Sunday, February 16th, 2025

The Ministry of the Environment has turned down a request by local residents for a more thorough Environmental Assessment of Simcoe County’s plans to replace the aging Collingwood Street bridge. But the decision did not come without some recognition of the bridge’s historical and cultural value, imposing six conditions on the County as it goes ahead with its work and, as a result, providing the local committee that’s been working to save the bridge with some encouragement that it should continue its efforts.

“We’re looking at this as a small victory,” said Barry Burton, who heads up the Committee to Save the Collingwood Street Bridge. His group, formed nearly two years ago when word first came out that Simcoe County was planning on taking down the one-lane steel-truss bridge, which turns 100 this year, and replacing it with a two-lane concrete structure, is made up of several local people with vast professional experience in the field of bridge-building. They estimate that restoring the bridge, while replacing the existing surface with a self-supporting isotropic deck that would include a single sidewalk on the west side, would cost the County just under $1 million and not require any significant maintenance for at least 75 years. On the other hand, the County plans to build a new, two-lane concrete bridge with two sidewalks for a cost of $1.5 million.

Burton’s group submitted a Part II order request – essentially asking for a more thorough Environmental Assessment – to the Ministry of the Environment last fall after the County’s initial Environmental Assessment included a heritage report that concluded that the bridge meets all the provincial criteria to be designated as a Property of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest under the Ontario Heritage Act. Such a designation must be made via the passing of a bylaw by the local municipality, however, something Clearview Township had not done at the time of the Environmental Assessment.

That rendered the heritage point moot with the Ministry, and for various other reasons – mostly to do with existing sight-line problems when approaching the bridge from the north and when turning left onto the bridge from Edward Street – it turned down the Part II request.

It did, however, note that “there are concerns with respect to the project which do warrant measures to be taken to better preserve the cultural heritage value associated with the existing bridge structure.” Those measures, imposed as conditions upon the County, include 1) that the County shall ensure that a person with experience in documenting heritage bridges documents the existing Collingwood Street Bridge in order to provide a historic record, inform the design of the new bridge, and provide further information to guide commemoration efforts; 2) that the County shall ensure that the design for the new bridge includes components that commemorate the existing bridge; 3) that the County shall make a reasonable effort to include the existing bridge trusses in the design of the new bridge; 4) that in designing and constructing the new bridge, the County shall consider existing heritage conservation guiding principles and best practices; 5) that the County shall ensure that any work related to the disassembly of the existing structure, conservation of existing components, and reinstallation of those components be undertaken by a qualified person; and 6) that the County hold at least one public meeting to inform the public of its proposed design, at least 60 days prior to the start of construction activities.

While some might be happy with the old trusses on a new, two-lane bridge, Burton and his group of bridge enthusiasts see that as a band-aid solution, and now plan to approach Clearview Council and request that it officially designate the bridge as a cultural heritage landmark. Though the bridge is owned by Simcoe County because it once spanned the border between two municipalities – the former Town of Creemore and Township of Nottawasaga – historic and cultural designation under the Ontario Heritage Act is always done by the lower-tier municipality. Should Clearview Council pass a bylaw giving the bridge official designation, Burton’s committee would then hope to work with Clearview Council to reach an agreement with the County to preserve and restore the bridge in place for continued use.

Ward 4 Councillor Thom Paterson, who sits on Burton’s committee and hopes to shepherd a motion through Council in the near future, said his argument will focus on the fact that designation is supported by two things – the County’s heritage report, which clearly stated that “the preferred alternative is to rehabilitate the existing structure and retain it in its historic location for continued use,” and the recent decision of the Ministry of Environment, which, while stopping short of ordering the restoration of the bridge, did recognize the heritage value of the structure.

Burton and Paterson are also encouraged by the Township Planning Department’s ongoing Heritage Conservation Project, which Council approved in principle in January. Spurred on by a desire to preserve the Township’s “heritage landscapes” in the face of encroaching wind power developments, the project also intends to assemble a list of Clearview’s natural, built and cultural heritage features and develop a policy framework that would preserve such things. While the project is still in its infancy – the Planning Department is in the process of organizing a public meeting on the subject as a first step – in Paterson’s mind it signals a growing awareness of the need to look after the Township’s cultural and historic features. While any political move to save the Collingwood Street bridge will have to happen on a faster timeline than the establishment of the Heritage Conservation Project – the County currently has the bridge’s replacement slated for 2014 – Paterson noted that the two initiatives could complement each other.

As for Burton, who can see the bridge from his living room window, he’s still trying to figure out why the County is so set on tearing down something that drew him to town in the first place. “To me, it’s a no-brainer,” he said. “To save a significant piece of history and do it for less money than it would cost to replace it – it seems like such an obvious thing to do.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *