrast to its rejection of Corridor Three, to a significant extent because that route has the potential to impact on natural values to a marginally greater extent. There appears to be inconsistency in VicRoads’ approach to natural and cultural heritage values.

3.2 The ‘Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment’ (April 2006) report by Aspect Melbourne states that:-

3.3 The ‘Barwon Heads Bridge Planning Study: Social Impact Assessment’ prepared for VicRoads by Maunsell Australia Pty Ltd. (April 2006).

Like most of VicRoads consultants reports, this report is wrongly named. It would more accurately be called the ‘Barwon Heads New Bridge Planning Study: Social Impact Assessment’. The option of retaining the bridge is not within the consultants terms of reference.

VicRoads ‘Project Objectives’ and ‘Assessment Criteria’ (p.13), and Maunsell’s ‘Proposed Assessment Framework’ (pp.19-20) do not truly reflect the views of the Barwon Heads and Ocean Grove communities as expressed to VicRoads’ community forums and feedback mechanisms.

Two of the clearest, strongest, and most consistent objectives of the local community have been lost in their translation into VicRoads’ project objectives, overwhelmed by other priorities:- the emphatic concern regarding traffic implications of a new Corridor One bridge on the town’s amenity, and safety (which is VicRoads’ stated primary objective); and the preference for retaining the ‘iconic’ heritage bridge. The traffic issue has been downgraded, and overwhelmed by different priorities; while the heritage issue is simply omitted. The discussion of these issues in the Maunsell report (April 2006) tends to supports the validity of the community’s concerns regarding these issues (pp.37-51), but the status of these concerns within the whole project has already been determined (Community Bulletin No.3, August 2005), and ensures that they will either not figure, or be regarded as minor issues, in the final analysis. (pp.52-56)

The report concludes that the heritage values of the existing bridge are highly significant for the local community.

However such values are unable to be incorporated into the report’s assessment of social impact, as VicRoads removed the option of retaining the bridge from the project brief. (p.47)

Consequently the report’s objective to ‘Minimise impact on natural, landscape and cultural environments’ (pp.ii, 55), remarkably, does not include the local community’s attitudes to the existing bridge. As a result the natural and cultural impacts of VicRoads’ proposed demolition of the bridge in Corridor One scores better than a new bridge in Corridor Two, despite the David Beauchamp and Aspect Melbourne reports (above) finding that demolition of the bridge would have a major impact on both cultural heritage values and landscape values. (The ‘Barwon Heads Flora and Fauna Assessment’ by ERM [May 2005, p.46] found that Corridor Two had only a ‘marginally’ (6%) greater risk of impact on natural values, and the two options were almost identical in terms of these values.)

VicRoads’ social impact assessment is therefore critically flawed, and of no relevance in relation to the question of the local community’s opinion of the heritage bridge.

The primary issues raised as a result of the VicRoads’ community forums were ‘the amount of traffic through Barwon Heads and Ocean Grove and the need to remove through traffic from the town centres, the potential environmental impact of a new bridge, and the need to maintain the village character of Barwon Heads and Ocean Grove.’^¹

The ‘Features of a Good Outcome’ identified in the March 2005 Forums are stated by Maunsell (p.11) as:-

This clearly demonstrates the relative importance of traffic problems with the existing corridor to the local community, followed by its desire to keep the existing bridge. The priority of the traffic issue is also confirmed by it being the first ‘issue’ identified by the local residents, under the heading ‘Growing Amount of Traffic Through the Two Towns’. (p.9) Of the 19 concerns listed under this heading, 13 specifically referred to the need for an alternative northern route (ie not VicRoads preferred route), and only one referred to the potential loss of business to Barwon Heads traders if an alternative route was chosen (the issue which VicRoads has chosen to emphasise instead).

The final conclusion (p.56) of the Social Impact Assessment is that Corridor One performs ‘slightly better’ than Corridor Two. This is despite the community’s overwhelming and unequivocal feedback regarding the impact of increased and heavier traffic along the present route. (The consultant’s interpretation of this is that the Bridge Road corridor ‘may reduce the attractiveness of the area for local shopping and entertainment activities’.) Neither does this determination of ‘slight’ advantage take account that the heritage bridge identified as ‘iconic’ by the local community would be demolished.

Instead, an ‘extensive’ interview program was conducted with 22 local households (not a random sample), and with 12 local ‘community stakeholders’ (which did not include the National Trust). Holiday home-owners, campers and tourists were also unable to be included.

