National Trust of Australia (Victoria)

10th July 2008
Mr Ray Tonkin,
Executive Director,
Heritage Victoria,
Level 7,
8 Nicholson Street,
East  Melbourne
Vic 3002        

Dear Mr Tonkin
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.
1.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 Ministerial Advisory Committee considered that the question of its repair and/or replacement raised a ‘major issue of State public interest’.1
The National Trust views differ from those of the Advisory Committee in several respects, most notably in its recommendation that the present corridor is the best location for a new bridge, and that a T44 standard bridge is suitable for or required in the present corridor, given its township and traffic context. However, the Minister for Planning and the Victorian Government subsequently endorsed the Advisory Committee report, so this report, and the Government’s announcement that the Barwon Heads Bridge would be ‘saved’, therefore form the framework for this submission.
The Trust strongly supports the Advisory Committee’s persistent and over-arching concern that the best heritage outcome should be achieved for this place, and the ultimate role of Heritage Victoria in determining the best manner for this to occur.

2.THE CURRENT PROPOSAL
This proposal is a form of the Advisory Committee’s second preference.
2.1.Advantages
This option is preferable to the previous VicRoads application of a single half-timber and half-modern wide bridge.
The merits of the proposal include:-
widening of a reconstructed ‘timber’ bridge being kept to the extent recommended by the Advisory Committee (9.0 metres), and the use of non-structural outer timber beams;
retention of many of the original design features, including original heights, retention of five-pile piers; and the use of original, high-quality structural timbers;
the distinctive modern style of the proposed pedestrian bridge;
the sympathetic design of the proposed pedestrian bridge in relation to the height and spans of the existing timber bridge;
the reasonable proposed distance between the bridges.
2.2.Disadvantages

2.2.1.Heritage Impact on the Barwon Heads Bridge
The application would involve the complete rebuilding of the timber road bridge, to approximate the design of the original/present bridge. It would also be on a different alignment. The Trust submits that this would not represent the best heritage outcome for the place.
A key question with which the Advisory Committee grappled was that of ‘rehabilitate’ or ‘rebuild’. Its unambiguous preference was for the former, and it concluded that the bridge could and should be upgraded for road traffic. It recommended that: ‘The existing Bridge be repaired and adapted as the road bridge at Barwon Heads’. (p.2)
This is not what is proposed in the current application.

2.2.2.Replacing the Bridge
Firstly, the extent of the (virtually complete) rebuild of the bridge appears to be excessive. It does not appear to have been developed with as much attention to heritage as the status of the structure warrants.
There is little evidence of a desire to retain original fabric. As far as possible the viability of each timber member should be ranked in advance of the proposed works, to enable a more transparent impression of what will be achieved in a rebuilt bridge. There is no detail provided as to the process that would be used to determine which fabric is suitable for re-use.

There is no reference to using heritage personnel (eg an independent heritage engineer), or the standards that would be optimal, desirable or acceptable for re-using different timber members. There is no undertaking to (or even information about) the possibility of preserving those parts of piles that retain unique evidence of the War years. There similarly appears to be no reference as to what would happen to the span that was specifically designed to accommodate a lift, although Chinamans Bridge at Nagambie is the only other known evidence of such within Victoria (proper).

The overall impression is that, if approved, the new bridge would retain only a token amount of recycled timber members, maybe a few walers and some cross-bracing. This is in contrast to the Advisory Committee report, which preferred rehabilitation, and explored specific possibilities for repair rather than replacement.

The application does not appear to take as seriously as it should the Advisory Committee’s recommendations in relation to preserving as much as possible of the original fabric or design. There is, for example, little discussion of or desire to save original piles by splicing: while the Advisory Committee concluded that ‘a clear majority of piles need to be replaced within 10 years … ’, it also makes clear that such ‘replacing’ includes splicing as well as new driven piles.2 Rather than addressing this preferable heritage outcome, the application states simply that it will undertake ‘wholesale replacement of the piles as a single action rather than progressive replacement …’.3 Not even the minority of piles which the Advisory Committee concludes will not need replacement within the next ten years would be retained, and none of the ‘clear majority’ that do require replacement within 10 years would be spliced. While the applicant’s heritage advisor agrees that ‘the significance of the piers’ “timber look” is of primary importance’,4 the best heritage outcome for this primary heritage component of the bridge are not explored.

