He does so in a smallish theatre, and the room is most likely smaller than most churches, and attendees all wear a mask.

No one has contracted COVID-19 from the daily Dan Time - as far as we know.

So what's the difference between these daily presentations from Mr Andrews and a regular church service? Not a lot, I'd suggest.

The steadfast refusal to allow churches to hold their services indoors not only fails the pub test, as Bishop Shane Mackinlay so aptly put it earlier this week, it also contributes to the public's deteriorating confidence in the government, and that in itself is dangerous.

Complacency is the enemy in our recovery from this pandemic.

For anyone who doesn't know, church services last for between perhaps 30 minutes and one hour - still less than the overwhelming majority of Dan Time sessions.

Instead of being able to social distance in a cavernous space as large as the Sacred Heart Cathedral, for example, worshippers must book in for an outdoor service conducted under a tree.

It defies logic - and that's a risk to a government that has had a solid run of public support throughout this pandemic, until it started to fray around the edges in the past month or so.

READ MORE:

The other issue of interest at local government level this week is our city's interpretation and management of heritage assets.

Bendigo wants and needs inner city development, but problems regarding the relevant heritage principles and the practicalities of allowing commercial development, could eventually undermine investors' confidence in our city.

Take for example, this week's determination at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal that a multi-million dollar residential development proposed for a sensitive and highly prized site on MacKenzie and Forest Streets had failed on three accounts to fully comply with the reasonable requirements befitting such a concept.

The rejection of a previously issued permit that would have seen apartments and townhouses developed on the site will likely send shivers down the spine of developers planning to turn the adjacent Forest Street property into a cutting edge, sustainable and affordable medium density housing complex like so many the company has already established in inner-Melbourne.

We all have different ideas about what constitutes heritage, and the merit of preserving some places, buildings and features; but the challenges associated with analysing a proposal's heritage value are many, and need refining.

Granted, it's easy to point out the problem, and much harder the solution, but do we really want/need to preserve a bowling alley in the heart of our city's education, legal and office precinct?

As more and more development occurs around the site, it will be transformed into a premises that is even more so in the wrong place than it is now.

By all means, defer a decision on the heritage value of this site - and the former Bendigo Timber Company, now home to Forty Winks, to a panel, but we need to be sensible, and practical about this.

Development applications worth tens of millions of dollars are at stake, and while no one is asking for an easy run, the competing needs of heritage and development need to be fleshed out.

And soon.

I remember former Greater Bendigo mayor and staunch heritage supporter the late Daryl McClure standing adjacent to the crumbling remains of a stone wall off Mundy Street perhaps 20-odd years ago and proclaiming just because something is old does not mean it has heritage value.

He was standing next to the wall that once formed part of Bendigo's first wine shop.

Arguably, one of the greatest examples of post-war architecture and heritage in our CBD - the former City of Greater Bendigo council offices on Lyttleton Terrace, are about to be demolished for a more modern office complex befitting the modern era.

And then there was the Hargreaves Mall.

In years to come, people may well ask why a certain building was demolished for another, but they may also ask why wasn't a certain building demolished to allow for future development?