Cancelled restoration of historical bridge takes a toll

To some locals, however, the bridge itself is the heart of the town.

“During 1959, when I did my National Service at Puckapunyal, and in the years following, I travelled across the bridge many times, as did other travellers on the Hume Hwy,” Seymour and District Historical Society life member John Jennings said.

“It is a major part of Seymour’s history and should be preserved as such.

“As a long-term chairman of the Friends of the Bridge, I have seen the community raise in excess of $100,000 towards the completion of the restoration project.

“This has involved countless hours of volunteer time by community members and it is an insult to them for this sudden reversal of the shire’s position.”

The original timber bridge dates back to 1862.

It made history when, in 1892, its replacement structure became the last big river timber bridge to be built with state funding before the economic depression of the following year.

After a series of updates over the decades, the bridge was officially closed to vehicular traffic in 1987, and was later closed to walkers, cyclists and all other traffic, due to fire damage.

Now heritage listed, the bridge acts as a reflection of an era long since passed.

“This has been the entrance to Seymour for 185 years,” Mr Jennings said.

“We recognise our town’s railway and military histories, and should likewise recognise the importance of the Goulburn River and the bridge which crossed it.”

In 2019, Mitchell Shire Council undertook works to stabilise the existing structure with the aim of restoring it as an historical landmark to draw tourists to the town.

As part of council’s 2024-25 capital works program, $5.4 million was allocated to the project over two years.

In a confidential council meeting on February 17, councillors voted to cancel future works on the bridge, opting to settle the contract with a sum of $858,484.97.

Mitchell Shire Mayor John Dougall said the nature of the meeting meant it needed to be held in a classified setting.

“The matter was considered in a confidential council meeting due to the contractual and financial nature of the discussions,” Cr Dougall said.

“This included sensitive commercial information relating to the contract settlement and legal obligations, which are managed in accordance with council’s obligations under the Local Government Act 2020.

“As a result, minutes from the confidential setting will not be released publicly and voting details are not disclosed.”

Seymour residents such as Carolynne Burgess-Blackwell, who spoke on the matter during council’s community questions and hearings meeting on March 11, felt that the decision was one that needed input from community members.

“It should have been brought back to the community to discuss what they were going to do about the cancellation of the contract, first, to have a proper community discussion,” Ms Burgess-Blackwell said.

“Then, if they decided they were going to cancel it, they can have the confidential meeting with the contractor.

“But you don’t do it all under the guise of a confidential meeting.”

Seymour and District Historical Society member Geoff Halpin was also disappointed in the lack of community discussion.

“I feel neglected and I’ve only been involved with it for a very short time,” Mr Halpin said.

“To me, it’s not the way you do it. There was no consultation whatsoever.”

Mr Jennings agreed.

“For more than 20 years, the Friends of the Bridge, formed at a council public meeting, has been the group that spoke for the community,” he said.

“On this occasion, no contact was made with the Friends of the Bridge by council.

“There was also no consultation with the Seymour and District Historical Society.

“Why didn’t our new councillors want to hear the opinion of residents?”

Ms Burgess-Blackwell said the lack of input from residents meant that the full significance of the bridge couldn’t be part of council’s decision.

“Our Seymour bridge, a real link to our past and an asset for our future, is now in serious trouble because a few councillors did not care enough to spend time learning about the massive aspirations our community has around the restoration of our bridge and our ability to help ourselves into the future,” Ms Burgess-Blackwell said.

Ms Burgess-Blackwell, Mr Jennings and Mr Halpin are all under the impression that the bridge has the potential to generate money for the community by acting as a space to host events which could fundraise for different organisations, local groups or for the community in general.

“What better tourist attraction can you have than a beautiful heritage bridge that’s been fully restored?” Mr Halpin asked.

During the community hearings meeting on March 11, Ms Burgess-Blackwell questioned councillors on the current state of the project’s funding.

“What’s happened to the most recent $25,000 grant from Heritage Victoria towards the bridge works?” Ms Burgess-Blackwell asked.

On top of this, she raised concerns on whether Heritage Victoria had been consulted in council’s decision to cancel the project.

In response, Cr Dougall said Heritage Victoria had not been involved in the process, however it had been consulted to discuss the future of the project.

“Council did not consult with Heritage Victoria prior to making the decision to cancel the restoration project,” Cr Dougall said.

“Council officers have met with Heritage Victoria to discuss the recent decision to cancel the restoration contract and to seek further guidance that will inform options for council to consider for the future management of the bridge.

“A report has been prepared which will be considered in the coming months.”

Cr Dougall also said council acknowledged the community’s significant passion for heritage sites.

“No formal consultation specifically addressed the cancellation of the project,” Cr Dougall said.

“However, councillors took into account previous community feedback, recognising the long-standing passion and enthusiasm shown for the bridge project by community groups such as the Seymour Historical Society and Friends of the Bridge.

“Council recognises the concerns raised and acknowledges the strong community interest in the bridge’s future.”

However, the current state of the bridge is at the forefront of Ms Burgess-Blackwell’s mind.

“It’s sitting there now, waiting for the waterproofing and the capping, ready to put the top back on,” she said.

“I think some of the councillors were hoping that it would just fall into the river, but it’s not going to.

“It’s a strong bridge, it just needs love and nobody looked after it for years and years.

“I don’t want to let it go.”