Letter to Council
Cunneens Bridge
By Peter Firminger
Date: 03-Feb-09
Author: Peter Firminger
Cessnock City Council
Att: Darren McKimm
To whom it may concern,
I am quite bemused by the local politics of the Cunneens Bridge issue in Wollombi and the peer pressure and scaremongering that is going on by a very small group within the community.
Council has clearly listened to the community and option 3 is by far the best for the physical heritage issues of the location, has less cumulative impact on the affected landowners and should be adopted and promptly actioned so that the bridge can carry local, tourist and emergency (heavy fire vehicle) traffic again. Having to store a fire tanker on that side of the bridge for emergency use is a joke.
Council do have something to answer for. The bridge has been left to rot for many years now so it is now beyond hope as a working bridge. It should have been properly maintained and restoration would still be a viable option.
Having said that, those with vested interests within the community that have held this up for far too long are as much to blame. Let's hope no-one dies in a fire due to lack of access by a tanker.
Over the past few weeks, it has been reported that many residents (and visitors for that matter) have been harangued into signing a petition supporting option 2 (upstream) with very little or no explanation of the real issues and the benefits of the downstream options, particularly option 3.
I believe you have already received some emails/letters from signatories retracting their support for the upstream option through that petition, having learned the truth of the matter at a later stage (through either attending or having conversation with people that attended the Progress meeting).
Consequently, that petition should be viewed with very little weight and the letters and emails freely written directly to Council on this issue be the basis of Council's community advice towards their decision.
Yes, landowners on both sides have some legitimate concerns, and the Cunneens Bridge Group has real preservations concerns. Option 3 however, addresses these concerns in the best possible way. Any other proposed interests and reasons for continued fighting are just the dying noises of a losing argument.
On that point, the other issue that is being used as a threat is a letter (with no maps or diagrams) outlining the "Wollombi Brook Cultural Precinct" that states that "This vision will only be possible if the new bridge is built on the UPSTREAM side of Cunneens Bridge", which is just ridiculous! As Council representatives have clearly pointed out (and as evidenced by the plan itself) the confluence of Congewai Creek and Wollombi Brook is nowhere near the bridge and none of the options have any impact whatsoever on "This Vision".
I'm happy to publish that outline of the project if the author would like to send it to me along with their permission, and any Wollombi residents or Council representatives are free to have their say on Wollombi Valley Online (where this letter, the Council Documents and other posts on the issue have been published without favour).
Option 3 has my full support.
I'd like to add three notes.
- I'm sure that no-one in this community would mind having the 50km/h local traffic zone extended beyond the bridge from Wollombi, especially if there will be an increase in pedestrian traffic at that location. This could allow the curves to be a little tighter and use even less private land.
- The new bridge should not be called "Cunneens Bridge" as the old one with that name will remain. "New Cunneens
Related Documents
- Cunneen's Bridge Plans (1.01MB pdf file)
Three Cessnock Council options for Cunneen's Bridge for public display dated 12/12/08
Documents marked with
may only be available in PDF format. If you don't have Adobe Acrobat (or the reader), a FREE reader is available from Adobe.
Comments (2)
Posted: 03-Feb-09 21:23 by Peter Firminger Permalink
I'll comment on my own post to say the things that were not said in the letter.
Petitions should be ignored for what they are.
They are generally stacked with people that don't write a letter or email for or against an issue. That may be that they really don't care either way (they just want the damn bridge fixed) or that they don't feel well enough informed to make a decision either way (because they are just visiting or don't take an interest in local issues) or that they are too lazy to type a letter.
I have spoken in quite a few WAGE meetings about this and have always had a loud say in discussions about potential petitions. I won't allow one on behalf of WAGE while I am on the Executive Committee (and I'll quit if one comes to fruition as it simply signals defeat).
As for the Precinct stuff, I'm not sure if I like the thought of tourists tramping the fragile banks of the creek and brook scaring the hell out of the wildlife and dumping their inevitable rubbish into the waterways.
Where's the full plan on "this vision", complete with maps and a business plan with the associated costs and sources of funding.
If it's a real plan, then let's have it. I suspect it is exactly what it seems... a protest plan hatched when the conservation issues were addressed by Council on option 3 and a need was sought for another upstream argument.
I really don't care if you disagree with me on the above, it's just my opinion, but I would like you to take an interest, get the facts and write a letter. Or write a post of your own or even just a comment here! No opinions are suppressed.
See below for Paul Budde's media release and his opinion (though the title is a little misleading to me... the old bridge remains in all options) but I applaud his tenacity and passion. I believe Paul's heart is in the right place, but that he's running with a bad crowd with a different agenda to his.
Posted: 03-Feb-09 21:31 by Francisca Maul Permalink
Dear all
It was discussed last Saturday and the third option suggested by Council is the best.
From most people's point of view, and mine, this has gone on too long. Council has been very patient with the people of Wollombi.
We need a new bridge as soon as possible before there is a disaster. Council engineers are putting their reputation on the line by keeping this old bridge open.
The 3rd option will be the one that impacts the least and is the safest. Let's get a new bridge build and get on with it.
Heritage is very important, it is what lot of people come to our valley for and must be respected and protected.
Safety and keeping the road between Wollombi and Broke / Singleton open has to be a priority.
Bush fires!!, God forbid there is one on the broke side, it could be a major problem to get fire fighting equipment there.
We have been lucky so far, let's not push our luck, let us not hold up the process any longer.
What about if a loaded mini bus is on the bridge and it collapses? GOOD PRESS??? WRONG!!, BAD PRESS!!, I don't want to take the responsibility for that.
Life is too precious.
Yours Sincerely
Francisca Maul
Join or log in to leave a comment
See Also
Christmas present for Wollombi
Date: 16-Dec-09
Author: Peter Firminger
Wollombi Valley Update - 3 December 2009
Date: 03-Dec-09
Author: Peter Firminger
Cunneens Bridge Closure
Date: 22-Apr-09
Author: Darren McKimm
Save Cunneens Bridge - Your community needs you
Date: 06-Jan-09
Author: Paul Budde
Public Exhibition of 3 Cunneens Bridge Alignment Options
Date: 15-Dec-08
Author: Darren McKimm (Cessnock Council)
Cunneens Bridge Action
Date: 11-Dec-08
Author: Newcastle on Hunter
Archaelogical Dig is in process at Cunneens Bridge
Date: 01-Oct-08
Author: Caroline Maul
- Cunneen's Bridge Plans (1.01MB pdf file)