Gladstone road bridge concept design
THE Gladstone Road Bridge shared pathway contract will be varied to create see-through rails on the downstream side and consideration will be given at a later date to doing the same on the other side.
An extraordinary meeting of the council this morning considered the costs involved in varying the contract at this late stage, and voted to proceed with a variation.
The move was sparked by calls from the public for see-through railings on the bridge.
The existing bridge contract is fully funded by the New Zealand Transport Agency but the NZTA made it clear last week that any variation to the contract would be at the council’s cost.
“The variations can be minimised to a figure of up to $200,000, but that is subject to approved council funding allocations and the consent variation process,” said chief executive Nedine Thatcher Swann.
“If the variations are not clarified by October 12, then the project will be impacted and additional costs of up to $5000 a day will be incurred.”
The first step now will be to get approval from Heritage New Zealand.
Tairawhiti Roads general manager Dave Hadfield said it was hoped to get Heritage NZ support within 48 hours.
“We hope to get the resource consent variations signed off within a few weeks.”
Mr Hadfield said it was hoped the change to clear sides on the downstream side would in a “worst case scenario” add only about two months to the overall time frame for the project.
“The contractors have priced the cost of the steel railings but have not yet got their heads around the time frame to get them installed.”
He thanked staff for the quick and efficient work done since Friday to put together the concept plan for the contract variation.
'We believe it fits the heritage requirements'“We believe it fits the heritage requirements.”
Two of the eight replica ballustrade sections, taken from a mould of the original concrete sides, have been manufactured, and would be used at each end of the bridge.
The council was also told retrofitting the upstream side of the bridge with see-through railings, would cost up to $320,000.
Options around doing one side or both were discussed in a wide-ranging debate.
“Anything can be achieved, depending on how much money you are prepared to spend,” Ms Thatcher Swann said at the start of it.
In the end, the council voted to have one side only done at this stage.
“The recommendation to do one side only now is common sense,” said Mayor Meng Foon.
“There has been intensive consultation with Heritage NZ around this.
“The vista of the river downstream from the bridge will be a million times better with clear-sided railings. It’s just going to be beautiful.”
Deputy Mayor Rehette Stoltz said $200,000 was a lot of money that might have to come out of another council budget.
“This is not the ideal process. But it is what we have in front of us.”
Ms Thatcher Swann said there was potential to use the additional savings that came from the increase to the NZTA funding assistance rate.
Brian Wilson said he struggled to see heritage value in the bridge.
“It looks like a concrete fortress to me, and it has an effect on our environment that is not good.
“The alternative design, with the see- through railings, is much better and looks so much more attractive.”
Larry Foster described the contract variation as an “opportunity”.
“The bridge is strategic. It’s the entranceway to the East Coast and the CBD, and with these changes bridge-jumping might not be quite so popular.
“We would be slammed as a council, I believe, if we did not take that opportunity.”
Shannon Dowsing said he was not opposed to the change but was uncomfortable with the process.
“There is actually very little difference in cost between doing this now or doing it later.”
Meredith Akuhata Brown asked how the council had got to this point.
“That’s what people have been saying to me. We have a community asking us to show leadership and more people would support both sides done with clear sides.”
Andy Cranston was another who wanted to see the council take more time over it.
“We should review this properly. I’m concerned about the rushed process.”
Amber Dunn felt the new concept plan was “a great combination of capturing the heritage and also the views.”