Council Meeting Agenda 17 May 2017

AGENDA
Ordinary Meeting of Council
6.00pm Wednesday 17 May 2017
*** Broadcast live on Phoenix FM 106.7 ***
VENUE:
Reception Room,
Bendigo Town Hall,
Hargreaves Street, Bendigo
NEXT MEETING:
Wednesday 21 June 2017
Bendigo Town Hall
Copies of the City of Greater Bendigo Councils Agendas & Minutes

can be obtained online at www.bendigo.vic.gov.au
PAGE 1
This Council Meeting is conducted in accordance with Local Law No. 8. It is an offence for any
person to engage in improper or disorderly conduct at the meeting.
Council Vision
Greater Bendigo - Working together to be Australia's most liveable regional city.
Council Values
Council wants the community to continue to have reason to be proud of the city and will
do this through:
Transparency - Information about Council decisions is readily available and easily

understood;
Efficiency and effectiveness - Council provides services based on evidence of
need and demonstrates continuous improvement in the delivery of services;
Inclusion and consultation - Council uses a range of engagement strategies to
ensure community members can understand and take part in discussion that
informs the development of new strategies and actions;
Clear decisive and consistent planning - In a rapidly growing municipality, Council
undertakes to plan effectively for our long-term future;
Respect for community priorities and needs - Council will advocate for improved
services for community members and will consider community impact and
feedback the decisions it makes.
Themes
1. Planning for Growth

2. Presentation and Vibrancy
3. Productivity
4. Sustainability
5. Leadership and Good Governance
PAGE 2
ORDINARY MEETING
WEDNESDAY 17 MAY 2017
ORDER OF BUSINESS:
ITEM PRECIS PAGE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY 5
PRAYER 5
PRESENT 5
LEAVE OF ABSENCE 5
APOLOGIES 5
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS 5
PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 5
RESUMPTION OF STANDING ORDERS 6
CR FYFFE'S REPORT 6
DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST 7
CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 8
1. PETITIONS AND JOINT LETTERS 9
2. PLANNING FOR GROWTH 10
2.1 PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C220 & 10

DEVELOPMENT PLAN PD/80/2016 - LANSELL CREST,
CONSIDER SUBMISSIONS AND REFER TO PANEL
2.2 PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C223 - WHITE HILLS 38

AND EAST BENDIGO HERITAGE STUDY, STAGE 2 -
CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS AND REFER TO
PANEL
2.3 8 HALTER COURT, JUNORTOUN 3551 - 2 LOT 74

SUBDIVISION AND REMOVAL OF NATIVE VEGETATION
2.4 72 MARONG ROAD, WEST BENDIGO 3550 - DEMOLITION 84

OF DWELLING AND OUTBUILDINGS AND
CONSTRUCTION OF DWELLING
2.5 BENDIGO AIRPORT STRATEGIC PLAN (2017) 93
PAGE 3
3. PRESENTATION AND VIBRANCY 100
4. PRODUCTIVITY 100
5. SUSTAINABILITY 100
6. LEADERSHIP AND GOOD GOVERNANCE 101
6.1 CONTRACTS AWARDED UNDER DELEGATION 101
6.2 RECORD OF ASSEMBLIES 103
7. URGENT BUSINESS 110
8. NOTICES OF MOTION 110
9. COUNCILLORS' REPORTS 110
10. MAYOR'S REPORT 110
11. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S REPORT 110
12. CONFIDENTIAL (SECTION 89) REPORTS 110
____________________________
CRAIG NIEMANN
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PAGE 4
Ordinary Meeting - 17 May 2017
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY
PRAYER
PRESENT
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
Cr George Flack has requested Leave of Absence for the Council Meetings to be held on
21 June 2017 and 19 July 2017.
Cr James Williams has requested Leave of Absence for the Council Meeting to be held
on 21 June 2017.
APOLOGIES
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
That Standing Orders be suspended to allow the conduct of Public Question Time.
PUBLIC QUESTION TIME
Public Question Time Purpose

Council has provided the opportunity for members of the public to ask questions of broad
interest to Council and the community. Matters relating to routine Council works should
be taken up with Councils Customer Service Officers through its Customer Request
System.
By the time planning matters have reached the council agenda, they have been through
an extensive process as required by the Planning and Environment Act. In addition, in
most instances mediation has been held between the parties involved. Throughout the
process there are many opportunities for the people to ask questions. Therefore, no
questions relating to planning matters on the Agenda will be accepted.
Public Question Time Where, When And Who

The public question time is held at every Ordinary Meeting of Greater Bendigo City
Council. Meetings of Council commence at 6.00pm in the Reception Room, Bendigo
Town Hall, Hargreaves Street, Bendigo.
The public question time is held at the start of the meeting as close as practical to
6:00pm. A maximum of 30 minutes has been provided for registered and unregistered
questions.
Residents are encouraged to lodge questions in advance so that a more complete

response can be provided.
PAGE 5
Questions will be put to the Council by the individual posing the question; the question
will be answered by the Mayor or CEO, or where appropriate, Councillors or Council
Officers.
Acceptance of Questions
Each person asking a question of Council is required to stand, state their name, and
address the Mayor. Public Question Time is not an opportunity for making of statements
or other comments. Councils Meeting Procedure Local Law does not allow for other
questions or comments during the remainder of the meeting.
1. An individual may only ask one question per meeting, a follow-up question may be
permitted at the discretion of the Mayor.
2. In the event that the same or similar question is raised by more than one person,
an answer may be given as a combined response.
3. In the event that time does not permit all questions registered to be answered,
questions will be answered in writing or referred to the next meeting if appropriate.
4. The Mayor and or CEO have the right to decline registration on basis of:
Legal proceedings;
More appropriately addressed by other means;
Vague or lacking in substance, irrelevant, frivolous, insulting offensive,
improper, defamatory or demeaning;
Answer likely to compromise his / her position;
Confidential, commercial-in-confidence.
5. Each individual whose registration form has been accepted or declined will be
advised by the Friday of the week prior to the scheduled meeting.
6. In the event of a registration form being declined the registration form will be
circulated to the Mayor or Councillors for information.
RESUMPTION OF STANDING ORDERS
That Standing Orders be resumed.
CR FYFFE'S REPORT
PAGE 6
DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Pursuant to Sections 77, 78 and 79 of the Local Government Act 1989 (as
amended) direct and indirect conflict of interest must be declared prior to debate
on specific items within the agenda; or in writing to the Chief Executive Officer
before the meeting. Declaration of indirect interests must also include the
classification of the interest (in circumstances where a Councillor has made a
Declaration in writing, the classification of the interest must still be declared at the
meeting), i.e.
(a) direct financial interest

(b) indirect interest by close association
(c) indirect interest that is an indirect financial interest
(d) indirect interest because of conflicting duties
(e) indirect interest because of receipt of an applicable gift
(f) indirect interest as a consequence of becoming an interested party
(g) indirect interest as a result of impact on residential amenity
(h) conflicting personal interest
A Councillor who has declared a conflict of interest, must leave the meeting and
remain outside the room while the matter is being considered, or any vote is taken.
Councillors are also encouraged to declare circumstances where there may be a

perceived conflict of interest.
PAGE 7
CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES
Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Wednesday 19 April 2017.
The following items were considered at the Ordinary Council meeting held on
Wednesday 19 April 2017 at 6:00pm.
Draft Community Plan 2017-2021 for Exhibition

Proposed Budget for the Financial Year Ending 30 June 2018
Change to Advertising Sign Planning Controls at the Kangaroo Flat Aquatic Leisure
Centre, Bendigo Stadium and Bendigo Tennis Centre - Planning Scheme Amendment
C233
347 Warrowitue-Forest Road, Heathcote - Use of Land for Agriculture and Assoc
Buildings and Works
CT000313 - Bendigo Soldiers Memorial Institute Revitalisation Project
Community Grants Round 2 2017
Farming Advisory Committee - Member Appointments
Bendigo Maubisse Friendship Committee - Review of Instrument of Delegation
Junortoun Community Plan 2017-2021
Greater Bendigo Public Space Plan - Stage 2 Vision and Conceptual Vision
Potential Sale of 85 Lomas Road, Goornong - Post Community Engagement February
2017
Delegation to the Chief Executive Officer
Loan Borrowings
Record of Assemblies
Contracts Awarded Under Delegation
The unconfirmed minutes have also been posted on the City of Greater Bendigo website
pending confirmation at this meeting.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on Wednesday 19 April 2017,
as circulated, be taken as read and confirmed.
PAGE 8
1. PETITIONS AND JOINT LETTERS
Nil.
PAGE 9
Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 17 May 2017
2. PLANNING FOR GROWTH
2.1 PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C220 & DEVELOPMENT PLAN

PD/80/2016 - LANSELL CREST, CONSIDER SUBMISSIONS AND
REFER TO PANEL
Document Information
Author Alison Kiefel, Planner
Responsible Bernie OSullivan, Director Strategy and Growth

Director
Summary/Purpose
Amendment details: This Amendment proposes to modify Schedule 16 to the

Development Plan Overlay which applies to 39-51 Lansell
Street, East Bendigo.
A summary of the changes includes:
Removal of cap on dwelling numbers;
Acknowledge issue of Certificate of Environmental Audit;
Acknowledge work undertaken to record the heritage of
the site; and
Reformatting of schedule setup and separation of key
issues.
Proponent: Blue Bondi Pty Ltd
No. of submissions: 101

Key issues: The Amendment facilitates the development of the site in
line with the Citys strategic direction of urban
consolidation and development of key sites.
Density
Streetscape and neighbourhood character
Traffic
PAGE 10
RECOMMENDATION
That the Greater Bendigo City Council resolve to:

1 Accept all late submissions;
2. Adopt the recommendations detailed for each of the submissions in this report; and
3. Request the Minster for Planning to appoint an Independent Panel to consider all
outstanding submissions to the Amendment and to operate as an advisory committee
to the Development Plan.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Policy Context
City of Greater Bendigo Council Plan 2013 2017 (2016-2017 Update)

Planning for Growth
Planning ensures residents have access to diverse, affordable and sustainable
housing choices.
Productivity
Greater Bendigo has a vibrant and diverse economy that grows jobs and enables
good living standards.
Sustainability
The built and natural qualities that make Greater Bendigo an attractive and appealing
place are valued and conserved.
Background Information
The key steps in the Amendment process are summarised below:
PAGE 11
The Amendment has arisen from a privately sponsored request by Blue Bondi P/L. The
site has a Development Plan Overlay which restricts development of the site to 65 lots.
This was suggested by the proponent when the site was originally rezoned in
Amendment C34 and suited the market environment in 2004.
Since then, the previous Bendigo Residential Development Strategy 2004, has been
replaced with Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy 2014, and Clause 21.05 Compact
Greater Bendigo. The site has been identified as a key development site under the
recently completed Amendment C215 process and comprehensive public consultation to
implement this Strategy. This Amendment requests to alter the Development Plan
Overlay to complement this new strategic direction.
A request for approval of a Development Plan has also been received for the site. This
process is occurring concurrently with the Amendment. A Development Plan is prepared
for a site when required by a Development Plan Overlay. This Plan can be prepared at
any time, and has a separate statutory process to a Planning Scheme Amendment. A
Development Plan must be approved by the Responsible Authority (City of Greater
Bendigo) before a permit for subdivision or other development can be considered.
PAGE 12
A planning permit will also be required for this development for subdivision and for
dwellings on lots less than 300sqm. The permit application will be assessed against an
approved Development Plan, referred to relevant authorities for conditions, but will be
exempt from any further public notice.
Previous Council Decisions
8 June 2006 Amendment C34 gazetted which rezoned the land to Residential and
applied the Development Plan Overlay.
22 October 2014 Council adopted the Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy 2014.
2 March 2016 Council adopted Amendment C215, which changed the Municipal
Strategic Statement, including identification of this site as a key residential development
site.
29 June 2016 Council resolved to seek authorisation from the Minister for Planning for
Amendment C220.
Report
An Explanatory Report is attached and details the purpose, effect of the Amendment and
provides the strategic justification for the Amendment as required. Key issues identified
in the Explanatory Report are summarised below.
Land affected by the Amendment
The subject site is located at 39-51 Lansell Street, East Bendigo, and known as Lot 2,
PS4348105.
The site is an irregular shaped allotment, approximately 2.6 hectares in size. The site
was formerly used as an abattoir, and later by the Country Roads Board. All buildings on
the site have been demolished and environmental decontamination works completed,
with a Statement of Audit issued.
The site is predominately cleared with undulating topography and four trees remaining on
site. Access is via Lloyd Street which forms the northern boundary, or Lansell Street
along the southern boundary. Lansell Street terminates at VicRoads depot (Murphy
Street end), and has a local only access road for residents.
Adjacent to the site to the east is the Bendigo VicRoads office and to the west is Bendigo
Kangan TAFE, East Bendigo public pool, and East Bendigo bowling green. Opposite the
site in Lloyd and Lansell Streets are established residential properties.
PAGE 13
What the Amendment does

The Amendment seeks to provide the ability for the land to be developed as a key
development site as part of the implementation of the Greater Bendigo Residential
Strategy 2014.
The Amendment proposes to amend Schedule 16 of Clause 43.04 Development Plan
Overlay to:
Delete the cap on dwelling numbers;
Update the schedule to acknowledge issue of a Certificate of Environmental Audit;
Update the schedule to acknowledge work undertaken to record the heritage of the
site; and,
Update the format and requirements to be addressed in the Development Plan
Overlay.
What the Development Plan proposes
A Development Plan (including written report, layout plan, access plan, landscape plan,
staging plan, building envelope and details plan), has been prepared in accordance with
the proposed Development Plan Overlay Schedule 16.
In summary the Development Plan proposes:

104 lots ranging in size from 85sqm to 350sqm;
2,3,4 and 5 bedroom dwellings that are single, double or triple storey;
Two open space parks totalling 1,300sqm (5% of site);
PAGE 14
Landscaped open spaces and nature strips;

All dwellings will have at least one car space, most will have two;
One main link road accessible by Lansell Street or Lloyd Street.
Consultation/Communication
Exhibition Procedures
The Amendment C220 and Development Plan PD/80/2016 were exhibited for one month
from 17 November 2016 to 19 December 2016.
Note The Planning Scheme does not require advertising of Development Plans,
however our municipality informally advertises Development Plans as part of its
transparent decision making processes.
Notice was provided in the following manner:

Individual notices, including an information bulletin to owners and occupiers of land
opposite and adjacent to the site in Lansell and Lloyd Streets.
Notices to prescribed Ministers under Section 19(1)(c) of the Planning and
Environment Act.
Notices to all authorities materially affected under Section 19(1)(a) of the Act.
Public notice of the Amendment in the Bendigo Advertiser on 16 November 2016 and
19 November 2016.
Public notice of Development Plan displayed on both road frontages of site.
Publication of the notice of the Amendment in the Government Gazette on 17
November 2016.
Access on-line.
Drop in information session held at Bendigo East Public Hall, 6 December 2016
(which was advertised in a City of Greater Bendigo Facebook post; and media
releases by the proponent). Attended by over 50 people.
Submissions
A total of 101 submissions were received, 86 during the exhibition period and 15 late
submissions. Of these, 6 were in support of the proposal, including all 5 referral
authorities that responded, and 95 submissions requested a change to the amendment.
Of the 95 submissions requesting a change, over half (69) of the individual submissions
were the same wording (preformatted), one was a petition of 101 signatures and the
remainder were from individual residents and neighbouring property owners. It is noted
that only 2 residents in Lloyd Street objected, and less than 15% of the objections were
from Lansell Street residents.
All internal departments are satisfied with the proposal with only minor changes
requested. Future planning permit applications for subdivision would also be referred to
departments for specific conditions.
The issues raised by topic are discussed below, with a summary table of submissions
and responses following. Refer to the attachment for copies of all submissions.
PAGE 15
Key development site and removal of cap for number of lots
Approximately 90 of the submitters object to the removal of the cap (currently 65 lots),
and a few submitters object to the site being used as a key development site, and
therefore increasing the density. There is also concern that approval of this proposal
will set a precedent in residential areas.
The majority of residentially zoned land in Victoria has no minimum lot size or maximum
density. This site currently has more restrictions with the Development Plan Overlay than
most General Residential Zone land. This change will therefore not be creating a
precedent, as it aligns the site with the majority of residential land.
The Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy 2014, and Clause 21.05 Compact Greater
Bendigo, has already determined this site as a key development site following a public
consultation process as part of Amendment C215.
The basis of the Greater Bendigo compact city policy and identification of key
development sites is to identify sites that are close to facilities and amenities to enable
walking or cycling as a common transport method rather than car based movements to
promote a healthy and active lifestyle.
The objective of key development sites is to provide higher density housing at

strategically identified key development sites.
This will be the first of the key development sites to be considered.
Density, streetscape and neighbourhood character
Most objecting submitters are concerned that the density of development is too
intense and that the new dwellings will not complement the existing streetscape.
As discussed above, the majority of residentially zoned land in Victoria has no minimum
lot size or maximum density. This site currently has more restrictions with the
Development Plan Overlay than most General Residential Zone land.
The site is bordered by non-residential uses, including VicRoads offices, Bendigo

