THE future of the Old Goulburn River Bridge was once more put forward at July’s Mitchell Shire Council (MSC) meeting, with Council mostly agreeing, but still somewhat split, on what to do with the Heritage listed bridge.
With the bridge’s Heritage permit expiring in October, a decision on waterproofing works was required, with three options presented in Council’s report.
One was to pursue full restoration of the bridge via external funding, a continuation of the management of the structure in its current state, and demolition of the remaining structure.
Councillor Andrea Pace sought to propose the first option of full restoration, which included over $260,000 of spending, including $40,000 proposed for a full business case.
“Speaking briefly about the bridge, I won’t go back on about the history of the bridge. The bridge is not going to go away. The community will not let it go away, it’s too significant,” she said.
“Moving it, demolishing it, is all going to cost us money. We’re making these decisions on the bridge without a business case being made. I don’t think we can do that decision without that information.
“The current river precinct business plan is not even 50 per cent of the river precinct. We’re ripping off the people of Seymour, you are doing them a disservice, that’s why I’m putting in an extra $40,000 to make sure the entire river precinct is covered.”
This amendment was defeated, six votes to two.
A second amendment was made by Councillor Bob Cornish, who sought to keep the bridge in its current state, with no restoration works.
“There’s been a fair amount of talk as Cr Pace and Cr James has mentioned on the river over many months and from the old councillors to the current councillors,” he said.
“It has been somewhat contentious that if the amount of money involved in a full restoration would have involved major borrowings on behalf of the council, which many people in the community were not prepared to take that on the chin and had made a fair bit of noise about it from north to south and east to west.
Briefly, this became the substantive motion, with the motion carried, six votes to two.
However, an alternative motion was then raised, with Councillor Ned Jeffrey proposing the demolition of the bridge in favour of creating a legacy playground.
“I regretfully raise the following alternative, that we advise Heritage Victoria of our intention to pursue a permit for the demolition of the remaining structure on the basis that we secure external funding for the progression of the following points,” he said.
“Council commences planning for a single structure using the salvaged timber that is both a monument to what is an important part of Seymour’s history and also a children’s playground, family or tourist area, and identify and plan a suitable location within the Seymour bounds for such a playground to be built.
“Beyond that analogy that I gave, which is really covering the financial position of the council, we have many larger issues, both structural and generational, of which to attend. We really need to end the ongoing cost this bridge is incurring.
“These decisions really should have been made 20 years ago, and the money spent in the meantime would have satisfied everyone’s desires with this bridge.
“Why would we invest $150,000 into timbers that are clearly identified as needing replacement. I liken it to the 12 Apostles. Unfortunately, there are just not 12 Apostles anymore, and so we can only work with what remains.
“Regarding Heritage Victoria, they have explained to us quite clearly that we would need to show public support for this proposal, which I believe exists, and we would also need to show that the existing structure is unstable, which we’ve already done in the contract that was cancelled.
“The pressure now comes back onto Heritage Victoria as to whether the structure is left potentially waterproofed as per Cr Cornish’s motion, or whether we actually build something useful for the town that is preserved for the long term.”
The alternative motion proved to be a controversial one, with Councillor Claudia James objecting.
“I was against the shire spending all that money on completely refurbishing the bridge, but I’d hate to see, the way this is being worded, it’s as though the whole thing is being demolished,” she said.
“There’s no mention of historical remnants or any way of acknowledging the history of the bridge. It’s like you want to wipe it completely out of your mind. I know it’s been a bugbear for all of us; it’s something that’s been difficult to deal with.
“But to see the history just wiped out as if it never happened, I do not feel comfortable with it, and that’s my opinion.”
Councillor Bob Humm provided some support but said there was not “a total reason” to demolish the bridge.
“I support the motion to a certain extent, and I think a message needs to get out to the government themselves and any organisations that Council needs the support in that funding to try and retain part of the bridge in some way whatsoever,” he said.
“I look at the fact that over my term for the council, it’s probably going to cost the Council another $150,000 while it’s sitting here for the next three years. But I still haven’t seen a total reason to pull it down. I know it would cost money to turn around and redo something outside. I think that there needs to be a lot of work done on that.
“At some stage, somebody will have to do major works on that bridge regardless of what happens. We need to make some sort of hard decisions. We’ve made some tonight, and it’s got out there that we’re not happy with that decision, but at least there’s something moving forward with the community at the moment.”
Cr Jeffrey fired back, insisting that hard decisions needed to be made.
“I would say to Cr James, that I have specifically pointed out the fact that a monument would be formed with the new structure. I am as much about remembering Seymour’s history as anybody,” he said.
“When disagreement comes, I find that the best outcome is established when both parties leave a little disappointed with an outcome. This would be an end to the costs.
“If we continue as we are at the moment, the costs every year for this Council and beyond are going to continue to evolve and grow year on year.
“Under our current motion, we have the potential for a large flood to come. We know that the understory of the bridge is destroyed. For all we know, the bridge could be gone tomorrow, or we have a major flood, and we literally have no monument. And would anyone then bring to this chamber a proposal that we rebuild a bridge from scratch should it be destroyed by a flood.”
However, the alternative motion was defeated, six votes to two.
The vote returned to the substantive motion of leaving the bridge as it is.
Cr Pace expressed her disappointment at the motion.
“I just want to say that I’m extremely disappointed that my fellow councillors don’t think that Seymour is worthy of a full business plan and think 50 per cent will cut it,” she said.
The motion was carried, six votes to two.
MSC Mayor Councillor John Dougall said the vote was a continuation of the approach taken after cancelling the bridge’s contract.
“In February, Council made the difficult decision to cancel the full restoration project due to its significant financial impact and limited broader community benefit,” he said.
“This most recent decision continues that approach – preserving what remains of the bridge and meeting our legal obligations, without committing further ratepayer funds to a full restoration.”
