Council budget amended to boost Seymour river use

By Billie Davern

May 27, 2025

Amendments to Mitchell Shire’s 2025-26 budget were proposed at a council meeting on Monday, May 19, with Seymour’s Goulburn River precinct being the biggest matter of concern for councillors.

Seymour’s river precinct has been flowing through the minds of Mitchell Shire councillors.

Hold tight - we’re checking permissions before loading more content

And, it is hoped, it will soon flow through the minds of Seymour residents and visitors after council voted to spend $80,000 to undertake a business case to explore the benefits of investing in the Goulburn River precinct, between Manners St and Bolton St, Seymour.

“The involvement of Seymour with the Goulburn River is almost zero. We are one of the only towns on the Goulburn River that has no engagement with the river itself,” Cr Ned Jeffery said in moving the amendment to the proposed 2025-26 budget at the May 19 council meeting.

This amendment was carried unanimously.

However, a number of amendments relating to the Old Goulburn River Bridge were rejected.

Cr Nathan Clark suggested that council adopt the budget with the additional allocation of $5,690,073 borrowings to undertake the full restoration of the bridge.

Cr Clark’s driving point was the tourism opportunities the bridge had the potential to create.

For comparison, he said councillors should look east, where the Yarra Ranges Council was restoring heritage trestle bridges with a projected $8.3 million per year in local economic benefit.

Cr Clark also noted that independent consultants commissioned by the Municipal Association of Victoria told council its financial health was at moderate to low risk based on the past four years and the current 2024-25 budget.

This was information councillors had for two weeks before voting to cancel the contract in a confidential meeting on February 17, he said.

“The public made clear that council had fallen short on community consultation and transparency,” Cr Clark said.

“Tonight, we can correct that by being open and honest.

“The community rightly pointed out that that we spent nearly a million dollars and now have nothing to show for it.”

This first amendment was lost, with only Cr Clark voting in its favour.

Two other proposed amendments made for allocating funds for the bridge’s restoration were also lost.

The consensus of councillors was that the bridge’s restoration was not a pressing priority for the council, similar to the general response of councillors during the Community Questions and Hearings Meeting on Monday, May 12.

“The amount of borrowings involved are substantial. I find it hard to support something like this,” Cr Bob Cornish said.

Despite voting against the amendments, Cr Claudia James said she did not think the bridge was “a lost cause”.

“I understand that there are many people who are very passionate about the bridge, and I can understand where you’re coming from,” Cr James said.

“We’re not just dismissing the bridge altogether — it’s hanging there and hopefully we can work a way around this in a manner that satisfies everyone to a degree.”