THE State Government’s approval of VicRoads Barwon Heads Bridge reconstruction plans is “the worst possible outcome”, according to local councillor Jan Farrell.
State Government Roads and Ports Minister Tim Pallas has given the green light to reconstruting the bridge in March, despite three years and extensive submission by local campaigners.
The plan is to reconstruct and adapt the existing road bridge in keeping with heritage values and current building standards and it also includes the building of a separate, contemporary, yet according to VicRoads “a complementary pedestrian bridge” alongside the road bridge to accommodate the growing number of pedestrians, cyclists and anglers.
However, local objections which included the siting of the footbridge – on the seabound side of the bridge, the erosion of sand dunes on the Ocean Grove side, the loss of beach and parking on the Heads side, and the damage to the visual character of the bridge, have gone unheard.
Cllr Farrell and bridge campaigners have been told that VicRoads it will now go ahead regardless.
“I think that it is probably the poorest decision they could have made,” said Cllr Farrell. “If you measure a project in outcomes they may have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in consultations and engineering and advice and they’ve come up with the worst outcome possible.
“I would think that there would be significant political outcomes for the local member, Michael Crutchfield.”
Objectors and council met with VicRoads last Tuesday, just ahead of the minister’s decision.
“I think what was quite scary about the meeting on Tuesday was the arrogance of VicRoads and their architects.
“The most cutting thing for me was when Michael Harbour was talking about the fishing platforms being upstream and not downstream.
“The engineers were asked how they made that decision. I’ve got a mate who’s a fisherman, he said.
“I was incredulous about that. I said why didn’t you ask local fishermen? There was no response. Why wouldn’t you go and stand on the bridge for day? I think that’s what really wrong. It’s a patriarchal view that they know what’s best.”
Cllr Farrell said does remain an opportunity to take the issue to the supreme court.
“But I’m not aware of anyone doing that, so far. They can only argue on the basis of process,” she said.
Key campaigner Bernard Napthine was doubtful that more could be done.
“Unfortunately I think there is no real avenue open to us – except going to the High Court,” he said. “I am trying to find out if the Minister for Planning Madden can simply make this decision or if it needs to go to Parliament. If it has to be a parliamentary amendment to the COGG planning scheme then in theory the Upper House can slow or even stop this…but I am not holding my breathe.
“So a community wake over the “loss” of our beach and car park etc may be our way of saying to the Gov what we think. Not only is this a missed opportunity it is a bad decision, not supported by the people and we take offence when they say they consulted us. Both Peter McMullin and Michael Crutchfield have not performed their role of representing the community views on this.
“The whole process has been a sham and to be honest once the Geelong Road option was rejected my personal view was that anything else would be second best – alas we have been given the third best and in years to come people will wonder why we let it happen.”
The existing road bridge, originally built in 1927, is rapidly reaching the end of its operational life. The results of a 2006 bridge inspection gave the bridge four to six more working years.
The inspection identified extensive deterioration of the concrete deck, rotting and splitting of timber, rotting and cracking of piles, walers and cross-bracing and rusting and pitting of the steel beams.
Latest Feedback