Assistant General Manager, Engineering, Paul Gallagher, made it clear the council did not agree with a letter from Melinda Pavey that arrangements for the maintenance of the flood channel at Browns Crossing, south of Macksville, would be included in the handover of the old highway.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
“This matter is separate and absolutely subject to negotiations,” Mr Gallagher said.
He referred to a community meeting in February this year when Pacific Highway upgrade boss, Bob Higgins, said the RMS would undertake a special management plan to ensure maintenance of the flood channel.
“And if there should be a wash out, while the RMS will not commit to a new bridge, we would commit to assisting with urgent repairs,” Mr Higgins said at the time.
Mr Gallagher said the council had resolved not to adopt any liability for the flood channel and would stand by that position.
“While Ms Pavey repeats in her letter that no funding is able to be committed for a new bridge at this time, the council will continue to lobby for one on behalf of Browns Crossing residents,” he said.
He referred to the council’s April 12 resolution:
* to advise the RMS that it will not commit to retaining the responsibility for the flood channel post highway construction and express concern that if the channel is not adequately maintained by the RMS, wattles and others will take over and cause potential infrastructure damage.
* to make representation to the Minister for Roads to fund a new bridge at the crossing to protect Council infrastructure from flood damage and allow residents flood free access emanating from the Pacific Highway upgrade.
In her letter Mrs Pavey did however confirm the RMS commitment to provide more signs to warn of the flood risk at the crossing.
Background: The community takes up the fight