AFTER almost a year of community angst since the controversial vote by the Mitchell Shire Council (MSC) to restore the Old Goulburn River Bridge in full, a dramatic backflip has seen the costly project cancelled.
MSC announced late on Wednesday afternoon the $5.4 million project was unfeasible.
“In a move that underscores a commitment to the community’s long-term well-being, MSC has made the prudent decision to cancel the costly restoration of Seymour’s Old Goulburn River Bridge,” the statement read.
“After thorough deliberation in a confidential meeting on Monday, February 17, Councillors determined that the project’s significant expense could not be justified and would undermine the financial sustainability of the Shire.”
The contract’s settlement cost MSC $858,484.97, which comprised works which had been completed since the vote was cast last year.
In March 2024, a lengthy debate over a motion amendment into how funding would be allocated over the restoration and reinstatement of the bridge led to a divided vote, with the vote for the works to continue landing in favour, five votes to three.
Further deliberations, including another council meeting in September, resulted in a split vote in the awarding of a $4.5 million contract to Duratec, which was carried on the casting vote of then-MSC Mayor Councillor Louise Bannister.
The Old Goulburn River Bridge was heritage-listed by Heritage Victoria in 2006, with MSC the owner.
Under the Heritage Act 2017, the owner—in this case, MSC—must not allow an object to fall into disrepair, or be issued with a repair order, a fine of $890,000.
MSC Mayor Councillor John Dougall was insistent this was the right move for the betterment of the council and its relationship with the community, with a focus on serving higher-priority needs.
“I can’t talk to the motivations of the previous group—they had their objectives and their way ahead, and the last meeting of the previous term was where the decision was made to award that contract,” he said.
“It’s been topical, it’s something that the community has been tracking for a long time.
“There’s a lot of councillors who were well in touch with what the communities’ views were from north to south, and it was an area they wanted to understand more about, simply to understand what was the evidence, the data and the information that was supporting that way ahead.
“That information was provided, and we were thankful for that.
“The figure was for the construction, and there would have been—once the construction was completed and it was registered as an asset on our books—an ongoing maintenance cost. We were privy to what that would likely be, and that figures into your thinking.
“This group decided in the best interests of the community and the basis of what we were provided, that we weren’t comfortable proceeding.”
Cr Dougall says there was a need to think about the future alongside any decisions to be made from council.
“There are so many ways to look at that. There are current challenges in a cost-of-living crisis—we are not the solution to it, but there is a role for council to play in terms of being available or simply understanding that family budget households are tight at the moment, so you have to be making sure you are seen to and actually do make sure the ratepayers money is being used to best effect,” he said.
“We are well-aware there is a very passionate group of people, the Friends of the Bridge, plus other people who have a historical inkling, perhaps long-term Seymour residents that may have travelled the bridge when they were much younger.
“They’ll clearly have a level of attachment or affinity to such a thing, and I can understand why they’d be very concerned that a new group of councillors has changed the way ahead.
“I would say for these passionate groups, yes, I can acknowledge that it would be very disappointing for them, and it’s disappointing that we felt like we were in that position where we had to act on that behalf.
“It would be great if we had enough resources to cater for every community interest and need, but I don’t think that’s the case.
“It’s a huge difference between what those fundraising efforts led to, and what is actually now required given the significant deterioration. A lot more work would need to be done if they were to make that fundraising into a significant change to the way the bridge is at the moment.”
Cr Dougall says work will continue from the MSC alongside Heritage Victoria and the Friends of the Bridge group to determine the best path forward for future plans, with respect to the Heritage Act 2017.
“We’ll work with Heritage Victoria—there’s a lot of information at hand, and council has a role to make decisions about these matters, and we’ll follow up the perspective from Heritage Victoria, but also our obligations,” he said.
“There are no firm plans, we’re happy to work with all parties—Heritage Victoria, Friends of the Bridge, the Seymour community more broadly, and we’re certainly not ruling anything in or out in terms of the future of the bridge. Council operating independently to fund something of this scale is not what we’re comfortable with.
“We’re more than happy with other parties, other investors and other layers of government to become involved, in which case—who knows? The councillors could see things differently and there could be a different future for that asset.”
At the moment, however, that doesn’t seem to be forthcoming in the near future, according to Cr Dougall.
“There is an interpretation to be made in the way the Act applies, but alongside that is the level of commitment that Heritage Victoria could make and other levels of government,” he said.
“We found ourselves in a position where we have an asset that’s in a terrible state, that’s had no effective work for a long period of time, but no one else wants to contribute any money.”
While roads and potholes are popular community requests to be fixed, Cr Dougall says there are a bevy of factors to consider when it comes to the reinvestment of funds from the cancelled contract.
“They’re ways of saying it’s not just responding to potholes right now or cutting lawns or putting in place programs to maintain swimming pools—they’re for the now, but you also have to balance that with the future,” he said.
“Areas of high community need involve survey, and they constantly say roads are a challenge.
“Roads are very high on the list of those things the community are saying they want addressed. Rubbish is another area of community, how they’re unsure about how this new system is going to work. People want schools, they want changes to library service.
“We’re trying to think through not only the now, but also the future, and not only the bright, new shiny things, but the assets we already have and maintaining them to an effective standard. There’s a lot of trade-offs when it comes to community need.
“The intent is that we are going to look at our resources, the scarce resources, and use them to best effect.
“Highest areas of community need, ensuring that you invest for the future, ensuring you maintain the assets you have, as well as advocating for new things, a whole bunch of different trade-offs, but there is a message for the community in this.
“We will have our own view, it will be a community-minded view based on community expectations, but also community need, and we have access to data and our own perspectives that help us form what we believe that need is, and that’s what you need to focus on, trying to help.”
Heritage Victoria and the Seymour Historical Society were contacted for comment.
