A developer cannot rip down a house deemed uninhabitable and build two townhouses on a busy Bendigo street.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Greater Bendigo's council has blocked plans to demolish the empty house because replacement buildings would not respect the area's heritage significance.
This map shows the property's location:
Developers wanted to subdivide 248 Napier Street and build two double-storey townhouses but ran into opposition from council planning officers concerned about the area's neighbourhood character.
The rundown weatherboard house was "uninhabitable", council officers said even as they urged councillors to block the redevelopment plan.
"The state of the dwelling is dilapidated, the rafters, roof space and rear of the house were ruined due to a house fire and portions of the front rooms have sunk, further deteriorating the structural quality of the house," they said.
The house was built in the early 20th century and stands in a neighborhood dotted with California bungalow style homes dating to the interwar period.
The council previously declared the area's architecture is linked to workers who settled the area between 1920 and 1938.
What would have risen at site
Developers had pitched plans for several two-storey townhouses with a contemporary style, sitting on separate 276 square metre parcels of land.
Council officers said the new homes would not fit comfortably into the streetscape.
They wanted better plans for the front yards, along with different ways cars could get out onto roads.
Council staff told councillors they would not oppose the current home's demolition if developers put better replacement plans in place.
They said the land was "an ideal" site for development.
Not all councillors voted against the houses.
Cr Matthew Evans felt on balance the new homes would help in a time when the city wanted more infill development.
"I actually think this application does make the best of the tight constraints of the site," he said.
A majority of councillors disagreed in the vote that followed.