“There really has to be a better solution,” he thought as he sat with his wife.

The council general manager went back to work and liaised with staff and the Roads and Maritime Service.

The result is a new design that shifts the planned replacement slightly downstream of the existing proposed alignment and creates a Tintersection with Forbes St.

The compromise aims to quell community opposition over the closure of Forbes St on the bridge’s eastern side.

“The option does not require Forbes St to be closed, halves the estimated road closure period for construction and significantly reduces the amount of land acquisition required,” Mr Bennett told councillors.

He told the Post it also meant less impact on the curtilage of the historic Lansdowne Estate, including a line of old pine trees and the edge of the ‘Charlton’ property on the rise further to the east.

“We haven’t done a land survey to quantify that but we will talk to the Roads and Maritime Service about an appropriate alignment,” he said.

He won unanimous support for the idea at the most recent meeting.

The only hitch now is to convince the Roads and Maritime Service.

He and Mayor Geoff Kettle will meet representatives in Wollongong on September 8 to argue the case.

The RMS has advised that the option and its own current design are the only two viable ones in their current budget. It has asked council for feedback.

Mr Bennett is hopeful. He said he had spoken to RMS staff and they were “more than happy to look at a community solution.”

The cost also has to be discussed with the organisation.

Eastgrove resident Jacki Waugh welcomed the compromise. She had lodged a submission to the RMS opposing Forbes Street’s closure.

“I think keeping Forbes St open is definitely a good solution for everyone because if it was closed, Park Rd would have it would have become a bottleneck for Eastgrove,” she said.

But former RMS project manager and Goulburn Heritage Group member John Proctor isn’t so sure. He said the council had pulled out a design proposed two to three years ago which was discounted because it didn’t achieve a better road alignment.

“I have a few concerns with the Tintersection and control of traffic,” he said.

“I think there’s potential for traffic conflict there particularly for people unfamiliar with the route.”

Vehicles on Forbes St would have to give way to those on the bridge.

Mr Proctor also lodged a submission arguing to keep Forbes St partially open and stating that it would be difficult with the RMS’s current design which followed Lansdowne Bridge’s existing alignment.

He and the Heritage Group previously lobbied to retain the original structure, a 1902 De Burgh Truss bridge which is listed as state significant. It is only one of 10 left in NSW.

The council hasn’t changed its mind on demolition even though its new proposal would allow retention.

“I’m disappointed but it’s not a new disappointment and that comes back to council saying it didn’t want to keep the bridge,” Mr Proctor said.

The RMS had originally recommended the structure be retained given its heritage significance.

However Council didn’t want to foot the ongoing maintenance costs without state assistance.

Mr Bennett, who most recently hailed from the heritage mecca of Mudgee, agreed it was a “magnificent bridge.” He did not rule out asking the RMS about its retention.

“(But) the question we need to ask is how can we keep it and put in a single lane bridge beside it,” he said.

“So if it was kept, unfortunately it becomes a question of cost because the old timber bridges are very expensive to maintain.”

MOST public submissions supported the replacement of Lansdowne Bridge, the Roads and Maritime Service maintained.

A spokesman said RMS received 32 submissions during the exhibition period for the proposed alignment.

“Only one submission was against the replacement of the bridge with 68 per cent supporting the plan for Forbes Street to remain open,” he said.

“The heritage value of the Goulburn Brewery and Lansdowne Park was also raised by the public and Roads and Maritime is mindful of protecting these assets.

“Following feedback, Roads and Maritime and council are considering a return to the original design to keep Forbes Street open. A decision has yet to be made on the preferred option.

“The public will have a chance to comment if a decision is made to return to the original plan.”

Construction is expected to start mid 2015.