Page 1 of 1

Beckwith Grove Bridge over Kananook Creek

PostPosted: Fri Dec 18, 2015 4:47 pm
by Noel Tudball


Not to be replaced - Council Decision 25 September 2017 = Resolves not to reconstruct the bridge - more: http://www.seafordcc.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=193&p=682#p682

http://www.frankston.vic.gov.au/Your_Council/Media_and_Publications/Latest_News/Notification_of_Works

Current at time of writing:
  • Kananook Creek Pedestrian Bridge
    - Works Commencing: 2016
    - Location: Beckwith Grove, Seaford
    - Duration of Works: To be advised

Beckwith Grove Bridge over Kananook Creek

PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2016 1:23 pm
by Noel Tudball


Feedback closes March 18.

The case of the missing bridge .......... solved!

At our stall at the February Seaford Farmers' Market, a resident alerted us to the fact that the pedestrian bridge over Kananook Creek at Beckwith Grove (via Brodie St) had disappeared.

An alert member spotted this post on FCC's Facebook page on 4th March, 2016:

Have your say online about the future of the pedestrian bridge over Kananook Creek at Beckwith Grove in Seaford.

This bridge was recently demolished due to safety. Council is undertaking consultation to gauge the community’s interest in replacing the bridge, as some residents have indicated they would prefer that the bridge was not replaced.

Complete a short online feedback form, here - http://www.frankston.vic.gov.au/Your_Council/Have_Your_Say/Beckwith_Grove_Pedestrian_Bridge_Seaford/Comment_on_the_Beckwith_Grove_Pedestrian_Bridge


Click here to see where the bridge was - Google Maps

(Click on image to view & close)
Beckwith Grove.jpg
Beckwith Grove.jpg (38.77 KiB) Viewed 2652 times




Re: Beckwith Grove Bridge over Kananook Creek

PostPosted: Wed Jul 20, 2016 3:04 pm
by Noel Tudball

We received advice in April 2016 that this bridge would be replaced "like for like, aesthetically" (apologies for not updating this Topic at that time).
However, it seems the work order was overlooked and the funds were reallocated - it can happen.

At the 18th July FCC meeting, a local residents' petition of 331 (?) signatures was tabled, requesting its replacement.

There were apologies all 'round and Councillors voted unanimously to reinstate the work order and have the bridge replaced ASAP.


Re: Beckwith Grove Bridge over Kananook Creek

PostPosted: Fri Aug 12, 2016 3:34 pm
by Noel Tudball

Re: Beckwith Grove Bridge over Kananook Creek

PostPosted: Sun Jul 02, 2017 12:41 am
by Noel Tudball

Re: Beckwith Grove Bridge over Kananook Creek

PostPosted: Sun Oct 01, 2017 6:32 pm
by Noel Tudball

And again - 25 September 2017:

Detailed information regarding quotations is in the Agenda - http://www.frankston.vic.gov.au/Your_Council/Council_and_Committee_Meetings/Council_Agendas_and_Minutes_2017
News Article - http://baysidenews.com.au/2017/10/09/bridge-troubled-water-binned/
News Article - http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/south-east/frankston-council-backs-out-on-pledge-to-rebuild-historic-seaford-bridge/news-story/2c76bec8f7aaf4bfb3f02cfbb5ae8828

I understand that the bridge can be built without disability provisions but it would mean that the bridge would not be insured.
Portions of properties either side of the narrow laneway also needed to be acquired.

With regard to point 5. in the Motion below, some have said that it appears that insufficient research into disability access was undertaken when the first cost estimates were made.

Council Decision - that Council:
3. Resolves not to reconstruct the bridge.
1. Receives an external report at Attachment A outlining a comparison of alternative materials that could be considered for the construction of Beckwith Grove Bridge.
2. Notes receipt of legal advice which outlines Council’s legal obligations and the completion of an Access Audit and recommendations which enables Council to resolve to build the bridge with either with disability access or without disability access based on ‘justifiable hardship’.
4. Writes to all residents within immediate proximity to the former Beckwith Bridge explaining Council’s recent decision. The letter is to explain why the Council has overturned the previous decision of Council on this matter – i.e. modern disability access requirements, escalating construction costs etc.
5. Instructs the CEO to install a checks-and-balances process to prevent the expenditure of public monies on conceptual designs that do not take into account the full scope of required works (ie. disability access, public safety,
statutory specifications etc). Upon the implementation of this new checks-and-balances process, the new procedure is to be articulated in a report to Council in January 2018.
Carried Unanimously