Kangan TAFE and recreational uses. The existing residential interfaces along Lansell
and Lloyd Streets are already fragmented by these non-residential uses.
The site is located outside the East Bendigo Character Policy which only applies to
existing residential areas, including Lansell and Lloyd Streets. However, the
Development Plan proposes to contribute to the residential character of the area by:
Constructing dwellings that face the existing and internal streets, and being a
maximum of two storey.
New landscaping, and street trees;
Maintain a consistent setback;
No front fences to maintain informal feel to streetscape.
PAGE 16
Public open space, childrens playground, and size of backyards
Submitters are concerned that the two public parks are not big enough for the
development, especially as the backyards are too small, and that there should be a
childrens playground provided.
The amount of open space in the Development Plan meets the State planning
requirement for 5% of the total site. The basis of the Greater Bendigo compact city
policy and identification of key development sites is to identify sites that are close to
facilities and amenities to enable walking or cycling as a common transport method
rather than car based movements to promote a healthy and active lifestyle.
The Development Plan Overlay requires the approval of a landscape plan, which has
been submitted and was exhibited to the public.
All allotments have been carefully designed to have easy access to one of the two green
spaces within the development; and must meet the General Residential Zone
requirement and minimum passive open space requirements of the Planning Scheme.
Since exhibition of the Development Plan, the Minister for Planning has amended the
controls in the General Residential Zone to require a percentage of the site (dependant
on the overall size of the lot) to be garden. The impact to this particular development plan
is yet to be determined, as the application of the new controls is currently being
established.
The City has considered the location of nearby playgrounds in relation to the PlaySpace
Strategy, which ideally recommends a local play space within 400m of residents. There
is an existing play space in front of the East Bendigo Swimming Pool, 150m from the
site. There is also access to informal and natural play space within the proposed
development; 150m to a bush reserve for informal walking tracks and 1km from Lake
Weeroona which is a regional scale playspace. The City is therefore satisfied that no
additional playspaces are required as a result of this development.
Traffic
The submissions question if the existing road network can handle more traffic safely.
Submitters raise a number of concerns including:
o Methodology used and calculation of increased traffic;
o Methodology used and calculation of existing traffic and parking, including
days/times of existing road use assessment,
o Parking and types of use surrounding the site;
o Users of road network and safety (eg. learner drivers);
o The local road/brick section at end of Lansell Street (Murphy Street end);
o Safety of intersection at Patrick Street and Lansell Street for pedestrians;
o Should upgrade various intersections, including Kennedy Street (Charleston
Road) with Lansell and Lloyd Streets;
o Emergency access and bin collection days.
PAGE 17
The proponent supplied a traffic report prepared by Traffix (Oct 2016), that identifies the
relevant traffic issues and is considered satisfactory to City of Greater Bendigo -
Engineering, VicRoads, Transport Victoria and CFA.
The traffic assessment includes the standard data and scenarios required to be analysed
for this development. The additional traffic generated by the development will mean an
increase to the frequency of vehicles along roads and wait times at intersections.
Completing the traffic assessment at another time of the year would not alter the overall
recommendations, as both Lloyd and Lansell Streets are considered to be of a width and
standard to accommodate up to 6,000 vehicles per day (vpd); this proposal will result in
traffic figures well under 2,000 vpd for each street. Consideration of the type of customer
and vehicles accessing VicRoads is not appropriate. Therefore the road network
capacity and intersections will continue to operate within the acceptable parameters.
There is no requirement to provide on street parking within the development. Onsite

parking will be assessed at the planning permit stage.
The access road at the Murphy Street end of Lansell Street is not proposed to be altered.
The existing road network in Lansell Street is considered to be sufficient to cater for the
additional traffic generated throughout the day and at peak times.
There is no evidence that the traffic issues raised by submitters require changes to the
existing or proposed road network to accommodate the projected increase in vehicle
movements.
Following review of the submissions, the applicant suggested a splitter island be installed
in Patrick Street at the Lansell Street intersection to assist with control traffic movements,
improve safety, increase the centreline offset between Patrick Street and the site access
to 39-51 Lansell Street and provide a refuge for pedestrians to stage their crossing of
Patrick Street. This is supported by the City and will be included in the Development
Plan.
Kennedy Street (Charleston Road) is awaiting funding for an upgrade at the intersections
of Lloyd and Lansell Streets, so it is not appropriate to require the applicant to pay for an
existing issue, which is also remote from the site.
The CFA is the appropriate referral authority for consideration of evacuation and
emergency situations. The CFA has responded with no objections or changes.
Bin collection has been taken into account and is not considered to present an issue for
traffic more than any other residential street.
Infrastructure
Concerns have been raised that the drainage, water and sewerage systems will not
support more development in this area. Also that mobile phone coverage needs
improving.
There is no evidence to suggest that the site cant be adequately serviced.
PAGE 18
The proponent submitted a servicing report with the Amendment and Development Plan
outlining that all services are available and of a suitable standard for further
development.
The Amendment and Development Plan were forwarded to service authorities, including
Coliban Water and North Central Catchment Management Authority, neither of which
raised any issues/objection.
The City requires developments to design drainage with retardation to ensure the
discharge rate is the same as pre-development. This is assessed as part of the planning
permit. The recent Bendigo Urban Flood Study did not identify any flooding on or around
the site.
A new mobile phone tower has been approved close to the site.
Summary Table of Submissions
Preformatted submissions (69 submissions)

Supports/Objects Officer Response & Recommendation
Object to the removal of cap on number Refer to Panel
of dwellings and the higher density
proposed. Reasons are outlined below:
Does not fit with streetscape character Refer to above issues discussion.
Is not medium density housing Medium density is not specifically defined
in the Planning Scheme, however is used
to describe the density and detached
style of dwellings proposed in this
development. High density housing is
considered to be high rise and multi
apartment type buildings.
Loss of property value to existing housing Generally the effect of development on
property value is not a planning
consideration. Exceptional circumstances
and clear evidence is required before this
can be considered.
Crowding and lack of privacy The future buildings must meet the
minimum standards set by the State for
overshadowing, privacy and passive
open space. (Clause 54/55). This will be
specifically assessed at the future
Planning Permit stage.
Increase of noise The noise level is anticipated to be
typical of a residential area. There are no
uses or development in this proposal that
PAGE 19

would be considered to exceed the EPA
regulations for residential areas.
No room for pets This is not a planning consideration.
Small backyards will mean an increase in The basis of the Greater Bendigo
obesity compact city policy and identification of
key development sites is to identify sites
that are close to facilities and amenities
to enable walking or cycling as a
common transport method rather than
car based movements to promote a
healthy and active lifestyle.
All allotments have been carefully

designed to have easy access to one of
the two green spaces within the
development.
Access and parking will cause Refer to above issues discussion.
congestion.
The local access road and the end of Refer to above issues discussion.
Lansell Street will need to be modified for
increased traffic
Lack of trees and biodiversity for The site currently has 4 trees, which will
environmental benefit require removal and offset as per the
State planning controls. The proposal
includes many new plants and trees
along the street and in the two parks.
Overall the site will increase the flora on
site.
No childrens playground, and the Refer to above issues discussion.
existing park will not be sufficient.
Pressure on drainage system leading to Refer to above issues discussion.
flooding
Additional stress on an Refer to above issues discussion.
existing,problematic sewerage system
Increase in crime rate due to density The correlation between density and the
crime rate is not substantiated.
The Planning Scheme seeks to promote

personal safety through activation of
public open spaces to ensure passive
surveillance through the orientation of
PAGE 20

lots. This development has excellent
public surveillance of its open spaces
due to the design and density of the
development.
Susan Treloar, 51 Murphy Street, East Bendigo

Objects Refer to Panel
Same issues as those in the Refer to above issues discussion.
preformatted submission, and additional
concerns as below.
New intersections and access road Refer to above issues discussion.
congestion, changes need to be made at
Lansell/Kennedy Streets and
Lloyd/Kennedy Streets for the extra
vehicles.
The local access road and the end of Refer to above issues discussion.
Lansell Street will need to be modified for
increased traffic.
Minimal open space provision, especially Refer to above issues discussion.
for trees in the street
Small yards mean no room for trees Refer to above issues discussion.
Sheryl McNamee, 48 Lansell Street, East Bendigo

Objects. Preformatted submission, and Refer to Panel.
additional concerns as below Refer to above issues discussion.
Concern for accessibility by emergency All road networks within the proposed
services and increase in their workload. development and surrounds are of a
sufficient dimension to accommodate all
emergency vehicles, additionally the CFA
have not raised any issues. The
resourcing of emergency services is not
a planning matter.
Lack of public transport This development is located adjacent to a
PAGE 21
Sheryl McNamee, 48 Lansell Street, East Bendigo

public bus route at the corner of Lloyd
and Murphy Street, only 150m from the
site, or in McIvor Road which goes to
LaTrobe University.
Believes that this development is going This is not the case. This is the first step
through now so they can construct dog in a long process and the buildings are
box apartments (attached a Herald Sun not able to be built until this Amendment
article from 19/12/2016) process is complete, a planning permit
has issued and the relevant Building
permits and works undertaken. This
means the new apartment rules
developed by the State (referred to in the
article) will be in effect by then.
Terry Hunter, 34 Lansell Street, East Bendigo

Objects. Refer to Panel.
Identifies a number of positives regarding Noted
the proposal, including support for the
higher density.
Inaccurate information - the Birchgrove This was not a City publication, and we
(the applicant) brochure states schools acknowledge that the figures may not be
are within a 5min walk and 15min to accurate.
Bendigo Hospital and Bendigo Senior
Secondary School. Believes this is not
accurate.
Housing diversity roof styles and The final designs of the buildings are still
design need more work. being formed and will be considered as
part of a planning permit process.
Traffic queues at intersections, and Refer to above issues discussion.
delays for pedestrians in crossing roads.
Connectivity further footpaths along As the footpath is outside the property
Lansell Street and to destinations to area, and within an existing road
enable connectivity are required. network, this would be the responsibility
of the City.
Public spaces promote higher level of Noted. A landscape plan has been
facilities in public spaces to encourage submitted as part of the Development
neighbourhood interaction. Plan which identifies how the open
spaces are to be developed.
PAGE 22
Janice Walkley, 38 Casey Street, East Bendigo

Objects. Refer to Panel.
Changing the cap on the number of Refer to above issues discussion.
dwellings will set a precedent.
Appearance of the dwellings are not The designs of the buildings are still
complementary to the style of Bendigo. being formed, and can be altered. This
proposal considers Planning Scheme
changes and site layout.
Parking and traffic in Casey Street, Coles This is outside the scope of the planning
supermarket, and bowls/pool. considerations.
Detrimental to water pressure, sewerage, Refer to above issues discussion.
mobile phone connection
There is insufficient employment for new Improving the unemployment rate is not a
residents specific planning matter to be considered
in relation to this proposal.
Our statistics show that the Greater
Bendigo population is growing at 1.72%
per annum (id.community) and as part of
the overall strategy to house these
people, this site was considered suitable
as a key development site for higher
density. Residents that purchase a
property may be existing Bendigo or
surrounds residents, or new.
Assist nurses with accommodation Unsure in what context this was
discussed, however a nurse is an
example of someone who may reside in
the future dwellings. The future residents
of the dwellings have not been
determined.
Heather Bray, 6 Day Street, East Bendigo

Preformatted objection with additional Refer to above issues discussion.
comments as below
Concern for learner drivers in Lloyd Learner drivers do not need special
Street consideration. The impact to traffic
conditions has been considered, and the
traffic volumes predicted are significantly
lower than the design capacity of the
streets.
PAGE 23
Heather Bray, 6 Day Street, East Bendigo

Dust during construction This is a common concern for residents,
and the City requires developers to
prepare a construction management plan
as part of a planning permit to address
this issue.
Kevin & Elizabeth Heath, 33B Michael Street, East Bendigo

Should have two entry and exits on Lloyd There is no need for an additional access
Street. in Lloyd Street as the proposed two way
road through the development provides
two entry and exit points.
The increase in dwellings to 104 from 65 Refer to above issues discussion.
will cause too much traffic.
Concern for number of bins Refer to above issues discussion.
Ailsa Richardson, 135 Lloyd Street, East Bendigo

Objects to this development, but supports Refer to Panel
higher density. Refer to above issues discussion.
Increase in traffic
Height of three storey developments and Due to the separation distance being
overshadowing. over 30m, existing residences along
Lansell Street will not be overshadowed.
Construction materials use of The final exterior treatment for the
Hardiplank dwellings has not been determined.
Coles Supermarket insufficient car This is not a planning matter for
spaces. consideration, and is unable to be
altered.
Street trees suggest alternate species. The Citys Parks and Natural Reserves
and, Public Open Space and
Landscaping departments are
responsible for the approved list of street
trees.
PAGE 24
Peter Maher, 23 Patrick Street, East Bendigo

comments as below
Not in keeping with area, and specifically Refer to above issues discussion.
East Bendigo Residential Character
Policy
Beau Emmett and Jamye Power, 21 Patrick Street, East Bendigo

comments as below.
Design of buildings The final design and appearance for the
dwellings has not been determined.
Consideration of traffic at intersections Refer to above issues discussion.
such as Lansell and Patrick Streets, and
Patrick Street and McIvor Road.
Pat Guthrie, 10 Day St, East Bendigo

comments as below.
This development will result in a slum. This is a personal view and not a
planning consideration.
Believes should there be a fire incident There are two vehicle exit (and entry)
that the congestion would be terrible. points which is considered appropriate
for this development. The CFA has
assessed the proposal and has no
objection.
PAGE 25
Robert Toon
Houses look into each other and parks The dwellings are positioned to meet the
are too small. Suggests changing to a Planning Scheme requirements for
one way street and larger parks such as overlooking, and open space. One way
found in Copenhagen. streets are not supported for this
development as services, access and
minimum street widths are required.
Would like more controls to apply design This could be accommodated in the
constraints for materials and footprints. Development Plan Overlay.
Supports medium density development Noted.
however not this proposal as it is.
Martin Jenner, 47 Casey Street, East Bendigo

Doesnt support removal of cap Noted.
The lots are too small, children will have Refer to above issues discussion.
no backyard, and be forced to play on the
road or in the crammed park.
Concern for existing traffic levels The supermarket is not relevant to this
associated with the supermarket, and planning process. Consideration of
what the additional traffic will do. additional traffic has been assessed.
Noise pollution from the supermarket. This is not relevant to this planning
process.
Drainage issues with neighbouring unit This is not relevant to this planning
development. process.
Brett Hey, 28 Day Street, East Bendigo

Doesnt support removal of cap. Noted.
Traffic report is flawed and didnt assess Refer to above issues discussion.
impact on Lloyd and Murphy Streets
intersection, or Lloyd Street and
Strickland Road (Kennedy Street)
PAGE 26
Brett Hey, 28 Day Street, East Bendigo

intersection.
Overcrowding and increase in noise. Refer to above issues discussion.
Safety of children and high density of Refer to above issues discussion.
cars.
Devaluation of property prices. Refer to above discussion in the table.
Additional strain on a failing drainage Refer to above issues discussion.
system.
Bruce Corrie
Supportive of development overall but Refer to above issues discussion.
believes insufficient recreational space.
Tricia Corrie
Supportive of development overall but Refer to above issues discussion.
believes insufficient recreational space
Colin Newson, 47 Murphy Street, East Bendigo