4.1 Economic Assessment of Options to Repair and Replace the Heritage Bridge

The costs of retaining the Barwon Heads Bridge for traffic use ($23.6 million) and recreational use only ($15 million) cited by VicRoads are extremely high. These figures are the fundamental reason why VicRoads is proposing to demolish the bridge. It is therefore critical that these figures be examined fully.

VicRoads’ action in presenting the retention of the bridge as economically unfeasible and removing it as an option was premature. Scrutiny of the figures by Peter Ytrupp, who has conducted major studies of the structural and economic feasibility of retaining timber bridges in Tasmania and other Australian states, suggests that the figures are indeed excessive, and that repair could be undertaken for much less financial cost. If this is the case, the fundamental platform of VicRoad’s proposal is undermined.

The Trust submits that it is therefore critical that these figures be subject to independent peer review.

VicRoads has provided no economic benefit-cost analysis regarding the need for a new bridge, or the benefit-cost options of the different corridor options. This is the usual practice of estimating the economic benefits and costs of options for major road projects. It would take into account not only the capital costs of various options (in terms of bridge and road works), but the benefits and costs that would accrue in terms of traffic use.

Barwon Heads is not on a through route of any significance. So, for example, it is very possible that the very high capital cost of upgrading the crossing so that it is capable of carrying heavy vehicles might not be economically justified by the projected use of the crossing by such vehicles. Similarly, it is very possible that an economic benefit-cost analysis would find that a lower load rating on the existing bridge would be more desirable than building an expensive new bridge to the latest 45.5 tonnes load rating for the relatively little heavy traffic that might be expected to use it.

This is a major omission in a VicRoads’ argument for a new bridge on the existing alignment.

In support for its submission to demolish the heritage bridge, (‘Barwon Heads Project, Heritage Victoria Application: Supporting Documentation for Demolition of Existing Bridge’, Feb 2006) VicRoads’ lists modifications to the existing bridge, and argues that these detract from the ‘original appearance of the bridge’. (p.4) This contention is used to support demolition of the bridge, whose attributes are regarded as aesthetic rather than structural or historical, and therefore capable of being reproduced by a new structure.

This argument fails to understand the object of conservation, as stated in the Burra Charter, regarding the need to preserve originally fabric.

It also ignores the citations of Heritage Victoria, the Register of the National Estate, and the National Trust (above), which recognise the alterations to the bridge, but regards them as not affecting the heritage significance of the bridge.

It also fails to appreciate that modifications to heritage places, including prominent mansions, are normal. It is not valid to presume that a heritage place must be original to retain its significance.

The ICOMOS publication ‘Context for World Heritage Bridges’ states in its chapter on Wooden Bridges that:- ‘A special global effort should be made to identify, access and protect wooden structures of all kinds.’

The National Trust of Australia (Victoria) has made such a comprehensive survey of Victoria’s timber bridges, and found that the Barwon Heads Bridge is one of a handful of the most significant timber bridges in Victoria.

Timber bridges around the world, in Europe and Asia, built of both hardwood and softwood, have survived for many centuries. They have been constantly repaired. Some have been totally rebuilt after catastrophic destruction, to exactly the same designs, and are still regarded as amongst the finest timber structures in these countries. Many surviving North American timber bridges, constructed of less durable softwoods, have survived since the 1860s and remain in use as a consequence of appropriate maintenance.

Australian hardwoods are amongst the longest surviving timbers in the world, and should ensure that timber bridges have a long life. The Victorian Country Roads Board was a leading player in designing timber bridges specifically with a view to improve protection of members and facilitating maintenance. Such developments led it, in its 1932 annual report, to speculate considered that it might be possible to maintain a timber bridge ‘indefinitely’.

All bridges, including so-called ‘permanent’ metal and concrete bridges, require maintenance, especially in marine environments. For example, without expensive annual maintenance, the Westgate Bridge and the Sydney Harbour Bridge would not be usable.

In 1998 a special three member Ministerial Advisory Committee was convened to consider almost identical conservation issues, in the face of proposed demolition of the Hopkins River bridge at Warrnambool (25/11/1998). It was lead ‘inescapably’ to the conclusion that, inter alia, it was economically feasible, taking into account both capital and cyclical maintenance costs, to retain the heritage bridge rather than build a new concrete bridge as proposed by the Council and VicRoads.

Also of relevance was its observation that the benefits of a new bridge with higher loadings were not justified. (No benefit-cost assessment of such issues has been provided in support of VicRoads application to demolish the Barwon Heads Bridge.)