Further, the applicant advises that it will seek additional modification of the piles, by the use of ‘steel shell piles’. No information is provided about these lower fixings in terms of their visual impact, which is a key aspect of the heritage significance of the bridge. While ‘steel shell piles’ might subsequently be judged to be appropriate, it is recommended that in the absence of further information, their approval not be a part of any decision to approve this application.

Again, in relation to timber crossheads, the Advisory Committee clearly states that their retention may be possible if the main beams were to be properly seated above the piles:- ‘Relocating the stringers might mean that a wooden crosshead of the current dimensions could be used’.5 It would seem however that the strong, repeated, recommendation of the Advisory Committee for ‘recalculating the loadings on the crossheads’ once the beams were relocated over the piles, has not been undertaken.6

Instead, steel crossheads are proposed. On the basis that these would be located over the piles, it is claimed that: ‘The approach is therefore one that accords with the Advisory Committee recommendations.”7 The Trust submits that it clearly does not accord with the clear preference of the Advisory Committee for timber crossheads if possible, and indeed the Lovell Chen’s recommendation in its original report that the crossheads be replaced with ‘similar material’ strengthened discreetly.8 It ignores the Advisory Committee recommendation that the strength of the crossheads required (and therefore the possibility of using timber) be ascertained by recalculating loadings after relocation of the piles. It also ignores the possibility that timber crossheads of greater size may also be an option.9

2.2.3.Relocating the Bridge

It is proposed to rebuild the bridge on a new alignment, over 6 metres from the present one, because of exigencies of maintaining trafficability during construction. This would, in the view of the Trust, represent a case wherein a temporary operational advantage is given absolute preference over one of the two fundamental issues at stake: the heritage value of the place (the other being the long-term viability of the bridge). This unnecessary scenario obviously does not represent the ‘best heritage outcome’.

A similarly designed bridge on a nearby alignment could not be construed as the same bridge which is presently on the Victorian Heritage Register. It is clearly not the best heritage outcome. While international (western) heritage practice can permit complete reconstruction in some circumstances, these do not include the circumstance of a pre-meditated demolition of an existing structure, but rather the situation in which a place is no longer extant (and for which evidence of the place is sufficient to allow a non-conjectural reconstruction). Even Asian (Chinese) practice is that at least the foundations of a place should survive for it to be reconstructed; relocation of the bridge would make this impossible.

While the Advisory Committee suggested that a small (1.5 metre) realignment might be appropriate, this was in the context of its vision of a much wider bridge. But the heritage ramifications of many of the detailed matters in its report were not ones for which it claimed expertise, and the Trust submits that this matter should properly be regarded as one of those issues to which the Committee ultimately deferred to Heritage Victoria regarding an ultimate decision.

Relocation would also ensure, ipso facto, that minimal, if any, original fabric would remain. A fundamental axiom is that conservation should do as much as necessary and as little as possible. Whereas the ‘best heritage outcome’ would be to do everything possible to retain as much original fabric as possible in a refurbished bridge, a decision to relocate undermines the possibility and incentive to retain original fabric. Instead, it is likely that the project would be regarded by building contractors and public alike as construction of a new bridge. As the application documents herald, VicRoads does not believe that much of the original bridge is likely to be up to the standard of the new structure it is proposing.

Notably, relocation is likely to eliminate the prospect that any piles could be retained. The Advisory Committee discussion, on the other hand, allowed the possibility that a small number of piles might be able to be retained, and that others might be repaired by splicing rather than being replaced.

Even if Heritage Victoria is of a mind to approve this application, the Trust would submit that, at the very least, the alignment of the current bridge be preserved. One important consequence of this is that it would allow the retention of more than token fabric to be considered.

2.2.4.Impact on the Setting of the Barwon Heads Bridge

The proposed modern pedestrian bridge interferes with the most important view of and to the existing timber bridge: the view of the bluff from the timber bridge; and the view to the timber bridge from the downstream activity hub, the beach, piers, and bluff.