Doesnt support removal of cap. Refer to above issues discussion.
Additional traffic will use local only road Refer to above issues discussion.
at Murphy and Lansell Streets
intersection.
Not satisfied that Lloyd and Lansell Refer to above issues discussion.
Streets can handle more traffic in current
state.
He has poor water pressure and this Refer to above issues discussion.
development will make that worse.
Concern for size of allotments and impact Refer to above issues discussion.
PAGE 27
Colin Newson, 47 Murphy Street, East Bendigo

to living environment this will have on
existing residential home owners,
especially at night-time from noise and
traffic.
Stuart Symes, 81 Goynes Road, Epsom

Believes the Council/City planning This proposal is a request to amend the
department are making inconsistent Planning Scheme (amend the rules that
decisions. apply to the land), there is a public
process to do this. The planning
applications that are referenced in the
submission would have been for permit
applications, which are assessed against
the current rules of the planning
scheme. The submitter also
acknowledges this was under the
previous Council.
Doesnt support removal of cap or a Refer to above issues discussion.
compact city.
Predicted vehicle movements are not Refer to above issues discussion.
accurate, fails to provide evidence on
many levels including walk and cycling.
No proper community engagement, The current planning process is being
especially on environmental and social undertaken, and no final decision has
concerns. been made. The process includes
opportunity for the community to provide
their views and concerns, as
demonstrated by this submission. This
also occurred for Amendment C215 to
introduce the Greater Bendigo
Residential Strategy to the Planning
Scheme.
The neighbourhood character has not Refer to above issues discussion.
been considered.
Sets a precedence and is outside original Refer to above issues discussion.
planning guidelines.
Overshadowing and overlooking issues Refer to above discussion in the table.
The traffic assessment should take into Refer to above issues discussion.
PAGE 28
Stuart Symes, 81 Goynes Road, Epsom

consideration the type of customers and
vehicles accessing VicRoads further
along Lansell Street.
Traffic assessment needs to be during Refer to above issues discussion.
peak times when the neighbouring bowls
club and pool were in use concurrently.
Parking figures are not definitive. There is no requirement to provide on
street parking. Onsite parking will be
assessed at the planning permit stage.
No controls regarding number of The number of occupants and animals
occupants, or animals per building. per building is set by local laws, the
planning scheme, and building
code/regulations.
No controls for dust or noise concerns. Refer to above discussion in the table.
Vivien Chamberlin, 2/41 Murphy Street, East Bendigo

104 lots should be the maximum number The applicant has supplied a
that is allowed. Concern for traffic. Development Plan as part of the proposal
to show 104 lots. A new Development
Plan, that has a different layout and
number of lots can be submitted at a later
date and would be assessed again
against the Development Plan Overlay.
Refer to above issues discussion.

Gary Pethybridge, 37 Lyndam Ave, Maiden Gully
Will set a precedent. States that the City Refer to above issues discussion.
is required to consult with community
regarding changes that allow high density
domestic development.
The developer is not considering the The current planning process is being
existing community, and Council is letting undertaken and no final decision has
them do the development. been made. The process includes
opportunity for the community to provide
PAGE 29

Gary Pethybridge, 37 Lyndam Ave, Maiden Gully
their views and concerns, as
demonstrated by this submission.
The City should have strategies to This is a larger issue, and is not a matter
counteract gangs or other antisocial for this planning scheme amendment.
activity that is associated with this style of
development.
Needs to provide more community/open Refer to above issues discussion.
space.
Lansell Street should be a Level 2 Refer to above issues discussion.
street, all along its length for the
additional traffic from this development
(Murphy Street end local traffic road)
Parking and road use assessment are Refer to above issues discussion.
not adequate for when bowls club and
pool in use simultaneously.
Should consult with Bendigo Metropolitan The CFA is the responsible authority for
Fire Brigade who would attend domestic referral and they have responded with no
fires. issues or objection. There is no such
authority as the BMFB.
The brick road (local access only) at end The CFA is the responsible authority for
of Lansell Street is not suitable for referral and they have responded with no
emergency use, and alternative access issues or objection.
should be provided.
States there is sufficient supply of infill This is a generalised, personal view of a
development by demolishing timber complex issue. The Greater Bendigo
residences and redeveloping without this Residential Strategy supports infill and
ghetto style development key development sites.
The yards are too small for dogs and Refer to above issues discussion.
people. People should not have to live
under these poor conditions.
Queries on future stages of proposed This proposal is a complete development
development. of the site in the current ownership.
There are no future stages.
Malcolm Pethybridge, 40 Lansell Street, East Bendigo

PAGE 30

comments as below
No solar cells proposed on dwellings Dwellings are required to meet the
current energy star rating and solar
panels can be considered at the Building
Permit stage.
The possibility of flooding and diseases. Refer to above issues discussion.
No Council in Victoria has agreed to no This statement is unfounded, as
cap on housing, ever. Victorias General Residential Zone land
has no maximum density or minimum lot
size.
The proposed dwellings are unsightly This is a personal opinion.
dog boxes
No room for rubbish bin storage on site. Rubbish bins storage is a requirement,
and will be considered as part of the
future planning permit application.
No room for cars on the property or yards Each dwelling will contain at least one
for relaxation, children or pets. car space and yards must meet the
requirements of the Planning Scheme.
Overshadow houses along Lansell Street Refer to above discussion in the table.
making them dark and cold. Also prevent
solar cells from working.
Taking privacy away from existing The site is separated from existing
residents (noted as disgusting) residences by Lansell Street itself, which
is a 30m reserve. As the residences face
the street, a public realm, it is perplexing
how privacy will be diminished.
Infrastructure is at its maximum, including No authorities or neighbouring facilities,
the supermarket being full and swimming including the swimming pool have
pool. objected to the proposal.
Bowls club park in the street and block This is not a planning matter and specific
road and driveways. issues can be logged with the Citys
customer requests system so issues can
be tracked over time and amended if
necessary.
Keep the original cap of 65, as this was Refer to above issues discussion.
put on in 2004 to suit the urban growth of
the area.
Blue Bondi P/L knew of the restrictions The applicant/owner is able to make a
when they purchased and are now being request to change the planning controls.
PAGE 31

greedy. This is the current process being
undertaken.
Devalue properties. Refer to above discussion in the table.
Doesnt meet East Bendigo Character Refer to above issues discussion.
Policy Clause 22.12
Belinda Harvey, 40 Lansell Street, East Bendigo

comments as below.
Safety concerns with additional traffic, Refer to above issues discussion.
parking and intersection at Lansell Street
and Charleston Road (Kennedy Street).
This type of development will bring The correlation between density and
trouble such as gangs, hooning and bad crime is not substantiated. Issues such
language. as this would be a matter for the Police if
and when they arise.
Devaluation of properties. Refer to above discussion in the table.
Overshadowing existing residences and Refer to above discussion in the table.
lack of privacy.
Encourages a getto style The correlation between this
neighbourhood. development proposal and getto style
neighbourhood, is not substantiated.
Petition - 101 signatures

Objects on the grounds below. (most Refer to Panel
signatories also made a submission)
There is no evidence of any logical and Refer to above issues discussion.
any other reason for this particular site to
be used as an experimental location for
an intensive 104 lot subdivision, the
beneficiary being the developer.
The Amendment fails to protect the Refer to above issues discussion.
important community Residential
Character for the community.
PAGE 32
Petition - 101 signatures

There are many other smaller sites There are several other sites within
suitable for the compact city concept Bendigo identified as key development
rather than creating a large site sites, this happens to be the first site to
susceptible to particular social, ethnic be considered.
concentration that have occurred in other
parts of the State. The assertion that the site is susceptible
to particular social, ethnic concentration
is not substantiated.
The future occupants of the dwellings

have not been determined and are not
relevant to the planning merits of this
proposal.
Peter Vucinic (3 separate submissions), 28 Kennedy Street, East Bendigo

Objects Refer to Panel.
Preformatted objection Refer to above issues discussion.
Less than 70% of dwellings meet the It is not mandatory to have a compliance
solar efficiency orientation in the of 70% if there are site specific
Planning Scheme. circumstances which mean this is
unattainable. The Planning Scheme only
requires the objective to be met, which is
specified as to provide good solar
orientation of lots and solar access for
future dwellings. For this site, restrictions
that may be taken into account include
the retention of the large concrete slab as
per the Environmental Management
Plan, the size and orientation of the lot,
and the topography.
No evidence that the development will The proposal includes a range of
improve housing affordability. dwelling sizes to accommodate a range
of demographics, in a location that is
close to services and facilities. This
creates diversity in the property market,
which in turn adjusts pricing. Having a
location that minimises travel and
therefore expenses helps with the overall
cost of living. These characteristics
therefore assist in affordable living.
Suggests the site is being rezoned to the The site is within the commonly applied
PAGE 33
Peter Vucinic (3 separate submissions), 28 Kennedy Street, East Bendigo

Residential Growth Zone. General Residential Zone, and is not
proposed to be rezoned.
The proposal fails to address car parking The proposal is not required to address
on neighbouring properties, in the street these issues.
and for the disabled.
How will car parking be supplied on small This is required to be demonstrated at
lots? the planning permit stage and the
applicant has advised that it will meet the
requirements of the Planning Scheme for
dimensions and number of spaces.
Should retain two of the river red gum It is not possible to retain these trees due
trees on site. to the topography of the site and the
earthworks required to develop. Refer to
the exhibited biodiversity assessment
report which addresses this, and includes
details of the offsets that must be
provided.
Specific issues listed regarding Clauses These clauses relate to siting and
54, 55 and 56 of the Planning Scheme amenity of new dwellings (Cl 54 for a
single dwelling, Cl 55 for multiple
dwellings on one site) and the
subdivision requirements (Cl 56).
The clauses are assessed at the

planning permit stage. Some clauses
have specific circumstances that can be
taken into consideration if the standard
cant be met. It is not mandatory for every
standard in the Clause to be met.
Bendigo Kangan Institute, Charleston Road Campus

No objection Refer to Panel
Advises of future uses and development There are no requirements for this
of their site for a Food and Fibre centre, proposal to consider future adjoining land
which may be constructed close to the uses. However, the applicant is
boundary with residential uses. Requests agreeable to work with the Bendigo
Council consider what step may be Kangan Institute. The onus is on the
required to ensure minimisation of party requiring the future use to ensure
conflict. offsite amenity impacts are minimised.
PAGE 34
McCorkell Properties Pty Ltd

No objection Refer to Panel
Concern that the Development Plan may The clauses referred to (Rescode) are
not meet some clauses (Rescode) of the assessed at the planning permit stage.
Planning Scheme. Some clauses have specific
circumstances that can be taken into
consideration if the standard cant be
met. It is not mandatory for every
standard in the Clause to be met.
Requests that the Development Plan The City of Greater Bendigo already has
Overlay be amended to require a policy to informally advertise
notification of a development plan to Development Plans. There is no change
neighbouring properties and allow formal necessary.
submissions.
Adrian Holdsworth, 44 Lansell Street, East Bendigo

Objects Refer to Panel.
Preformatted objection Refer to above issues discussion.
The development will result in residents Refer to above issues discussion.
being flooded.
CFA
No objection Note submission.
DEDJTR (Transport for Victoria) & VicRoads

Supports Note submission.
EPA
DELWP
PAGE 35
DELWP
NCCMA
No objection Note submission
Blue Bondi P/L (applicant)

Various submissions in response to Refer to Panel.
issues raised by those which attended
the drop in sessions, and comments.
Conclusion
Submitters have requested for the Amendment to be abandoned, leaving the maximum
number of dwellings at 65 under the existing Development Plan Overlay. The reasons for
opposition vary and have been discussed above. The exhibition period showed that the
relevant authorities were satisfied with the proposed Amendment and Development Plan.
To abandon the amendment would be against our recently completed Residential

Strategy, the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme, State policies, and the Loddon Mallee
Regional Growth Plan.
It is recommended that Council resolve to refer the Amendment to an Independent Panel

for consideration of the unresolved submissions. As the submissions also relate to the
Development Plan, it is recommended that the same member(s) of the Panel provide an
Advisory Committee role to make recommendations on the Development Plan to ensure
the issues are considered for the whole of the project.
Options
Section 29(1) & (2) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 states that a planning
authority may adopt an Amendment or part of an Amendment with or without changes. If
a planning authority adopts part of an Amendment the Amendment is then split into two
parts.
Section 23(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 requires that in consideration of
submissions received in relation to an Amendment, the Council must either:
Change the Amendment in the manner requested by the submitters and adopt the
Amendment with changes; or
Refer the submission(s) to an Independent Panel appointed by the Minister; or
Abandon the Amendment, or part of the Amendment.
PAGE 36
Section 22(2) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 advises that Council has the
option of accepting late submissions, but must do so if requested by the Minister for
Planning.
Resource Implications
Officer time will be required to prepare the Amendment documentation for Panel and
liaise with the Minister for Planning.
The proponent has agreed to pay for the statutory fees and extra costs incurred by the
City for holding the Panel (estimated at $10,000) as per the Policy for Private Planning
Scheme Amendments adopted by Council.
Attachments
Copy of submissions (101)

Explanatory report
Proposed Development Plan
PAGE 37
2.2 PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C223 - WHITE HILLS AND EAST

BENDIGO HERITAGE STUDY, STAGE 2 - CONSIDERATION OF
SUBMISSIONS AND REFER TO PANEL
Author Morgan James, Planner Amendments

Director
Summary/Purpose
Amendment details: The Amendment implements the White Hills and East
Bendigo Heritage Study Stage 2, 2016 by:
Applying the Heritage Overlay to:
o Five new heritage precincts (Bridge Street North,
Buller Street, Gleeson Street, Norfolk Street, White
Hills and Hamlet precincts).
o Extending two existing heritage precincts (Baxter
Street and Tomlins Street precincts).
o Sixteen places of individual heritage significance.
o Three miners cottages that will be added to the
existing miners cottages serial heritage listing in the
planning scheme.
Including the Study as a reference document at Clause
21.10.
Applying the amended Greater Bendigo Heritage
Incorporated Plan - Planning permit exemptions to the
affected properties to remove permit requirements for
minor works.
No. of submissions: 17 (5 supporting or seeking minor change, 12 opposing)

Key issues: Determining heritage significance
Defining a heritage precinct
Integrity of heritage places
Accuracy of heritage citations
Impact on development potential
PAGE 38
RECOMMENDATION

1. Accept the late submission;
2. Adopt the recommendations detailed for each of the submissions in this report; and
3. Request the Minster for Planning to appoint an Independent Panel to consider all
submissions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Policy Context
Planning for Growth

Greater Bendigo plans for the needs of our growing population through the
preparation of long-term strategies and the development of major new assets and
supporting infrastructure.
Presentation & Vibrancy