The Advisory Committee recommended that the Hopkins River bridge be retained. Its subsequent demolition (including the loss of its unique trusses) has created a huge gap in Victoria’s heritage. Its loss also means that the Barwon Heads bridge is now the only other timber road bridge (of any importance) to survive in an estuarine setting in Victoria.

Koppers Wood Products Pty Ltd, a leading supplier of treated hardwood pole products, sources its timber from native re-growth and plantation grown hardwood forest reserves, rather than old growth timber.

Treated timbers have been safely used for piles on structures such as the St Kilda Pier Kiosk reconstruction (2005), the South Channel Light in Port Phillip (1998), other Port Phillip navigation beacons (1997-2003), and the Lakes Entrance Fishing Co-operative (1988).

Mr Lloyd Margetts, Structural Delivery and Standards Engineer with Main Roads Western Australia, wrote the manual ‘Timber Bridge Maintenance and Refurbishment: Preventative Maintenance Standards’ (Department of Main Roads, 2004). In it he refers, inter alia, to the ‘significant and on-going advance in the technology of timber preservation’, noting especially the development of diffusible fungicides to enable effective treatment of timber structures in service.

In relation to the Barwon Heads Bridge, Mr Margetts recently advised a manufacturer of timber preservatives (Home Team Australia) that:-

‘Even from this side of Australia, I can see that many people would wish the old bridge to be retained for as long as possible …. Long term preservation of the old bridge could be accomplished using the methods outlined in the Main Roads WA timber bridges preservation standards book, in parallel with a regular inspection regime.’ (Email, John Thorpe to David Moloney, 17^th January 2006).

4.4.1 The Burra Charter

Building a new ‘look-alike’ bridge would be inconsistent with the Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance (‘The Burra Charter’).

The emphasis of the Burra Charter is on preserving the fabric of the place. Article 1.6 states that:- ‘Preservation means maintaining the fabric of a place in its existing state and retarding deterioration.’

While introducing new fabric can be acceptable, such ‘Reconstruction’ is defined as:-

‘… returning a place to a known earlier state and is distinguished from restoration by the introduction of new material into the fabric.’ (Article 1.8) It should ‘reveal culturally significant aspects of the place’ (Article 18), and is only appropriate ‘ … where there is sufficient evidence to reproduce an earlier state of the fabric’ (Article 20.1).

Building a look-alike bridge that retains neither the fabric nor the design of the original is clearly not in conformity with the Burra Charter, and could not in any way be interpreted as preserving the cultural significance of the existing bridge.

4.4.2 Community Support

VicRoads’ asserts that 75% of the local community supports this option. The Trust questions whether this is indeed the case.^²

However, even if 75% of the people of Barwon Heads did vote in this way, the bridge that is proposed is not a ‘look alike’ bridge. It looks nothing like the present bridge:-

The term ‘look alike’ in this case is a misleading misnomer. There appears to have been no definition or statement of what VicRoads had in mind when proposing a ‘bridge with similar appearance’, and it is likely that many people in the community had a very different conception of such a bridge when they answered this question.

VicRoads’ response to the community appears to be significantly flawed, in both the amount and balance of information provided, and in its analysis of the community’s express concerns and desires.

The cultural heritage values of the historic bridge – a fundamental component of the question of a new crossing – were insufficiently conveyed by VicRoads to the community workshops. Issues vital to the VicRoads submission, such as the (so-called) 'replica' structure, do not appear to have been subject to informed consideration at these meetings.

4.5.1 General Consultation

VicRoads assessment of community response to its preferred option was directed to the local community. The views of the broader Victorian community, for which Barwon Heads is a popular place of resort, were not canvassed, even in the specialist consultants reports. The interest of the broader Victorian community is confirmed by newspaper articles and letters in the Melbourne press, and expressions of support for retaining the bridge on 774 ABC radio talkback.

4.5.2 The National Trust

VicRoads did not seek to meet the National Trust - a major stakeholder that had successfully nominated the place to the Victorian Heritage Register - in relation to its proposals for the bridge. Representatives of the Trust were invited to the August 2005 presentation to the Barwon Heads community, and provided with a copy the August edition of the ‘Community Bulletin’. Representatives of the Trust’s Geelong Branch attended the local meetings. When the Trust head-office sought further information about the project, we were emailed a (partially illegible) copy of the Powerpoint presentation that had been delivered to the local community meeting in August. Naturally we did not accept that the broadly dismissive introductory statements to this presentation constituted evidence that the bridge could not be preserved, and we requested such evidence in the form of benefit-cost studies, and further information regarding the rankings system, the ‘look alike’ alternative, and the visual impacts of the various options on the estuary.