In addition, the design of the modern pedestrian bridge is problematic in several respects, including:

The bulkiness of the proposed concrete pier, which would appear to be much less ‘transparent’ than necessary. While the photomontages which accompany the application show that the view of the timber bridge from the end of the downstream pier would be impacted only minimally, this would not be the case from the shoreline which in fact provides the most common view of the bridge.

This could be improved by using less substantial piers. However it is presumed that the bulky piers proposed are necessary for the vehicular traffic that the bridge would need to accommodate temporarily during the reconstruction of the timber bridge.

If this is the case the Trust strongly submits that the setting of such a highly significant bridge should not be permitted to be compromised by such a temporary operational objective. This is particularly so given that the Advisory Committee (in a number of places) endorses the creation of one lane for traffic during construction, whereas a new pedestrian bridge of such mass is proposed by VicRoads because it would provide two lanes of traffic during construction works. It would appear to be an unnecessary compromise of the Advisory Committee’s concern that the best heritage outcome be achieved for the place.

This issue would be drastically and significantly improved by building the pedestrian bridge to the upstream rather than the downstream side of the bridge. If Heritage Victoria is of the mind to approve this application, the Trust strongly submits that the proposed pedestrian bridge should be relocated upstream, a similar distance from the timber bridge.

If the location of the proposed new pedestrian bridge is outside the VHR extent of registration of the Barwon Heads Bridge, it should not be considered outside Heritage Victoria’s purview in considering this application. The significance of the setting of a heritage place is noted in the Burra Charter, and has been emphasised consistently in the recent ICOMOS Charters and Declarations.10 Further, the Advisory Committee specifically recommended that Heritage Victoria revise (increase) its extent of registration for the Barwon Heads Bridge.11

The amount of exposed metal in the balustrades and spans of the proposed new pedestrian bridge may reflect the sun, additionally impacting on and detracting from the key downstream view of the original bridge. While the provision of an architecturally-designed modern bridge is in general supported by the Trust, the use of modern timber rails, for example, would also be consistent with the Advisory Committee’s recommendation in relation to these matters.


3.ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

There are a number of alternative options that in the view of the Trust would be better.

Given that the State Government announced that the existing Barwon Heads Bridge would be ‘saved’, the Trust strongly believes that the best way of meaningfully achieving this would be to retain the bridge for light use. So a new traffic bridge would be built upstream of it (adjacent to it, given the Advisory Committee’s recommendation against the Geelong Road option). This is similar to the current proposal, reversed so that the new bridge would be for road traffic, and the heritage bridge for light pedestrian, bicycle and fishing use.

It would have the defining advantage in that both the plan/design of the existing bridge, and much more of its fabric, including piers, crossheads, original (now non-structural) beams, and particular marks and features of significance (such as drill holes and lift-span) would be retained. The existing bridge would then be universally acknowledged to have, in fact, been ‘saved’.

Another option, which is that preferred by the Advisory Committee, is to rehabilitate and widen the existing bridge. The bridge, in its current position, would retain the possibility that more original fabric would be conserved than is possible in the current proposal.

The disadvantage in the view of the Trust, is that the deck would be greatly widened, destroying the traditional above-road impression of a timber bridge, in which narrow width was a characteristic part. However, it must be acknowledged that the current bridge, without its timber barriers, has already significantly lost much of this impression.

Both of these alternative options enable the possibility of more creative conservation options. For example, timber stringers might be used to reconstruct one or several spans in an original form. Perhaps the short ‘lift’ span could be made T44 compliant with the traditional timber beams. Or the spans over the Barwon Heads foreshore could be recreated in their original form with salvaged components, if the bridge is retained for light use.

4.CONCLUSION

The Trust is of the view that the current application constitutes construction of a new bridge, in a new location, with a modified design, and only token retention of original fabric. It will not achieve the Advisory Committee’s oft-repeated and over-arching criterion of the ‘best heritage outcome’. More committed, and creative, measures could be taken to conserve one of Victoria’s most significant timber bridges.

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,

Tracey Avery
Cultural Heritage Manager