Greater Bendigo is a community that values its heritage, arts facilities and major
events and supports arts and cultural experiences.
Sustainability
The history, unique heritage, streetscapes and buildings of Greater Bendigo are
conserved, restored, celebrated and managed wisely for the long term.
The Greater Bendigo Thematic Environmental History, 2013 identified East Bendigo
and the White Hills corridor as the highest priority areas requiring a heritage study. The
City subsequently commenced the White Hills and East Bendigo Heritage Study in
2013-2014. At this time, due to development pressure, the study area was expanded to
include the areas affected by the Hospital Precinct Structure Plan, which had
never had a comprehensive heritage study.
Due to a greater than expected number of individual places being identified during the
initial steps of the study, it was decided that the heritage study should be split into two
stages, with Stage 1 containing heritage places identified in the Hospital Precinct area
and 5 large industrial type sites. These places were included in Planning Scheme
Amendment C201: New Heritage Places and Efficiency Review, which was approved
by the Minister for Planning in May 2016. These places are now covered by a Heritage
Overlay.
PAGE 39
Stage 2 (current stage) of the White Hills and East Bendigo Heritage Study was
undertaken by heritage consultants Context Pty Ltd during 2015-2016 and considered
places of potential cultural heritage significance using historical research, community
consultation and site surveys.
The key steps in the Amendment process are summarised below:
Previous Council Decisions
20 August 2014 Council resolved to adopt the White Hills and East Bendigo
Heritage Study Stage 1, 2014 and request the Minister for Planning to authorise
Amendment C201 to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme, and when authorised,
exhibit the Amendment.
4 March 2015 Council resolve to adopt the recommendations for each submission
and request the Minister for Planning appoint an independent Panel to consider all
outstanding submissions.
26 August 2015 Council resolved to adopt Amendment C201 to the Greater Bendigo
Planning Scheme and request approval from the Minister for Planning.
PAGE 40
20 July 2016 Council resolved to adopt the White Hills and East Bendigo Heritage
Study - Stage 2, 2016 and request the Minister for Planning to authorise Amendment
C223 to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme, and when authorised, exhibit the
Amendment.
Report
An Explanatory Report is attached and details the purpose and effect of the Amendment
and provides the strategic justification for the Amendment as required.
Land affected by the Amendment
The Amendment affects approximately 467 properties in the suburbs of White Hills,
Bendigo, Ascot and Epsom (see attached explanatory report for full address list).
However almost 300 of these properties are considered to be non-contributory places
within a heritage precinct and will be subject to additional planning permit exemptions
than those places identified as contributory or of individual heritage significance.
What the Amendment does
The Amendment implements the White Hills and East Bendigo Heritage Study Stage 2,
2016 by:
Applying the Heritage Overlay to:
o Five new heritage precincts (Bridge Street North, Buller Street, Gleeson Street,
Norfolk Street, White Hills and Hamlet precincts);
o Extending two existing heritage precincts (Baxter Street and Tomlins Street
precincts);
o Sixteen places of individual heritage significance;
o Three miners' cottages that will be added to the existing miners' cottages serial
heritage listing in the planning scheme.
Including the Study as a reference document at Clause 21.10.
Applying the amended Greater Bendigo Heritage Incorporated Plan - Planning permit
exemptions to the affected properties to remove permit requirements for minor works.
Consultation
Exhibition Procedures
The Amendment was publically exhibited for one month from 17 November to 19
December 2016.
Notice was provided in the following manner:

Individual notices to owners and occupiers of land affected by the Amendment.
Notices to prescribed Ministers under Section 19(1)(c) of the Planning and
Environment Act.
Notices to all authorities materially affected under Section 19(1)(a) of the Act.
PAGE 41
Public notice of the Amendment in the Bendigo Advertiser on 16 and 19 November

2016.
Publication of the notice of the Amendment in the Government Gazette on 17
November 2016.
Access on-line.
Drop-in information session on 29 November 2016 held in White Hills with
approximately 25 attendees from the community.
Submissions
17 submissions were received to the Amendment with 5 supporting or seeking minor

changes and 12 opposing; of these 2 submissions have been resolved through
negotiation. These submissions are discussed in the following tables:
White Hills and Hamlet Heritage Precinct (HO897)
Submissions 1 to 6 relate to the White Hills and Hamlet Heritage Precinct (citation
attached and map below). This precinct is of local historic, aesthetic and social
significance as it comprises the original street layout for a hamlet as laid out in 1856 by
Surveyor Richard Larritt. Its also significant because it contains a number of significant
residential, commercial and institutional buildings from the Victorian, Edwardian, Inter-
war and Post-war periods of development.
PAGE 42
Submitter 1: VicRoads
Supports/Objects + Issue Officer Response & Recommendation
Supports the Amendment Change the Amendment as requested per the below.
but requests changes.
The Explanatory Report The map in the explanatory report is indicative to show
diagram does not include all the affected areas together. The planning scheme
the road reserves in the map is the official control and was exhibited with the
proposed new heritage Amendment, showing the road reserves within the
Overlay. However the proposed Overlay.
Amendment map does.
The proposed White Hills This request is not supported as it is standard State-
and Hamlet precinct wide planning practice where two sides of a street are
(HO897) is central to the affected by an Overlay that the road between is also
VicRoads Napier Street included in the Overlay.
Upgrade Project. The
proposed Overlays may The inclusion of the road within the Overlay is of
delay the project via the particular importance for the proposed White Hills &
need to obtain planning Hamlet heritage precinct (HO897) as the road layout is
permits. an important part of the history of White Hills. It is also
important for other precincts such as Bridge Street
Requests the following North and Buller Street to recognise and protect
changes: significant heritage elements such as street trees and
1. Remove the Heritage blue stone gutters etc.
Overlay from all arterial
road reserves. The City acknowledges the importance of the State
funded Napier Street duplication project for ongoing
2. Where the Napier Street arterial road works and does not wish to hinder
duplication works encroach VicRoads from carrying out its work program.
into the local roads within
the White Hills and Hamlet It is recommended that roadworks not require a
Precinct, that the project is planning permit under the Permit Exemptions
exempted from requiring a Incorporated Plan if they meet the following conditions:
planning permit.
PAGE 43
Submitter 1: VicRoads
This roadworks exemption will allow VicRoads to carry

out its function in these precincts with planning permits
required only when a significant feature is to be altered
or removed.
VicRoads has subsequently indicated that they are

satisfied with these changes and have no outstanding
issues.
Submitter 2: Department of Health & Human Services (various properties in

White Hills)
Objects No change to the Amendment. Refer
submission to Independent Planning
Panel.
The White Hills and Hamlet Heritage Whilst there are a number of non-
Precinct (HO897) contains a large contributory properties included within
proportion of non-contributory places. the proposed precinct, it represents the
The proposed precinct is not intact or area of White Hills including the original
coherent enough to warrant a Heritage street layout from surveyor Richard Larritt
Overlay in its current form. as laid out in 1856. Both the City and the
study's heritage consultants agree that
PAGE 44
Submitter 2: Department of Health & Human Services (various properties in

White Hills)
the precinct meets the threshold of
heritage significance.
Wherever possible, non-contributory

places have been excluded from the
Heritage Overlay. However, some are
included where they form part of a
streetscape in order to manage future
development, and where it is not practical
to remove them.
Expressed concern about the impact of All the affected properties have been
the Heritage Overlay on a number of identified as non-contributory to the
Director of Housing owned properties in heritage precinct. The Planning Permit
White Hills. Exemptions Incorporated Plan will
exempt most works including demolition
and external alterations etc. from
requiring a planning permit.
Also under Clause 52.24 of the Planning

Scheme a permit is not required for
Department of Health and Human
Services self-contained accommodation
if it is located in a residential zone and
accommodates no more than 20 clients.
Further correspondence from the This request is not supported. The
Department asked that the exemptions purpose of the permit exemptions is to
for non-contributory places within the remove planning permits for works which
precinct should be amended to allow rear will have minimal impact on heritage
additions that are closer than 3 metres to places. The 3 metre condition has been
the side and rear boundaries. applied to provide a sufficient buffer to
adjacent heritage places. This permit
exemption has been applied successfully
across most existing places in the
Heritage Overlay with no issue.
In further correspondence the
Department stated that it remains
concerned that the Precinct is not
particularly intact. However, recognises
that the Heritage Overlay is unlikely to
create a significant impact in terms of
additional permits and will not challenge
the proposed Amendment at a Planning
Panel hearing.
PAGE 45
71 Raglan Street, White Hills
Submitter 3: A. Loveland, 71 Raglan Street, White Hills

Objects. Change the Amendment as below. Refer
Panel.
The property is not pivotal to the White The submitter supplied a copy of the
Hills precinct because it is not originally building permit and plans for the
from White Hills. The house was moved relocation of the house to 71 Raglan
to the site and is not intact. Street, White Hills.
This new information meant we had to re-

evaluate the heritage assessment of the
property - It was initially identified to be of
contributory heritage significance to the
White Hills and Hamlet heritage precinct.
The property is now considered to be of

non-contributory heritage significance to
the precinct, which means it has minimal
heritage value. The property will still be
included within the proposed Heritage
Overlay precinct but now even more
planning permit exemptions will apply.
Officers have since written to the

submitter advising of this change and to
determine if they were satisfied with the
change, but no response has been
received.
PAGE 46
549 Napier Street, White Hills
Submitter 4: L & D Pettersen, 549 Napier Street, White Hills

Objects. No change to Amendment. Refer
Panel.
The White Hills and Hamlet heritage The three properties referred to are
precinct has been created on the basis of HO910, HO911 and HO912 which have
three individual houses. Three dispersed been identified in this study as of
houses cannot effectively make a individual heritage significance as well as
precinct. The precinct doesnt meet the contributing to the significance of the
purpose of heritage precincts. precinct. However there are 52 other
places identified to be contributory,
including the submitters' property.
Contributory places are those that
contribute to the significance of a
heritage precinct, but would not be
significant on their own.
In addition to the State recognised

heritage criteria for determining heritage
significance (Planning Practice Note 1), a
series of local tests were developed for
this Heritage Study to determine whether
a precinct meets the threshold of local
significance. The relevant tests which it is
considered the White Hills and Hamlet
Heritage Precinct meets are:
The place or precinct is associated
with a key theme identified in the
thematic environmental history. The
place will have a strong association
with the theme and this will be clearly
illustrated by the fabric, when
compared with other places (Criterion
PAGE 47
Submitter 4: L & D Pettersen, 549 Napier Street, White Hills

A).
The place or precinct has distinctive
aesthetic qualities that set it apart from
other places. The design, scale, siting
or detailing may impart landmark
qualities. Usually, the place or precinct
will have a high degree of intactness
when compared to other places.
(Criterion E)
Refers to a statement from page 5 of the The quote referred to is from Stage 1 of
White Hills & East Bendigo Heritage the White Hills and East Bendigo
Study, Stage 1 (2014) to support the Heritage Study which predates the
objection that a precinct is not current study (Stage 2) and is not
appropriate. relevant to the area of White Hills.
Officers wrote to the submitter with the
above responses. The submitter
consequently advised that although the
precinct has not been created on the
basis of three individual houses, they
believe the heritage of the area should
be recognised as a spattering of isolated
places with no unifying theme or
significant streetscape and do not
support the Overlay over their property.
546 and 550 Napier Street, White Hills
Submitter 5: Conceptz on behalf of Holy Rosary Primary School, 546 and 550
Napier Street, White Hills
Objects (but has since advised no Change the Amendment as requested.
outstanding issues).
PAGE 48
Submitter 5: Conceptz on behalf of Holy Rosary Primary School, 546 and 550
Napier Street, White Hills
Holy Rosary Primary School has A building application (RC/569/2016) for
developed a Masterplan for the site that the demolition of the dwelling was lodged
identifies 546 Napier Street, White Hills by the school on 16 December 2016. The
as the area for a new Multi-Purpose application was considered by the Citys
Building. It is therefore requested that Heritage Advisor and Planning Manager
this site not be identified as contributory and the merits of the heritage
to the heritage precinct to allow for the significance weighed up with the net
future development of the school. community benefit of the ongoing
improvement of the school and the
Masterplan. The application for
demolition was approved on 9 January
2017. This site should be changed to be
of non-contributory significance to the
heritage precinct.
The dwelling at 550 Napier Street, White Since the initial heritage assessment was
Hills was demolished in 2014 and has undertaken the demolition and new
since been replaced by a modern school construction has occurred. The
building. Therefore it should not be demolition was approved on 22 May
identified as contributory. 2014 and planning permit DP/517/2015
was issued for the use and development
of 550 Napier Street as an educational
centre for the expansion of the school in
August 2015. This site should be
changed to be of non-contributory
significance to the heritage precinct.
Officers wrote to the submitter advising of
the above. The submitter subsequently
advised they were satisfied and had no
outstanding issues.
506-508 Napier Street, White Hills, Uniting Church (HO897 & HO910)
Submission 6 relates to the Uniting Church Complex at 506-508 Napier Street, White
Hills (citation attached). The complex is of local historic, aesthetic and social significance
and comprises a 1860s vestry, c.1870 brick church, 1903 timber hall and 1953 timber
kindergarten building.
PAGE 49
Submitter 6: Tomkinson Group on behalf of the Uniting Church, 508-508 Napier

Street, White Hills (late submission)
Objects. No change to Amendment. Refer submission to
Independent Planning Panel.
Do not object to the inclusion The support of the inclusion in the proposed heritage
of the site in the White Hills precinct is acknowledged.
and Hamlet Precinct Heritage
Overlay (HO897).
Object to the inclusion of the The application of the individual Heritage Overlay to
Uniting Church and Hall into the site is the City carrying out its mandatory function
an individual place Heritage required by the Planning Scheme. The Overlay will
Overlay (HO910). enable a planning permit process where the
significance of the heritage place can be considered.
The Uniting Church is The City acknowledges and supports the ongoing
planning to consolidate their work of the Uniting Church to redevelop this site. We
congregations from north would like to work with the Church group in this
Bendigo to this site, to be redevelopment project and help them achieve the
known as Uniting Place. contemporary redevelopment they seek whilst
retaining the 3 key significant buildings on site (1860s
Architects have prepared a vestry, c.1870 Brick church and 1903 timber hall
concept layout for the site shown in the above photo). The Citys Heritage
which recognises the Advisor is available to work with the Church and their
historical value of the old architects to achieve a contemporary but sympathetic
PAGE 50

vestry/ church, and redevelopment for the site.
incorporates them into a new
site design.
The site analysis identified The subject site is large at 5,065m2, with
that the current massing of approximately one third encumbered by existing
buildings is problematic for buildings. There is a vacant open area of
the reconfiguration and approximately 200m2 (shown below in red) between
contemporary rejuvenation of the two significant heritage buildings which could be
the site. developed for a contemporary new building to
integrate with the significant buildings.
An option that has not been considered by the

Church is that the side of the timber hall could be
opened up to integrate with the new space. The
timber hall could also be retrofitted to provide for the
offices, meeting rooms or multiple auxiliary spaces
the Church seeks. Internal building controls do not
apply to the site under the Heritage Overlay, so this
project would have no implications on the internal
use of the building.
Of the two existing buildings, No evidence has been put forward to support the
it was considered that the claims that the building is structurally unsound. It has
timber hall was more been repeatedly concluded by Planning Panels
appropriate for removal for a Victoria that structural integrity and the condition of a
number of reasons including: place are generally not deciding considerations in the
White ants application of a Heritage Overlay.
Uneven and sinking floors
PAGE 51

Building is structurally The hall was internally inspected by the Citys

unsound Heritage Advisor and it appeared to be in reasonable
High maintenance and condition and not structurally unsound.
operating costs
No future tenant If the timber hall was renovated the maintenance and
Building has no cultural operating costs would be similar to that of a new
value to current build.
congregation
No evidence has been put forward that the building
has no cultural value to the congregation. Its also
important to note that heritage is not just about the
significance to site owners but the community as a
whole. These buildings have been located on the site
for over 100 years and had many users and
observers who will value these buildings.
The proposed Amendment There is a section of the Explanatory Report which
does not adequately address must assess the environmental, social and
the environmental, social and economics of the Amendment. This is a requirement
economic impacts of of all Planning Scheme Amendments. It is considered
Heritage Overlay imposition this assessment has been satisfied.
on the reasonable future
functioning of this site. It is acknowledged within the explanatory report that
additional costs may be borne by property owners
through the need to obtain a planning permit under
the Heritage Overlay. However the City has
attempted to offset this cost through the
implementation of the Permit Exemptions
Incorporated Plan. Permit costs can also be offset by
the Heritage Restoration Loan Scheme which offers
no interest loans to assist with the restoration of
heritage buildings.
We will not be able to obtain As noted above, the Heritage Overlay does not
a planning permit for the prohibit development; it instead means a planning
proposed development if the permit is required where the merits of the
proposed Heritage Overlay is development can be considered.
implemented in its current
form.
The proposed Overlay does The Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme has been
not provide adequate developed to provide guidance on the management
statutory guidance on of heritage places. The Heritage Policy at Clause
balancing past cultural/ 22.06 of the Scheme advises that Council seeks to
architectural heritage with the maintain and enhance the significance of heritage
need to adapt and evolve in places while accommodating the needs of residents
order for the Uniting Churchs to adapt and develop such places.
PAGE 52

cultural significance to
continue into the future. The policy provides guidance to applicants on
various works in the Heritage Overlay including:
Additions and alterations
Car parking
External painting and finishes
Fences
Demolition
Infill development and new buildings
The City also offers a free planning pre-application

service to residents for their development proposals
with advice available from the Citys Planners and
Heritage Advisor.
The proposed development The purpose of the Heritage citation is to establish
is jeopardised by a citation the heritage significance of a property in accordance
that focuses too heavily on with Planning Practice Note 1: Applying the Heritage
the architectural merits of Overlay.
unsound buildings that no
longer have a functional 8 criteria are considered including historical
purpose. significance, rarity, research potential,
representativeness, and aesthetic, technical, social
and associative significance.
The citation details the heritage significance of the

site and meets the Practice Note requirements.
The Heritage citation should The citation and proposed permit exemptions are
be amended to better considered sufficient.
accommodate consideration
of the sites ongoing The future development of the site and its potential
management. impact upon the sites heritage value will be
considered by a planning permit.
The current process is about establishing if the site

and its buildings have sufficient heritage value to
warrant protection by the Heritage Overlay.
PAGE 53
Epsom Primary School, Howard Street, Epsom (HO907)
Submissions 7 and 8 relate to the Epsom Primary School (citation attached) which is of
local historic, aesthetic and social significance for its 1881 red brick school building with
1915 porch and row of elm trees at the front of the site.
Submitter 7: G. Hollyman
Supports the preservation of Epsom No change to Amendment.
Primary School and the proposed
Heritage Overlay.
Submitter 8: M. Haring
Supports the preservation of Epsom No change to Amendment.
Primary School and the proposed
Heritage Overlay.
Bridge Street North Heritage Precinct (HO893)
Submission 9 relates to the Bridge Street North Heritage Precinct (citation attached).
This precinct is of local historic and aesthetic significance because it is representative of
Bendigos inner suburban areas which developed initially as a mixed area combining
commercial activities, but consolidated into a residential area with buildings representing
a spectrum of growth and development. The suburban areas around Bendigo North,
including that of Bridge Street, demonstrate the growth of housing alongside that of the
industrial expansion of Bendigo. The precinct is also significant for its established avenue
of elm trees.
PAGE 54
62 Arnold Street, 62, 64, 68 and 70 Bridge Street, Bendigo
PAGE 55
PAGE 56
Submitter 9: P. Slattery, 62 Arnold Street, 62, 64, 68 and 70 Bridge Street,

Bendigo
Objects. No change to Amendment. Refer submission to
Independent Planning Panel.
The proposed Bridge Street The Overlays dont conflict; it instead means there
North Heritage Precinct are multiple planning issues to be considered in
(HO893) conflicts with Design any future permit application. There are many sites
and Development Overlay in the City Centre with multiple Overlays to allow
Schedule 21 Bridge Street such issues to be considered.
Activity Area (DDO21) which
was applied to the area in 2016 The DDO21 implemented by the Hospital Precinct
via the Hospital Precinct Structure Plan has the following relevant
Structure Plan (HPSP) with the objectives:
aim to have these properties To establish a main street environment and
developed at higher densities. character along Bridge Street between
The Neighbourhood Character Bendigos City Centre and the Bendigo
Overlay (NCO) was also Hospital Campus.
removed from the site in that To maintain the amenity of adjacent residential
project to allow higher density areas.
development. To ensure new development is complementary
to heritage buildings and precincts.
Removal of the properties from
PAGE 57

Bendigo
the proposed precinct will have The Hospital Precinct Structure Plan (HPSP),
limited impact on the which was adopted by Council in 2014,
significance of the precinct acknowledged that the White Hills and East
overall, because hes located on Bendigo Heritage Study was occurring in the area
the edge of the precinct and the and stated the following direction:
buildings arent of individual Retain the existing Heritage Overlay and expand
significance. its application based on the recommendations of
the White Hills and East Bendigo Heritage Study.
As part of the implementation of the HPSP the

properties at 62 and 64 Bridge Street and 62
Arnold Street were rezoned from General
Residential Zone to Commercial 1 Zone, the NCO
was removed and the DDO21 placed upon the
sites. These changes were made to reflect that the
corner of Bridge and Arnold Streets is part of the
Bridge Street Activity Area and the transition from
the City Centre to the Bendigo Hospital.
It is important to note that 68 and 70 Bridge Street

remain in the General Residential Zone and the
Neighbourhood Character Overlay.
It is our recommendation that the Bridge Street

North Heritage Precinct should apply as proposed
across all the submitters properties to enable
heritage values to be considered in any future
development. This is seen as particularly important
as the properties form an important entrance point
into the heritage precinct.
In regards to the planning implications of this, the

properties at 62 Arnold Street and 64 Bridge Street
(shown in the map below) have been identified as
not contributing (i.e. have minimal heritage value)
to the heritage precinct therefore no planning
permit would be required for their demolition,
however a planning permit will be required to allow
some input into any redevelopment of the sites.
PAGE 58

Bendigo
The properties at 62, 68 and 70 Bridge Street have

been identified to be of contributory heritage
significance.
In response to the submission we put forward a

compromise that the Heritage Overlay should
remain as proposed but we would consider
changing 62 Bridge Street to be of non-
contributory significance, which would in effect
allow demolition of the building and further open
up the development potential for the properties on
the corner whilst ensuring it could be done in a
way that appropriately manages the heritage
values of the area.
This proposal was put forward to the submitter but

no outcome has been reached. It is therefore
recommend that the submission be forwarded to
Panel for consideration.
PAGE 59
Gleeson Street Heritage Precinct (HO896)
Submission 10 relates to the Gleeson Street Heritage Precinct (citation attached). The
precinct is of local historic and aesthetic significance as a predominantly late nineteenth
century development linking White Hills to Bendigo. The hotel and shops are a tangible
link with the development of commercial enterprises along the White Hills Road. The
Gleeson Street precinct is also significant for its association with hotelier, well-known
community member and contractor; Michael Gleeson, licensee of the Suburban Hotel
(later Captain Cook Hotel).
362 & 364 Napier Street, White Hills
Submitter 10: M. Cordell, 362 & 364 Napier Street, White Hills
Supports/Objects + issue Officer Response & Recommendation
Panel.
PAGE 60
Submitter states they would be greatly The Heritage Overlay does not force any
disadvantaged if any Heritage Overlay action upon an owner; it instead
was applied to this property. acknowledges that the land has heritage
values which must be considered in any
future development.
The Heritage Overlay does not prevent

sale of the site, therefore it does not meet
the criteria for compensation under the
Planning and Environment Act 1987,
which generally relates to land
acquisition etc.
The City has developed the Heritage

Design Guidelines (2015) and Permit
Exemptions Incorporated Plan (2015) to
remove permits for many minor works to
assist owners of heritage places.
The City supports the restoration of

buildings in the Heritage Overlay and
property owners can apply for a Heritage
Restoration Loan to assist with
restoration.
The dwelling is in average condition and It has been repeatedly concluded by
any future development of the site would Planning Panels Victoria that structural
more than likely involve demolition. integrity and the condition of a place are
generally not deciding considerations in
the application of a Heritage Overlay;
instead these are normally issues to be
considered in a future planning permit.
The two blocks together (362 & 364 The Heritage Overlay does not prohibit
Napier Street) would make a great the development of a site; it instead
development site. Not having the option provides an assessment process for the
in the future to develop both sites development where heritage values of
together would further reduce their value. the site can be considered.
The financial cost of development for an

owner may be a relevant consideration in
a future planning permit application.
However at this stage in the planning
process, its about establishing if there is
sufficient heritage significance to warrant
inclusion of the property in the Heritage
Overlay, as well as any net community
economic impacts of this.
PAGE 61
Submitter originally invested in this area The City has an ongoing program for
because there were no heritage heritage studies and it is unfortunate that
restrictions. some areas still remain unstudied.
Norfolk Street Heritage Precinct (HO895)
Submissions 11 and 12 relate to the Norfolk Street Heritage Precinct (citation attached).
This Precinct is of local historic and aesthetic significance as it represents part of the
story of change as the gold boom subsided and the areas once occupied by mining
became available for residential expansion. Within the North Bendigo locality, Norfolk
Street forms an unusually consistent group of late nineteenth and early twentieth housing
of high quality, complemented by the three palm trees.
Submitter 11: S & R Young, 17 and 19 Norfolk Street, North Bendigo

Objects to the proposed heritage No change to Amendment. Refer
precinct. submission to Independent Planning
Panel.
PAGE 62

The Citys policy supports more units The Citys policy does support infill
being built in the street. Most of the development in urban Bendigo. Heritage
street has already been infilled with units does not prohibit this. Instead it
built behind the existing acknowledges that the land has heritage
premises. Number 9 and 11 have had values which must be considered in any
substantial building behind them. More development. If designed
units are already planned and should be sympathetically, infill is in fact
underway at 22 & 23 Norfolk Street. encouraged.
Nos 9 and 11 Norfolk Street have been

substantially altered and are not
considered to be heritage significance.
Neither is 22 & 23 Norfolk Street.
Some of the older houses like number 10 Both number 10 and 25 Norfolk Street
and 25 have been demolished and units were proposed to be included within the
built, or in the process of being built. Heritage Overlay, but unfortunately
applications for their demolition were
lodged prior to the exhibition of the
heritage study.
Its most likely that units will be built in As noted above, the Heritage Overlay
front of number 17 due to it being located does not prohibit infill development. It just
so far back in the block. States that as means that a planning permit would be
the house was not mentioned for any required where the impact of the
specific features, it could well be proposed new dwelling could be
demolished for better land development. considered.
Both number 19 and 21 have a very The Heritage Overlay is only concerned
appealing heritage look from the street, with external features of these properties,
but behind the facade is different, with no no internal controls apply.
heritage features and the rooms changed
over the years. The veranda posts, rails As discussed previously, generally
and decorations on both houses need to structural integrity and the condition of a
be replaced soon as they are both in a place are not deciding considerations in
state of rotting and almost unsafe. the application of a Heritage Overlay.
The houses are considered to meet the
threshold of heritage significance which
is the issue at hand.
The house at 20 Norfolk Street has been The owner of 20 Norfolk street has
renovated and altered; the citation is out lodged a separate submission (no.10)
of date. which will be discussed in the next
section.
States that whilst the intentions are good Within the context of Heritage Overlays
to create an area of Contributory throughout Bendigo, Norfolk Street is a
Heritage significance, I do not think that a small and isolated grouping of a
few palm trees and lace work meet the particularly high integrity. In the context
PAGE 63

criteria. of North Bendigo, this small group is
notable for its degree of intactness and
close spatial relationship to one another.
Whilst there are individual isolated places
of equivalent quality in North Bendigo,
the locality generally has a lower integrity
than in other inner suburban areas of
Bendigo.
20 Norfolk Street, North Bendigo
Submitter 12: J. Dharmaratne, 20 Norfolk Street, North Bendigo

Objects to the proposed heritage No change to Amendment. Refer
precinct. submission to Independent Planning
Panel.
Has renovated and improved property We acknowledge the renovations done to
over the last three years. Photo in the property over recent time, including
citation is old and significant features the replacement of the roof and removal
have since been removed. of gables (some of which can be seen in
the photo above compared to the photo
in the attached citation). It is important to
note that a heritage study is conducted at
a point in time and things change. The
fieldwork for the Norfolk Street Precinct
was conducted in early 2015, prior to
these renovations.
PAGE 64
Submitter 12: J. Dharmaratne, 20 Norfolk Street, North Bendigo

Since the submission has been received

Officers have inspected the dwelling and
noted the changes. Advice was also
sought from the Studys heritage
consultants who confirmed that although
the dwelling has been altered since the
assessment, the significance of the
dwelling has not changed. It is still
considered to be of contributory heritage
significance to the Norfolk Street
Heritage Precinct.
As per other precinct owners, is As discussed previously, the Heritage
concerned about the impact of the Overlay does not prohibit the
precinct on future investment potential of development of a site; it instead provides
the properties. an assessment process for the
development where heritage values of
the site can be considered.
The financial cost of development for an

owner may be a relevant consideration in
a future planning permit application.
However at this stage in the planning
process, its about establishing if there is
sufficient heritage significance to warrant
inclusion of the property in the Heritage
Overlay, as well as any net community
economic impacts of this.
14 Heinz Street, White Hills, Residence & stable complex (HO908)
PAGE 65
Submission 13 relates to the house and stables complex at 14 Heinz Street, White Hills.
This site is of local historic, aesthetic, rarity and associational value as a rare and
substantially intact example of a late nineteenth century residence and c.1920s horse
stable complex that operated as a racehorse training facility from c.1914 through until
2009.
Submitter 13: D. Torpy, 14 Heinz Street, White Hills

Objects. No change to Amendment. Refer submission
to Independent Planning Panel.
Submitter has previously worked The submitters ongoing good will towards the
with the City to work around heritage of the site is to be commended and
heritage issues at great time and the City is appreciative of how the submitter
expense by subdividing around worked with Officers to achieve an acceptable
several buildings. subdivision outcome for the site. Unfortunately
these previous agreements were missed in the
heritage citation for the property.
State that any horse training facility The property contains an important
over an extended period would combination of residence and stables to the
ultimately have a similar history area of White Hills, we are not considering the
therefore the property is not heritage significance to the whole of Victoria.
historically unique.
A place does not have to be unique (one of a
kind) to be of heritage significance. There are
in fact 8 heritage criteria used in Victoria to
determine heritage significance
The stable complex is of Criteria D

(representativeness), B (rarity), A (historical)
and H (associative) significance to the City of
Greater Bendigo. This is because the complex
was built before World War 2, remains in
almost original condition and was associated
with local horse racing identities Harry
McCalman and Tom Torpy.
The 2001 study commissioned by The list of potential heritage places in
the City of Greater Bendigo: Heathcote Strathfieldsaye Heritage Study
Heathcote-Strathfieldsaye Heritage Stage One 2001 is not in order of significance,
Study Stage One 2001 Potential as can be demonstrated by the Bendigo
Places of Cultural Significance racecourse grandstand listed at no. 323 which
listed 14 Heinz Street at a lowly 324 is included within the Heritage Overlay and is
of 325 places within the B List of of potential State heritage significance.
Potential Places of Cultural
Significance.
Within this B list only minimal The list was an overview list of heritage sites
property detail was referenced. which are always developed during the initial
PAGE 66

stage of a heritage study. This list provides the
starting point for the next stage of the heritage
study which includes detailed site investigation
and historical research.
14 Heinz Street, White Hills is not The White Hills and East Bendigo Heritage
referred to at all in the C201, White Study was split into 2 stages due to an
Hills and East Bendigo Heritage expansion of the study area to include areas
Study, Stage 1 revised November around the new hospital and a greater than
2015. expected number of individual places being
identified during the initial steps of the study.
Belatedly there is now a Planning Stage 1 contained heritage places identified
Scheme Amendment to include the in the Hospital Precinct area and 5 large
'House and Stables' at 14 Heinz industrial type sites. These places were
Street, White Hills into the Heritage included in Planning Scheme Amendment
Overlay. C201: New Heritage Places and Efficiency
Review, which was approved by the Minister
for Planning in May 2016.
What has not been shown within The proposed Heritage Overlay only extends
the Amendment documentation is over the area agreed to by the submitter
the location of the house and during the subdivision of the site and includes
stables, nor the fact that the the house, stables, rear stables and
proposed Overlay intends to include appropriate curtilage. The applicants plan of
two further buildings that are at subdivision was given to the heritage
most of secondary interest. consultants to map the extent of the Overlay.
(Specifically the small horse stalls
at the rear of the property described We do acknowledge that the heritage citation
previously in heritage documents as could be clearer about what elements of the
in 'fair' condition and an ancillary site are significant and propose the inclusion of
utility outbuilding described within the below site sketch within the citation.
the same Heritage documents as
being in 'poor' condition).
PAGE 67

The City has previously supported the

demolition of some of the non-significant
outbuildings to help facilitate the
redevelopment of the site; therefore we wish to
only retain the important heritage elements.
The submitter was also given an exemption

from paying the required public open space
contribution for the subdivision of the land
(DSD/392/3014) at his request, based on the
agreement for retention of the heritage
elements and application of the proposed
Heritage Overlay.
The disused irrigation dam on the Omission of the irrigation dam in the Ross
Ross Street road reserve at the rear Street Reserve was an oversight; we therefore
of 14 Heinz Street has been omitted propose to amend the Heritage Overlay and
from the proposed Heritage citation to include it.
Overlay.
The concern about the safety of the structure
During the process to subdivide the has been forwarded to the Citys Engineering
land a request was made to fill in Unit for action.
the 8 to 10 foot deep dam for
community safety reasons.
The City rejected this request and

advised that the dam was of
heritage interest, and would be
PAGE 68

retained but filled in to a safe level.
249a Napier Street, Bendigo
Submitter 14: J & B Pascoe, 249a Napier Street, Bendigo

Requests a minor mapping change. Change the Amendment as requested.
Requested that an area of non- HO869 should be removed from the area of
significant common property common property (shown below in red) as
(containing a driveway and modern requested as it relates to 249 Napier Street
car port) be removed from the which is the house at the front. The precinct
existing individual Heritage Overlay Overlay will ensure that any development of
(HO869). Do not object to the the driveway is sympathetic to the adjoining
application of the precinct Overlay. heritage places.
125-133 McIvor Road, East Bendigo (HO905)
Submission 15 relates to the residence and garden at 125-133 McIvor Road, East
Bendigo. This property is of historic and aesthetic significance because of its
associations with the Beischer family, many of whom were prominent community
members in Bendigo during the late nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries. The first
photos below are from the heritage assessment fieldwork in 2015 and the second set of
photos were taken in 2017 after the renovation to the property.
PAGE 69
Submitter 15: P & S Snow, 125-133 McIvor Road, East Bendigo

Panel.
The house and gardens have been We acknowledge the recent alterations to
substantially altered since the heritage the property. The fieldwork for this site
assessment in 2015. The assessment is was conducted in early 2015, prior to the
now out of date. renovations. The submission and detail
provided will enable the citation to be
updated and corrected.
Heritage listing is unnecessary to protect Regardless of the current owners
the newly renovated house. The owners renovations and intentions; the Heritage
are nearing completion of a substantial Overlay should be applied to ensure the
architect-designed extension and protection and management of the
renovation. They state the house has dwelling into the future, regardless of
been rebuilt to last for another ninety ownership.
years.
The garden is not of sufficient The gardens were considered to be of
significance to warrant heritage listing in heritage significance in association with
PAGE 70
Submitter 15: P & S Snow, 125-133 McIvor Road, East Bendigo

its own right. A Heritage Overlay will add the dwelling. Officers acknowledge the
costs, delays and hamper our efforts to impact to the gardens from recent works
rebuild. and drought.
It is recommended that the studys

heritage consultants and the Citys
arborist revisit the site and determine the
impact of these changes on the
significance of the gardens and the site.
These findings and our recommendation
can then be presented at the Panel
hearing.
The substantial renovation of the As discussed previously, the fieldwork for
property negates the principal argument this site was conducted prior to the
that the property is in a state of higher renovations.
integrity.
The studys heritage consultants will be
engaged to review the alterations to the
property and the impact on the integrity.
These findings and recommendation can
then be presented at the Panel hearing.
The report recommending heritage listing We acknowledge that there are some
contains factual errors errors in the citation and agree to correct
them.
In the comparative assessment on p.85, The City acknowledges that 123 McIvor
no mention is made of the very significant Road has unfortunately been missed in
property at 123 McIvor Road. this heritage study. We are seeking to get
in touch with the property owners to
examine the property for inclusion within
our next heritage study.
Submitter 16: Dja Dja Wurrung Clans Aboriginal Corporation

Supports No change to Amendment. Refer
Panel.
Questions if there are any heritage There are no places to be removed from
places that are proposed for removal the Heritage Overlay as part of this
from the Heritage Overlay? project.
Discusses the removal of permit These are separate legislative
PAGE 71
Submitter 16: Dja Dja Wurrung Clans Aboriginal Corporation

requirements for specified minor works. requirements. The removal of planning
Although a planning permit may not be permit requirements will not remove the
required by Council, it is important that duty of an applicant to comply with the
applicants be made aware of the Aboriginal Heritage Act.
requirements of the Aboriginal Heritage
Act 2006 as Amended, in relation to
reporting the discovery of Aboriginal
cultural heritage and to avoid harm to
Aboriginal places and objects.
Submitter 17: Department of Environment, Land, Water & Planning

Supports the Amendment. No change to Amendment.
Conclusion
Through negotiation we have resolved 2 submissions. We will continue to liaise with

submitters but recommend that Council resolve to request an Independent Planning
Panel be appointed to consider the 10 outstanding submissions.
Options
Section 23(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 requires that in consideration of
submissions received in relation to an Amendment, the Council must either:
Change the Amendment in the manner requested by the submitters and adopt the
Amendment with changes; or
Refer the submissions to an Independent Panel appointed by the Minister; or
Abandon the Amendment, or part of the Amendment.
Section 22(2) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 advises that Council has the
option of accepting late submissions, but must do so if requested by the Minister for
Planning.
The Amendment will increase the number of properties included within the Heritage
Overlay and this will result in an increase in the number of planning permit applications.
However, the Amendment also proposes to introduce the Permit Exemptions
Incorporated Plan to these places to reduce the number of planning permit applications
under the Overlay.
Officer time will be required to prepare the Amendment documentation for Panel and to
liaise with the Minister for Planning.
PAGE 72
The City is responsible for payment of statutory fees and costs incurred in the processing
of the Amendment. This will include additional estimated costs of $35,000 in association
with holding a panel, including an estimated $15,000 for expert witnesses. Resources for
these costs have been included in the 2016/17 budget.
Attachments
Heritage citations (8) and submissions (17)

Explanatory report
PAGE 73
2.3 8 HALTER COURT, JUNORTOUN 3551 - 2 LOT SUBDIVISION AND

REMOVAL OF NATIVE VEGETATION
Author Liz Commadeur, Subdivision Planner

Director
Summary/Purpose
Application details: Approval of Development Plan for 2 Lot subdivision and removal
of native vegetation
Application No: DS/945/2016
Applicant: CSI Engineers
Land: 8 Halter Court, JUNORTOUN 3551
Zoning: Low Density Residential Zone
Overlays: Development Plan Overlay 4
Vegetation Protection Overlay 2
No. of objections: 2
Consultation 21 February 2017 - attended by both objectors, the owner, the
meeting: assessing planner and one Ward Councillor. The issues were not
resolved.
Key considerations: Central to an assessment of the application is the concern of tree
removal on the site and the small size of both proposed lots
relative to the character of the Halter Court area where low
density residential allotments predominate. The proposed
subdivision does not satisfy the requirements of the Development
Plan Overlay 4.
Conclusion: This report recommends that Council oppose the approval of a
Development Plan on neighbourhood character grounds, and that
no permit be granted.
PAGE 74
RECOMMENDATION
Pursuant to Section 61 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, Greater Bendigo City
Council resolves the following with respect to the land at 8 Halter Court, JUNIORTOUN
3551:
1. To refuse to grant approval for the submitted development plan. The proposed
development plan does not satisfy the requirements of Schedule 4 to the
Development Plan Overlay because:
1.1 The lot sizes shown on the plan do not accord with the preferred 1 hectare
minimum lot size specified for the Halter Court area.
2. To refuse to grant a permit allowing the subdivision of the land into two lots for the
following reasons:
2.1 A permit cannot be granted in the absence of an approved development plan.
2.2 The proposed lot sizes are incompatible with the existing character of the area,
in particular the removal of vegetation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Policy Context

Planning for Growth
housing choices.
Productivity
Sustainability
PAGE 75
Report
Subject Site and Surrounds
The subject site is comprised of one parcel located on the eastern side of Halter Court in
Junortoun, north of the McIvor Highway. The site is irregular in shape with an area of
4,082 square metres (0.4 hectares) and has a very slight slope to the western end of the
site. The vacant site has a number of trees located over the land. Access to the site is via
an existing crossover to Halter Court. Halter Court is a sealed road, with open drains
either side. A rural post and wire fence delineates the site to the adjoining properties to
the south and east. A colorbond fence runs along the northern boundary.
The site is described as Lot 8 on Plan of Subdivision 639793W. The site was created as
part of an eight lot subdivision in 2011, that included the approval of a development plan.
A covenant is registered on the land title but has no effect on this application.
The site can be fully serviced by water, sewerage, electricity and telecommunications
supply systems.
Halter Court is comprised of eight lots, all of which are greater than 4,000 square metres.
Five of these lots have been developed, each with a large dwelling and associated
outbuildings. Halter Court is accessed via a service road from McIvor Highway. Lords
Raceway and the Catholic College Junortoun Campus are located south of McIvor
Highway. The Junortoun Store/Post Office is located approximately 150 metres east from
the site. The character of the area is defined by the semi-rural setting and a bushland
backdrop associated with the Bendigo National Park.
PAGE 76
Figure 1: Location map showing subject site. Objectors properties are marked with a star.
Proposal
This application seeks the approval of a development plan and subsequent issue of a
permit to subdivide the land into two residential lots and removal of native vegetation.
Lot 1 will have an area of 2,000 square metres.
Lot 2 will have an area of 2,082 square metres.
Access to the lots will be from Halter Court.
Both lots are vacant.
Seven trees are designated for removal.
PAGE 77
Figure 2: Proposed plan of subdivision.
Planning Controls - Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme
The site is in the Low Density Residential Zone (LDRZ) and is covered by the
Development Plan Overlay Schedule 4 (DPO4) and Vegetation Protection Overlay 2
VPO2). A permit must not be granted to subdivide land, until a development plan has
been prepared to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. A permit is required to
subdivide land in the LDRZ and remove vegetation in the VPO2 and pursuant to Clause
52.17 provisions.
The following provisions of the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme are relevant to the
application:
State Planning Policy Framework:

Regional development (clause 11.05)
Sustainable development (clause 15.02)
Integrated transport (clause 18.01)
PAGE 78
Movement networks (clause 18.02)
Municipal Strategic Statement:

Municipal profile (clause 21.01)
Key issues and influences (clause 21.02)
Vision - strategic framework (clause 21.03)
Strategic directions (clause 21.04)
Settlement (clause 21.05)
Housing (clause 21.06)
Environment (clause 21.08)
Infrastructure (clause 21.09)
Reference documents (clause 21.10)
Local Planning Policies:

Salinity and erosion risk policy (clause 22.04)
Other relevant provisions:

Low Density Residential Zone (clause 32.03)
Development Plan Overlay (clause 43.04)
Vegetation Protection Overlay (clause 42.02)
Native Vegetation (clause 52.17)
Land Adjacent to a Road Zone Category 1 (clause 52.29)
Decision guidelines (clause 65)
Referral and notice provisions (clause 66)
Referrals
The following internal departments have been consulted on the proposal:
Referral Comment
Traffic & Design No objection subject to standard conditions
Drainage No objection subject to standard conditions
Public Notification
The application was informally advertised by way of notice on the site and letters to
adjoining and nearby owners and occupiers.
As a result of advertising, two objections were received, with the grounds of objection
being:
Proposed lot sizes not in keeping with the character of Halter Court;
Concern about tree removal;
Increased traffic.
The objections are discussed below.
PAGE 79
Planning Assessment
Development Plan Overlay Schedule 4
The DPO4 requires that lots in this area are to be at least one hectare in area. The
proposal is to subdivide the land into lots of approximately 2,000 square metres in area.
Lots under the minimum lot size of one hectare may be approved following consideration
of the three matters discussed below.
Will the subdivision be compatible with the general character of the area?
Halter Court is comprised of lots that range in area from 4,000 to 6,000 square metres in
a semi-rural character setting. The site is situated in an area zoned for low density
residential purposes. In the context of the wider neighbourhood, the lots range between
0.21 to 2.6 hectares and are characterized with large dwellings and gardens. Many of the
landowners are involved with the racing industry due to the location of Lords Raceway
south of the highway.
The proposal fails to meets the fundamental requirements of maintaining and

strengthening the semi-rural qualities of the area. The proposed lots, being just in excess
of 0.2 hectares, are 20% of the area desired by the DPO. The subject site is already
4,082 square metres in area, which fits well with the rest of Halter Court. It is difficult to
imagine how any new dwelling on each of the lots could strengthen the sites semi-rural
setting given the modest size of the lots.
The intent of the DPO4 is to maintain the semi-rural of the area by managing the density
of future development on generously sized lots. It is imperative that Council supports
areas designated with specific minimum lot sizes under the DPO4, to protect the future
integrity of the area, particularly Halter Court.
Can the lots be appropriately serviced?
The proposed lots are capable of connection to reticulated water, sewer and power and
telecommunication services.
Can remnant vegetation be retained?
There are a number of trees located on the site, including a remnant patch in the
northern part of the site and scattered trees along the eastern and southern boundaries.
The application to subdivide the land includes the removal of this remnant patch, which
comprises seven trees. Both objectors are concerned that the removal of these trees will
compromise not only the ecological perspective, but also the aesthetic perspective of the
area.
It is interesting to note that when the original application to create the Halter Court
subdivision was submitted, the application included the removal of vegetation on Lot 8.
The application was presented to a Council Meeting for a decision. Council adopted the
Planning Officers recommendation for the approval of the subdivision, but deleted the
removal of the vegetation component. There is a notation on this permit that states This
permit does not allow native vegetation to be removed from the site. The rationale for
PAGE 80
keeping the vegetation was that a dwelling could be positioned on this lot without
compromising the sensitive nature of the site.
With regard to the current application, the proposed removal of the remnant patch of
vegetation is the same patch identified in the original application. The purpose of
retaining these trees is to protect the existing character of Halter Court.
Figure 3: location of the trees designated for removal
Figure 4: Looking across the site, showing the location of the seven trees designated for removal
In conclusion, the proposed subdivision is not in keeping with this neighbourhood's

character for the following reasons:
Both proposed lots are 20% of the area desired by the DPO4.
The Halter Court neighbourhood has developed a strong sense of place due to the
nature of the semi-rural landscape character. The creation of smaller lots would
undermine this existing character.
PAGE 81
The subdivision will set a poor precedent that would undermine the intent of the
DPO4.
Vegetation Protection Overlay 2
The site is affected by the VPO2 (Significant Vegetation). The applicant proposes to
remove seven trees, which have been assessed in the low risk-based pathway. The
applicant has provided a Biodiversity Assessment Report which refers to the
requirements for a vegetation offset.
The offset must:

Contribute gain of 0.084 general biodiversity equivalence units;
Be located within the North Central Catchment Management Authority boundary or
Greater Bendigo municipal district;
Have a strategic biodiversity score of at least 0.658.
However, as explained earlier in the report, the existing vegetation contributes to the
character and appearance of the area. One of the purposes of this overlay is to protect
existing trees and other vegetation. The removal of trees to allow future development on
Lots 1 and 2 will compromise the existing setting.
Traffic
The objectors are concerned that the future construction of dwellings on the proposed
lots will generate extra traffic and exacerbate congestion where Halter Court intersects
with the service road and also where the service road intersects with the McIvor Highway
near the Junortoun Store.
The City of Greater Bendigo's Asset Planning and Design Unit has considered the
proposal and has commented that the traffic likely to be generated by one additional lot
at this location will not cause unacceptable traffic congestion within the area or the
nearby road network.
Permit Application
As stated earlier, a development plan must be approved prior to the issue of a planning
permit. The assessment of the application for the approval of a permit in a LDRZ area is
very similar to that of the development plan. Issues of neighbourhood character have
been addressed earlier in the report.
The proposed subdivision would undoubtedly create lots that are far removed from the
intent of the DPO4, and subsequently not meet the requirements of the LDRZ, in
particular the protection and enhancement of the natural environment and character of
the area (clause 32.03-6).
Conclusion
Based on the assessment of the character of the low density residential area, the area of
both proposed lots does not meet the minimum lot size of one hectare and subsequently
does not accord with the existing or desired neighbourhood character of Halter Court in
the manner required by the Development Plan Overlay 4.
PAGE 82
Options
Council, acting as the responsible authority for administering the Planning Scheme, may
resolve to: approve a development plan prior to the issue of a planning permit with
conditions or refuse a development plan prior to the issue of a refusal to grant a planning
permit.
Attachments
Objections
PAGE 83
2.4 72 MARONG ROAD, WEST BENDIGO 3550 - DEMOLITION OF

DWELLING AND OUTBUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION OF
DWELLING
Author Bryce Kilian, Statutory Planner

Director
Summary/Purpose
Application details: Demolition of dwelling and outbuildings and construction of

dwelling
Application No: DR/658/2016
Applicant: B J Green
Land: 72 Marong Road, WEST BENDIGO 3550
Zoning: General Residential Zone
Road Zone 1
Overlays: Heritage Overlay 26
No. of objections: No objections were received.
Consultation A consultation meeting was not required.
meeting:
Key considerations: Whether the proposal is consistent with the Greater
Bendigo Planning Scheme;
Whether the demolition of the existing dwelling will have a
detrimental impact on the heritage of the site and greater
area;
Whether the replacement design and orientation is
appropriate.
Conclusion: The applicant has appealed to VCAT for 'failure to determine'.
This report recommends Council establish the position of not
supporting the proposal at the upcoming VCAT hearing. It is
the opinion of the assessing officer and the Heritage Advisor
that the heritage significance of the place would be lost if the
orientation of the existing building is altered.
PAGE 84
RECOMMENDATION
Pursuant to section 61 of the Planning and Environment Act (1987), Greater Bendigo
City Council resolve to establish the position of refusal, to present to VCAT for the
demolition of a dwelling and outbuildings and construction of a dwelling at 72 Marong
Road, WEST BENDIGO 3550 for the following reason:
1. The proposal would, by reason of its loss of heritage significance and original siting,
be detrimental to the heritage significance of the place contrary to clause 22.06 and
43.01 of the City of Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Policy Context

Planning for Growth
housing choices.
Productivity
Sustainability
City records indicate two prior enquiries seeking in-principle approval from a heritage
perspective for the demolition of the existing dwelling. On both occasions it was
recommended the dwelling be retained due to its heritage significance; the most recent
of which was December 2014 and reads as follows:
PAGE 85
The building is included within the Victoria Hill Mining and Residential Area
precinct of the Eaglehawk and Bendigo Heritage Study, 1993. The precinct is
of significance due to its mix of residential and mining related structures. The
association of the miners homes with the mines is an important element. The
existing dwelling, or a substantial part of it, should be retained in order to
maintain as much as possible any examples of miners cottages in the
precinct.
It would be acceptable to allow the demolition of the lean-to structures on the

west side and at the rear of the building and, subject to closer analysis and
preparation of an acceptable design for additions, the demolition of the former
kitchen. This would retain the main components of the building viewed from
Marong Road and allow investment in their conservation whilst allowing
development to the rear.
Due to the heritage significance of the building, the City of Greater Bendigo
does not support its demolition at this time. However, if you decide to pursue
demolition you must apply for a planning permit to demolish the building. Your
application must include a heritage assessment prepared by qualified
professionals to demonstrate that it cannot and should not be retained.
Report
Subject Site and Surrounds
The subject site is a sloping, irregular shaped allotment with a frontage to Marong Road
(a Category 1 Road Zone VicRoads road) of approximately 27 metres and a depth
varying between 50 and 61 metres, with a total area of 1,235 square metres. The
existing dwelling and outbuilding are accessed via a sealed driveway from Marong Road
along the eastern boundary of the site.
The adjoining lots on Marong Road are zoned General Residential and contain dwellings
and are affected by the Heritage Overlay 26 (Calder Highway Precinct) with land to the
rear zoned Public Use Zone 7 managed by the City of Greater Bendigo and affected by
the Heritage Overlay 27 (Ironbark Precinct).
PAGE 86
Figure 1: Location map showing subject site.
Proposal
The proposal is for the demolition of a dwelling and outbuildings and construction of a
new dwelling.
Demolition
The proposal seeks approval to demolish the existing dwelling on the site in its entirety,
including some small lean to structures attached to the western side of the dwelling. The
existing dwelling, as seen in the aerial photo above and the demolition plans shown
below, is not oriented to be square to the property boundary with Marong Road, the
significance of this will be detailed later in this report.
PAGE 87
Construction of a dwelling
The application details the construction of a replication dwelling of similar size,

proportions, location and look to what is currently in place on the site.
Planning Controls - Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme
The site is in the General Residential Zone and affected by a Heritage Overlay Schedule
26. The demolition and construction of a dwelling requires planning approval as per
Clause 43.01 Heritage Overlay.
PAGE 88
State Planning Policy Framework

11.05 Regional planning
11.12 Loddon Mallee South Regional Growth Plan
15 Built Environment and Heritage
15.03 Heritage
Municipal Strategic Statement

21.05 Settlement
21.06 Housing
Local Planning Policies

22.06 Heritage Policy
Overlay
43.01 Heritage Overlay Schedule 26 (Calder Highway Precinct)
Other Provisions
32.08 General Residential Zone;
36.04 Road Zone
65 Decision Guidelines
Referrals
The following internal department has been consulted on the proposal:
Referral Comment
Heritage Advisor Support the proposal on the condition that the orientation of
the building and the site chimney is retained. The retention
of the rear chimney is also preferred.
Public Notification
The application was advertised by way of notice on the site and letters to adjoining and
nearby owners and occupiers. No objections were received to the proposal.
PAGE 89
Planning Assessment
Does the existing dwelling have heritage significance?
The dwelling has been assessed by not less than two separate Heritage Advisors and is
mentioned in the relevant heritage study being the Bendigo and Eaglehawk Heritage
Study, 1993. The study indicates that the property was constructed circa 1880 placing it
amongst the oldest houses in the area. The subject site is also within the Heritage
Overlay.
The most relevant purposes of the overlay to this proposal are:

To conserve and enhance those elements which contribute to the significance of
heritage places.
To conserve and enhance heritage places of natural or cultural significance.
The decision guidelines of the Heritage Overlay reflect this, with the most relevant being:
Whether the demolition, removal or external alteration will adversely affect the
significance of the heritage place.
The significance of the heritage place and whether the proposal will adversely
affect the natural or cultural significance of the place.
Any applicable statement of significance, heritage study and any applicable
conservation policy.
The contributing factor of the dwelling to the significance and heritage nature of the street
and planning controls relates to the way the house sits and is oriented on the block in
that it is well setback (approximately 22.5 metres), and sits askew.
The importance of this orientation is that it indicates that the dwelling was constructed at
a time that predated the current property boundaries and road alignments, giving it its
heritage significance.
Has the demolition been adequately and appropriately justified and will its removal be
detrimental to heritage?
The proposal seeks demolition of the existing dwelling and in essence a replica of this
dwelling constructed as its replacement, though oriented to be square with the front
boundary of the allotment.
Under normal circumstances, strict application of heritage principles would discourage a

proposal to demolish an existing dwelling with heritage significance and reconstruct an
almost identical building, however, there are other factors at play in this situation which
are detailed below.
The condition of the dwelling is quite dilapidated and it would need significant work if it
were to be used for habitation again.
In determining whether the building is beyond repair, consideration was given to a

recent Bendigo VCAT decision - CBA Building Designers v Greater Bendigo CC [2010]
VCAT 2088 (23 December 2010) - where the tribunal found the following:
PAGE 90
The tribunal has held that to support demolition of a building with heritage
values and a reasonable level of significance, its physical condition should be
beyond repair, both physically and economically. It should be in a ruinous
condition. Whilst this is not defined, it would reasonably mean that parts of the
building would be likely (50% probability) to collapse within the short to medium
term if no remedial works are undertaken. The applicant is required to
demonstrate the building has reached this threshold of disrepair. The
assessment should also be undertaken by heritage practitioners...
(Councils emphasis added through underlining)
As previously mentioned, the proponents have provided a structural engineers report

dated 2014 which concludes that;
.potentially, under severe wind loadings, the existing damage and defects to
structural timber framing elements of the overall structural system could lead to
collapse or partial collapse of the dwelling.
.the extent of repair works required to the dwelling to rectify defects and
damage to comply with current NCC and Australian Standard requirements is
most significant and would effectively constitute a complete re-build from scratch,
starting with excavation rectification works.
In its current condition, the dwelling presents a significant OH&S risk with
regards to the condition of structural framing elements, as discussed above.
Such risks will increase with further deterioration of the dwellings condition.
Given such risks, and given the extent of rectification works required, it is my
opinion that the dwelling should be completely demolished.
Given the very poor condition of the dwelling, suitable safety precautions and
measures shall be taken by any persons entering the building
At the time of the above report in 2014 the then Heritage Advisor suggested that the
damage was, to an extent, that a significant portion of the dwelling could be demolished
though went on to say that the front, original section of the miners' cottage should be
retained and made good.
In this particular case, the current Heritage Advisor has indicated that the setting of this
dwelling, primarily its setback and orientation that has predated the current road
alignment is of primary significance. The current advice from the Heritage Advisor
suggests that due to the condition of the dwelling, along with further deterioration over
the past 2 years, demolition may be supported but that support is conditional.
The conditional position put forth by the Heritage Advisor, supported by the Planning
officer, was that the demolition and subsequent reconstruction of the dwelling in a replica
fashion would only be supported if the significant orientation of the existing dwelling is
retained in the new plans. The reasoning behind this was that as long as the primary
form and orientation of the dwelling could still be read as original from the street, the
significance itself would not be lost therefore the proposal would be appropriate. If the
orientation was lost, the significance of the building and site would also be lost.
PAGE 91
This application documentation was also put to the Citys Heritage Advisory Committee
(HAC) for their comment and advice. In this instance, the HAC determined that the
proposal did not have sufficient merit to warrant support, as such they resolved that the
proposal should not be supported.
This position was put to the proponents with the justification included in the Heritage
Advisor's assessment however no changes to the original plans were made. This being
the case, if the form and orientation of the dwelling were lost, the significance of the site
would also be lost which does not accord with either the Heritage Policy or the Heritage
Overlay of the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme.
Conclusion
The proposal in its current form would result in a detrimental impact on the heritage value
of the site and greater heritage precinct through loss of an original dwelling whose
positioning pre-dated the current road alignment. For this reason, the proposal is
deemed inappropriate and it is recommended Council establish the position of not
supporting the proposal at the upcoming VCAT hearing.
Options
In this case, being that the application is to be determined by the Tribunal, Council has
the options of establishing a position of either supporting the proposal or not supporting
the proposal as presented.
Attachments
Heritage Advisor's report 2014

Heritage Advisor's report 2016
Heritage Advisory Committee Minutes
Structural Engineers report
Plans
PAGE 92
2.5 BENDIGO AIRPORT STRATEGIC PLAN (2017)
Author Rachel Lee, Major Projects Manager
Responsible Craig Lloyd, Director Presentation and Assets

Director
Purpose
The purpose of this report is to endorse the Bendigo Airport Strategic Plan (2017);
acknowledge the contribution of the Bendigo Airport Advisory Committee (2013 2017)
and support the formation of an interim Bendigo Airport Working Group to advise Council
on future governance options.
Summary
The renewed Bendigo Airport Strategic Plan (2017) has been developed to provide a
clear set of actions and associated tasks to guide development at Bendigo Airport over
the next five years (until 2022). The Plan provides strategic guidance to enable the
Bendigo Airport to successfully transition from a registered airport with general aviation
activities, to a certified and commercially viable airport that includes Regular Passenger
Transport (RPT) services. It also outlines opportunities for the non-airside land, which
underpins Bendigo Airports long term commercial viability.
The Bendigo Airport Advisory Committee, appointed by Council in 2013 has recently
completed its term and this report seeks to acknowledge their commitment and
contribution over the past four years.
Recommendations for the successful implementation of the renewed plan, including a

focus on a change to governance requirements, are also addressed.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Endorse the renewed Bendigo Airport Strategic Plan (2017).
2. Acknowledge the contribution of the Bendigo Airport Advisory Committee (2013-

2017).
3. Support the formation of a Bendigo Airport Governance Working Group.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PAGE 93
Policy Context
Council Plan Reference:
City of Greater Bendigo Council Plan 2013-2017 (2016-2017 Update):
Theme 2 Planning for Growth

Strategy 2.1 To maintain the unique character of Greater Bendigo, Council
delivers major projects that accommodate the growing population
and diversifies the economy.
Action 2.1.3 Complete the expansion and upgrade of the Bendigo Airport Stage
Two, and continue planning and attraction of funding to progress
Stage Three, the Business Park.
Bendigo Airport is located four kilometres north-east of the Bendigo CBD and is a
registered airport and home to Bendigo Flying Club, HEMS 3 Air Ambulance helicopter
service and DELWP temporary emergency service during fire season, as well as
commercial operations including jet charter services and a flying school.
Previous development, completed in 2014, included the creation of 25 hangar sites,

three taxiways and upgrades to road access and drainage.
With the development of the new 1,600m runway complete, opportunity exists to allow
70-seat aircraft to fly in and out of Bendigo and encourage further economic
development to the region.
The third stage in developing the Bendigo Airport will include the addition of a business
park, expected to include airside commercial (five lots), airport compatible business (16
lots) and private hangars (68 lots).
The Bendigo Airport Master Plan (2007) and current Bendigo Airport Strategic Plan
(2009) have driven key actions to date including:
Purchase of three neighbouring properties to accommodate the development of a

new high capacity north-south runway.
Adopting new property lease arrangements for Bendigo Airport to improve business,
investment certainty and revenue generation.
Attracting a number of new tenants including the new charter company My Jet, which
has invested more than $1.5M at Bendigo Airport.
Construction of 25 new hangar sites in Precinct 1 General aviation.
Appointing a dedicated Airport Manager for the first time in the life of Bendigo Airport.
PAGE 94
Improving the main road entrance, erecting new fencing, and installing new apron
line markings and signage in accordance with Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)
requirements.
Refurbishment of the former airport terminal building currently vacant and ready for
first stage of Regular Passenger Transport (RPT) operation.
Reviewing and amending the planning scheme and associated strategic direction to
ensure capital works and future services are supported by land use planning.
Completing detailed (tender ready) engineering design and preliminary costing on

the proposed business park.
Attracting co-funding support from all three levels of government for the Stage 2,
$15M runway realignment and associated capital works, and works completed.
A renewed Strategic Plan for Bendigo Airport is required to ensure the appropriate
resources are in place to enable the next phase of project delivery, operational
management and investment attraction.
Previous Council Decision(s) Date(s):
June 2005 Resolved Airport location

June 2009 Adopted Bendigo Aerodrome Master Plan (2007-2022) and Bendigo
Airport Strategic Plan (2009)
March 2011 Adopted Bendigo Airport leasing policy
February 2012 Adopted preferred new runway alignment and indicative budget
March 2013 Appointed Advisory Committee members for project
February 2014 Resolved to request Minister to Authorise and Exhibit Planning
Scheme Amendment C175 and planning permit
March 2014 Supported Bendigo Airport financial sustainability recommendations
December 2014 Resolved to request the Minister to appoint an independent Panel
to consider submissions
November 2015 Acknowledgement of 2014/15 Annual Summary of Operations
Report
January 2016 Appointment of Head Contractor Runway Development
October 2016 Acknowledgement of 2015/16 Annual Summary of Operations
Report
Report
Establishing and expanding Bendigo Airport as a key transport hub is a priority for the
region and strongly supports its aspiration for Greater Bendigo to be the worlds most
liveable community.
PAGE 95
Cities the size of Bendigo require sophisticated transport methods and there is a long-
held local ambition for Bendigo Airport to support the movement of residents and visitors,
and the freight of goods and services both nationally and internationally.
Strong growth in Bendigos diverse economic base, including health care, financial and
insurance services, and professional services continue to drive job creation, population
expansion and established business activity.
These factors underpin the importance of continued investment in Bendigo Airport.
As Bendigo Airport expands its own services and Bendigo as a destination, there is a
mandate to ensure it is financially sustainable and profitable.
This renewed Strategic Plan sets out a clear vision, objectives and priority actions to
drive this transformation of Bendigo Airport.
Bendigo Airports vision is:
To link passengers and freight within the Loddon Campaspe region to national and
international destinations.
Objectives in the renewed Plan include:
Becoming a transformative community asset, acknowledged as a pivotal community

resource that supports a diverse and robust economy underpinned by prosperous
and connected communities.
Ensuring delivery of the highest levels of safety and security in regard to airport
operations.
Creating value (financial and in-kind) that is aligned with the regional economy
through a range of credible, profitable and viable economic activities supporting a
range of passenger, freight and general aviation services.
Extending essential community services for emergency and natural disaster

responses.
Engaging proactively with the community to ensure Bendigo becomes a thriving

transport hub that is valued by the community.
Being the preferred travel method for interstate and international visitors travelling to
and from Bendigo and the Loddon Campaspe region.
Being a major generator of employment and other economic benefits for Bendigo
and the Loddon Campaspe region through providing quality transport facilities and
services including freight.
Ensuring we continue to enhance the range of facilities, products and services

offered to meet customer expectations.
PAGE 96
The vision and objectives will be achieved through a range of actions aligned to the
following strategic directions:
Strategic Direction 1
Connected and active regional transport hub
Infrastructure investment at Bendigo Airport is central to repositioning the asset to a

transport hub that links passengers and freight within the Loddon Campaspe region to
national and international destinations. Engagement through a co-ordinated marketing
and investment attraction strategy will be critical in achieving this objective.
Opportunities exist to explore Public Private Partnership investment opportunities,

particularly for regular travellers or regular freight customers.
Ensuring the terminal building is fit for purpose and meets the needs of increased use of
visitors to the region will be critical for future investment.
Transformative operations and project delivery
The future of Bendigo Airport will result in increased complexity of operations. Adaptive
resourcing strategies will be required to support the increasing level of operational
intensity across the Bendigo Airport.
Ensuring Bendigo Airport meets regulatory compliance standards as it transitions from a

registered to a certified airport with increased CASA involvement is fundamental to
manage ongoing operations and attract new investment.
The development of the business park is currently limited by site constraints, particularly
provision of adequate infrastructure services. Actions that de-risk Precinct 3 and ensure
development can proceed as planned will be important for attracting future investment.
Ongoing financial viability
Bendigo Airport precinct must operate with a sustainable economic focus and be
financially viable into the long term. Benefit to the community must be clearly reflected,
accounted and appreciated in any regular review of Bendigo Airport.
During the construction phase, there were limited income growth opportunities,
compared with outgoing operational and capital expenditure. Revenue from existing
tenants provides an important annual contribution to Bendigo Airports operations.
Opportunities exist to further investigate and define a fees and charges structure to
diversify and extend income through new revenue sources.
Increasing alignment between Bendigo Airport and the business community will be
important to strengthen freight-related business activity through Bendigo Airport and
within the proposed Precinct 3 business park.
PAGE 97
Governance for the future
The current operational structure for Bendigo Airport resides with the City of Greater
Bendigo, supported until now by Bendigo Airport Advisory Committee. This paring co-
ordinated alignment between the Councils economic vision for the Bendigo Airport and
specialist community, aviation and airport advice.
Existing governance arrangements have been effective in planning and attracting

significant investment for the redevelopment of the Bendigo Airport (Stage 2). However
pressure points are forecast for the Bendigo Airport, specifically associated with RPT
service delivery, Stage 3 Land Development and ultimately the most appropriate
ownership/management structure to benefit Bendigo Airport long term.
Consideration to be made to establish a Board of Management to ensure that Bendigo

Airport is supported in its immediate and ongoing need for commercial and technical
development.
An interim working group including a Councillor is proposed to discuss range of

governance models for Council consideration.
Timelines:
A summary of the actions arising from the development of the plan is provided within the
body of the document, which details key actions, dates and a process for monitoring and
review.
Risk Analysis:
A renewed Strategic Plan for Bendigo Airport is required to ensure the appropriate
resources are in place to enable the next phase of project delivery, operational
management and investment attraction.
The Bendigo Airport Strategic Plan (2017) was developed in close consultation with
Bendigo Airport Advisory Committee and key City of Greater Bendigo staff, including the
Airport Manager.
PAGE 98
The preparation of this Plan was covered in Bendigo Airports annual operations budget.
Resourcing for the implementation phase of this Plan will be through operational
budgets, capital bids, commercial partnerships and grants. Ultimately, the focus on
sustainable economic management of Bendigo Airport that lessens the requirement for
government support is a priority of this renewed Strategic Plan.
Attachments
1. Bendigo Airport Strategic Plan (2017)
PAGE 99
Presentation and Vibrancy / Productivity / Sustainability - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 17 May 2017
3. PRESENTATION AND VIBRANCY
Nil.
4. PRODUCTIVITY
Nil.
5. SUSTAINABILITY
Nil.
PAGE 100
Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 17 May 2017
6. LEADERSHIP AND GOOD GOVERNANCE
6.1 CONTRACTS AWARDED UNDER DELEGATION
Author Lee Taig, Contract Support Administrator, Contract and Project

Coordination Unit
Responsible Kerryn Ellis, Director Corporate Performance

Director
Purpose/Summary
The purpose of this report is to provide information on contracts recently awarded under
delegation.
RECOMMENDATION
That the contracts awarded under delegation, as outlined in this report, be acknowledged
by Council.
Policy Context
Delivery of programs, projects and services that respond to community needs.
Council Plan Reference:

City of Greater Bendigo Council Plan 2013-2017 (2016/2017 Update):
Theme: 1 Leadership and good governance
Strategic Objective: 1 Council demonstrates leadership in its decisions to meet

future needs and challenges
Strategy 1.1 Good governance principles are used to guide strategic

decision-making
PAGE 101
Report
Value Delegated
Contract No Project Successful Contractor Date Signed
(GST Excl) Officer
Capital Contracts
Bendigo Indoor Aquatic

Project Design & Regional Management 01 March
CT000310 $114,839.92 Craig Lloyd
Construct Water Main Group Pty Ltd 2017
Upgrade
Myers Flat Road Bridge North East Civil 03 March
CT000314 $188,437.64 Craig Lloyd
Replacement Construction Pty Ltd 2017
PAGE 102
6.2 RECORD OF ASSEMBLIES
Author Peter Davies, Manager Executive Services
Responsible Craig Niemann, Chief Executive Officer

Officer
Purpose
The purpose of this report is to provide the record of any assembly of Councillors, which
has been held since the last Council Meeting, so that it can be recorded in the Minutes of
the formal Council Meeting.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council endorse the record of assemblies of Councillors as outlined in this report.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Policy Context
Council demonstrates leadership in its decisions to meet future needs and challenges.
The Local Government Act provides a definition of an assembly of Councillors where

conflicts of interest must be disclosed.
A meeting will be an assembly of Councillors if it considers matters that are likely to be

the subject of a Council decision, or, the exercise of a Council delegation and the
meeting is:
1. A planned or scheduled meeting that includes at least half the Councillors (5) and a
member of Council staff; or
2. an advisory committee of the Council where one or more Councillors are present.
The requirement for reporting provides increased transparency and the opportunity for
Councillors to check the record, particularly the declarations of conflict of interest.
PAGE 103
Report
Meeting Information
Meeting Councillors' Briefing
Name/Type
Meeting Date 27 March 2017
Matters discussed 1. Further induction to Statutory Planning (gaming
applications and consultation meetings)
2. Epsom-Barnadown Road
3. Victoria Lane
4. Four Seasons Waste
5. Aspinall Street flooding
6. Heritage Strategy and Review of Terms of Reference for
Heritage and Advisory Committee
7. Development Contributions Plan
8. Restructure
9. Insurance matter
10. Draft Community Plan
11. Creative Victoria
Attendees/Apologies
Councillors Cr Margaret O'Rourke
Cr Jennifer Alden
Cr Matt Emond
Cr George Flack
Cr Rod Fyffe
Cr Julie Hoskin
Cr Andrea Metcalf
Cr James Williams
Cr Yvonne Wrigglesworth
Staff/ Mr Craig Niemann
Community Mr Bernie O'Sullivan
Representatives Mr Craig Lloyd
Ms Kerryn Ellis
Ms Vicky Mason
Mr Peter Davies
Mr Ross Douglas
Conflict of Interest disclosures

Matter Councillor/officer making disclosure Councillor/officer left
No. meeting
Nil
PAGE 104
Meeting Information
Meeting Sustainability and Environment Advisory Committee
Name/Type
Meeting Date 4 April 2017
Matters discussed 1. Mine de-watering
2. Committee membership
3. Community grants
4. Committee Terms of Reference
5. Bushcare Incentive Program
6. Council Plan Environmental Sustainability section
7. Bendigo Sustainability Awards
8. Simon Corbell Roadshow
9. State Biodiversity Strategy
10. Wanyarram Dhelk Project
11. Curly Pond Weed and Ibis - Lake Weeroona
12. Fruit Fly
13. CoGB Public Health and Wellbeing Plan
Attendees/Apologies
Councillors Cr Rod Fyffe
Cr Andrea Metcalf
Cr Jennifer Alden
Staff/ Mr Bernie O'Sullivan
Community Mr Anthony Sheean
Representatives Ms Nycole Wood/
Mr Geoff Caine
Ms Jess Milroy
Ms Kathryn Stanislawski
Mr Chris Weir
Mr James Shaddick
Ms Pamela Beattie
Mr Colin Smith
Apologies:
Ms Robyn Major/
Mr Greg Butler

No. meeting
Nil
PAGE 105
Meeting Information
Name/Type
Matters discussed 1. Insurance matter
2. Protected disclosure
3. Restructure
4. CBD public disorder
5. Draft Ordinary Agenda review and planning matters
6. Community Plan
7. External Budget final review
8. Community buildings, reserves and facilities
9. Outcomes of Whipstick Ward Tour
10. Campaspe Street, Elmore
Attendees/Apologies
Cr Jennifer Alden
Cr Matt Emond
Cr George Flack
Cr Rod Fyffe
Cr Julie Hoskin
Cr Andrea Metcalf
Cr James Williams
Representatives Ms Vicky Mason
Mr Craig Lloyd
Mr Michael Smyth
Mr Peter Davies
Apologies:
Ms Kerryn Ellis

No. meeting
Nil
PAGE 106
Meeting Information
Name/Type
Matters discussed 1. Community Grants Program Round 2
2. Meeting with the Youth Council
3. Health and Wellbeing Planning
4. Presentation on the Bendigo Soldiers Memorial Project
5. Bendigo to Kilmore Rail Trail
6. Presentation on All Saints Church and the Boardwalk at
Lake Weeroona
7. Discussion with Federal Member for Bendigo,
Lisa Chesters
8. Junortoun Community Plan
9. Community Plan
10. Meeting with developers
11. Regional City Commonwealth Games Bid
12. NDIS Expo
13. Policing in CBD
14. Timber seats in Hargreaves Mall
15. Hackathon
Attendees/Apologies
Cr Rod Fyffe
Cr George Flack
Cr Andrea Metcalf
Cr James Williams
Cr Jennifer Alden
Cr Julie Hoskin
Cr Matt Emond
Representatives Mr Craig Lloyd
Mr Michael Smyth
Ms Vicky Mason
Mr Peter Davies
Apology:
Ms Kerryn Ellis

No. meeting
Nil
PAGE 107
Meeting Information
Meeting Heritage Advisory Committee
Name/Type
Matters discussed 1. Plan Greater Bendigo briefing
2. Heritage Advisory Committee presentation to Council
3. 'Heritage through the lens' photo competition
4. Heritage Advisory Committee Terms of Reference review
5. Councillor update
6. Strategy update
7. Remembrance Parks Victoria and Trades Hall
Attendees/Apologies
Councillors Cr Matt Emond
Staff/ Dr Dannielle Orr
Community Ms Trudy Rickard/
Representatives Ms Helen Ashby
Mr Laurie Brown
Ms Elaine Doling
Mr Jordan Grenfell
Ms Kay MacGregor
Dr Di Smith
Mr Rod Spitty
Mr Calum Walker
Apologies:
Ms Emma Bryant
Mr Trevor Budge/
Mr David Bannear
Mr Darren Wright

No. meeting
Nil
PAGE 108
Meeting Information
Meeting Consultation meeting
Name/Type
Meeting Date 7 March 2017
Matters discussed Planning application DR/912/2016
42-44 Galvin Street, BENDIGO 3550
Demolition of existing buildings and construction of a four
storey building comprising 8 dwellings
Attendees/Apologies
Councillors Cr Margret ORourke
Cr George Flack
Staff/ Shannon Rosewarne
Community Applicant
Representatives Objectors

No. meeting
Nil
Attachments
Nil
PAGE 109
7. URGENT BUSINESS
Nil.
8. NOTICES OF MOTION
Nil.
9. COUNCILLORS' REPORTS
10. MAYOR'S REPORT
11. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S REPORT
12. CONFIDENTIAL (SECTION 89) REPORTS
Nil.
PAGE 110

Council Meeting Agenda 17 May 2017

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Council Meeting Agenda 17 May 2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AGENDA

Ordinary Meeting of Council

6.00pm Wednesday 17 May 2017

*** Broadcast live on Phoenix FM 106.7 ***

Copies of the City of Greater Bendigo Councils Agendas & Minutes

Greater Bendigo - Working together to be Australia's most liveable regional city.

Transparency - Information about Council decisions is readily available and easily

1. Planning for Growth

WEDNESDAY 17 MAY 2017

ITEM PRECIS PAGE

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS 5

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 5

RESUMPTION OF STANDING ORDERS 6

DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST 7

1. PETITIONS AND JOINT LETTERS 9

2. PLANNING FOR GROWTH 10

2.1 PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C220 & 10

2.2 PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C223 - WHITE HILLS 38

2.3 8 HALTER COURT, JUNORTOUN 3551 - 2 LOT 74

2.4 72 MARONG ROAD, WEST BENDIGO 3550 - DEMOLITION 84

2.5 BENDIGO AIRPORT STRATEGIC PLAN (2017) 93

6. LEADERSHIP AND GOOD GOVERNANCE 101

6.1 CONTRACTS AWARDED UNDER DELEGATION 101

6.2 RECORD OF ASSEMBLIES 103

7. URGENT BUSINESS 110

8. NOTICES OF MOTION 110

9. COUNCILLORS' REPORTS 110

10. MAYOR'S REPORT 110

11. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S REPORT 110

12. CONFIDENTIAL (SECTION 89) REPORTS 110

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

Public Question Time Purpose

Public Question Time Where, When And Who

Residents are encouraged to lodge questions in advance so that a more complete

RESUMPTION OF STANDING ORDERS

That Standing Orders be resumed.

DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST

(a) direct financial interest

Councillors are also encouraged to declare circumstances where there may be a

Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Wednesday 19 April 2017.

Draft Community Plan 2017-2021 for Exhibition

1. PETITIONS AND JOINT LETTERS

2. PLANNING FOR GROWTH

2.1 PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C220 & DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Author Alison Kiefel, Planner

Responsible Bernie OSullivan, Director Strategy and Growth

Amendment details: This Amendment proposes to modify Schedule 16 to the

No. of submissions: 101

That the Greater Bendigo City Council resolve to:

City of Greater Bendigo Council Plan 2013 2017 (2016-2017 Update)

The key steps in the Amendment process are summarised below:

Previous Council Decisions

Land affected by the Amendment

What the Amendment does

What the Development Plan proposes

In summary the Development Plan proposes:

Landscaped open spaces and nature strips;

Notice was provided in the following manner:

Key development site and removal of cap for number of lots

The objective of key development sites is to provide higher density housing at

This will be the first of the key development sites to be considered.

Density, streetscape and neighbourhood character

* Broadcast live on Phoenix FM 106.7 *