We received no response to our comments (26^th September 2006) on the Powerpoint presentation, which expressed our disappointment with the degree and analysis of information presented. We presumed that there must be far more rigorous and comprehensive information in relation to this major issue than had been made available to us. However the only subsequent contacts by VicRoads were:-

The assessment and consultation process for this bridge falls well short of similar assessments by the Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW. The RTA consultation program regarding its proposal to demolish the heritage Cobram-Barooga Bridge provided for meetings, comprehensive reports, and reasonable time-frames for response to these reports. As a consequence a much-improved solution was developed, in which the bridge was decommissioned for traffic, but substantially retained for pedestrian and tourism purposes.

4.5.3 The Local Community

The amount of information provided to these community forums regarding the cultural significance of the bridge was minimal. For example, the VicRoads’ Community Bulletins (that claimed to ‘keep the community and other interested stakeholders informed’) appear to have virtually ignored the heritage significance of the bridge. The report on ‘Cultural Heritage’ in Community Bulletin 3 (August 2005) explained in comparatively lengthy terms that no aboriginal archaeological sites had been found in Corridor One (VicRoads preferred corridor), that several had been found in the other corridors, and that no historical archaeological sites had been identified. A statement was appended that: ‘The existing timber bridge is included in the Victorian Heritage Register’. There was no explanation of the relative merits of these cultural heritage sites. A lay person might be excused for concluding that the VHR listing, mentioned so briefly in the concluding sentence, was less significant than the archaeological sites which constituted the vast majority of this ‘Cultural Heritage’ report.

Similarly, the 'Conclusions of Assessment of Route Options' went through impacts (including relatively marginal impacts - on the basis of previous non-appearance - such as 'higher road user costs' because of a steeper bridge grade for Corridor Two), but simply ignored that Corridor One would have the maximum impact on a site of State cultural heritage significance.

The final issue reported in this Bulletin (No.4) - ‘Other Traffic Matters’ - refers, opaquely, to ‘other matters’ involving ‘long term and short term traffic management considerations’. Could this be a reference to the fact that the number one concern expressed by the community was that a large new bridge would encourage more traffic through the centre of the congested town, and past a primary school, with amenity and safety impacts? If so, VicRoads’ interpretation is bamboozling:- these ‘other matters’ are ‘separate from the project objective for the replacement of the Barwon Heads Bridge (to maintain safe access across the Barwon River for the long term)’. Instead of such key issues being critically considered as part of the analysis of route options, VicRoads promises to investigate them so that they can be addressed in ‘future road programs’. And so the highest rating local issue, relating directly (negatively) to VicRoads’ preferred river crossing option (Corridor One) is regarded as being of no immediate relevance, and relegated to matter for attention in a potential future traffic management study.

5.0 CONCLUSION:- INSUFFICIENT CASE FOR DEMOLITION OF PLACE OF STATE HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE

The National Trust would like to attend any hearing held in relation to this issue. Please do not hesitate to contact David Moloney of this office should there be any queries in relation to this submission.

1 The majority of the other ‘significance’ issues identified by the community related to the ‘heritage character’, ‘historical’ value, ‘icon’ value, ‘town culture’, ‘tourism’, ‘sentimental’ and values of the existing bridge.

2 Our reservations are based on observation of the process, and the feeling in the local community expressed in newspaper letters, and activism for keeping the existing bridge. They are also based on the Community Feedback Sheet (Aug-Sept 2005), in which the option for a bridge ‘with similar appearance’, is proposed only for those people who favour Corridor One, rather than all of the respondents. We also note that the Social Impact Assessment study does not corroborate this assertion.

3 The Trust’s correspondence of 26^th September had commented that it would be unacceptable not to commission a heritage report for a place of such significance that was threatened with demolition.

Thank you for referring this application to the National Trust of Australia (Victoria). It has been difficult to consider the mass of reports presented by VicRoads in the time-frame; the reports had not been provided to the Trust by VicRoads prior to this application.

The Trust is strongly opposed to the application, on the grounds that it has not satisfactorily considered the State level heritage significance of the place, and has not adequately established the case for demolition.

In summary, the National Trust submits:-

4.4.1 The Burra Charter

4.4.2 Community Support

4.5.1 General Consultation

4.5.2 The National Trust

4.5.3 The Local Community

5.0 CONCLUSION:- INSUFFICIENT CASE FOR DEMOLITION OF PLACE OF STATE HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE