Bendigo councillors were split on an application to bulldoze a 2.7 hectare ‘oasis’ in Kangaroo Flat at tonight’s meeting. 

But the contentious plan is set to go ahead after the mayor cast a deciding vote in favour of the housing development. 

Four members of the City of Greater Bendigo council spoke strongly and voted against the plan to build 34 houses on a patch of remnant bushland on High Street.

They formed an unlikely alliance between councillors, some of whom have been bitterly divided over many other issues and whose relationship has been described by an independent panel as characterised by “strong feelings of mutual dislike”.

Councillor Elise Chapman said she was torn over the issue, but argued it ultimately went against the council’s vision to make Bendigo the country’s most liveable regional city. 

“I have, over the last three-and a half years, voted for every development of size because I am a pro-development person,” Cr Chapman said. 

“With this I am very torn. But by bulldozing this hidden sanctuary … it won’t be making Bendigo any more liveable, that’s for sure.”

Councillor Peter Cox was the first to speak against the proposed development. He said he was a supporter of a compact city – but argued there should be exceptions. 

“Does that mean that there is nothing sacred left?” Cr Cox said.

He said the previous owners of the land, a mother and daughter who both died suddenly within months of one another, wanted to preserve it as a nature sanctuary. 

“It was their dream to leave this as a conservation area and it seems to me that we need to get the balance right – this sets a very big precedent,” he said. 

“Bulldozers will go over hundreds if not thousands of frogs in this hollow and we’re not even prepared to debate it.

“Are we at the point where we can’t even develop a plan? 

Don’t we have the skills to encourage developers to come up with a practical solution to develop around the wetland and still provides diversity of housing?”

Councillor Helen Leach also spoke against the development. 

“It’s just a beautiful piece of natural habitat and I can’t support development on this one,” Cr Leach said. 

Those three councillors were previously embroiled in a heated personal conflict which was taken to a councillor conduct panel. 

But councillor Rod Campbell said Cr Cox’s suggestion was impractical. 

“We are advised the biodiversity is not exceptionally unique,” Cr Campbell said. “I look at the site from a very practical view point. 

“Yes we would love it as a park, but pragmatically, reasonably how would that happen?

“How many houses could you have in there around a park?”

Cr Campbell said he understood that “a lot of people will be disappointed” about the decision.

“But at the end of the day, that’s what is happening, that is reality,” he said.

He argued that “someone has got to pay to put sewerage into the land” and that prospect would not be economically viable if the number of houses on the block was reduced. 

“Who would pay for this reserve? Who’s offering to pay for it? Yes it’s a nice scenario, it does sound nice, but in reality it’s just not a practical proposition and it’s just unattainable.

“This is residential land, it’s been zoned residentially and the subdivision is recommended for approval.”

Councillor Barry Lyons excused himself from the debate due to the perception of a conflict of interest as his family owned nearby property. 

Four councillors voted for the proposal – councillors Campbell, Lisa Ruffell, Rod Fyffe and Mark Weragoda – to four against – councillors Leach, Chapman, Cox and James Williams. 

Mayor Fyffe’s vote in favour proved decisive.