THE CITY of Greater Bendigo should fight the construction of 82 Epsom homes, councillors have been told amid questions on drainage, dust and endangered frogs.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
A hearing looms at planning umpire the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal as developers push for the homes and a childcare centre at 122-140 Midland Highway, a short distance away from the Bendigo Pottery.
The city's planning department has come out in opposition ahead of a Monday meeting where councillors will settle on a position.
Their vote will likely mark a new chapter in a process that has ground on for four years of back-and-forth between the council and developers.
The officers do not object in principle to the development but say a number of key issues are unresolved.
Not enough evidence seen to justify tree removals: council staff
They do not have clear and consistent information about the proposal, according to a wide-ranging report outlining their concerns.
That includes animal habitat in an area growling grass frogs might use.
The endangered amphibians have been sighted in the area in the past and Racecourse Creek runs through part of the property.
"It is reasonable to expect that the species would make use of the site within the medium term, however, the site is below average condition within the Bioregion," the developers' biodiversity expert has previously told the council.
Developers have not given clear evidence to show they have no other option but to remove trees near the creek - or at least minimise the removal of "large, significant" ones - council staff say.
That said, those same officers do not have a problem with the removal of other trees at the western end of the site elsewhere on the site.
Developers have previously argued they would have to remove a number of trees to help them deal with the site's flood risks, among other considerations.
They have set aside part of the site to be revegetated at a later date.
The idea would be that the corner of the site next to the creek would be "protected in perpetuity", the developers' biodiversity expert has previously said.
Biodiversity questions flow into drainage concerns
Council staff say they have found "flaws" on fundamental drainage issues.
Developers have only supplied a plan for the half of the overall site, saying they may come back at a later date to ask permission for a nearby "stage two".
Council staff say they have "consistently" told developers that would not be enough, "with the City's Development Engineer clearly advising that a whole site drainage solution is required".
That engineer wants greater clarity and an agreement on a storm water pump station and questions remain about a retaining wall facing Station street.
Officers say there are also still open questions about arrangements for some drainage infrastructure's management long term.
Developers have previously said their plans had undergone a "rigorous review" to accommodate concerns about drainage and deal with flood risks "whilst avoiding off impacts as far as is practical".
Council staff have also raised concerns with "fundamental" drainage issues.
Developers have only supplied a plan for the half of the overall site, saying they may come back at a later date to ask permission for a "stage two" development nearby.
Council staff say they have "consistently" told developers that would not be enough, "with the City's development engineer clearly advising that a whole site drainage solution is required".
That engineer wants greater clarity and an agreement on a storm water pump station as well as a retaining wall facing Station Street.
Officers say there are also still open questions about arrangements for some drainage infrastructure's management long term.
Developers have previously said they had launched a "rigorous review" to accommodate concerns about drainage and deal with flood risks "whilst avoiding off impacts as far as is practical".
Fears some future residents could have noise, dust and odour issues
Council staff concede that it makes sense to develop the land into a subdivision.
It is large, vacant, easy to connect to services and close to a shopping precinct.
Still, "such growth must be carefully managed in order to ensure that it occurs in a well planned manner," city staff have told councillors.
They want more details about what developers are thinking of for any future "stage two" development at the site to give them context.
What ideas the developers have supplied could bring in more traffic, council officers say.
For example, "purely speculative" document includes a hotel, restaurant/café, conference centre, medical centre and leisure centre.
It underlines council officers' hopes for certainty if they sign off on road designs and other planning matters at the site, they said.
Four members of the public have previously objected to the subdivision.
Some questioned whether the nearby Bendigo Pottery's operations might be impacted by 17 houses that would be built close by.
Some outdoor areas would be right next to land dedicated to commercial and industrial uses.
Several would have rooms overlooking the Bendigo Pottery site and council staff warn those residents could end up complaining of noise, dust and odour issues.
"As the 'agent of change' in this instance it is incumbent on a permit applicant to respond to the existing context as well as the amenity of future residents," the council staff said.
They were unclear on if and how developers had considered that challenge, along with noise levels from a proposed childcare centre.
The Bendigo Advertiser has reached out to the developers' team for comment on that issue and for a response to other issues raised in the council officers' report.
Digital subscribers now have the convenience of faster news, right at your fingertips with the Bendigo Advertiser app. Click here to download.
Tom O'Callaghan
I grew up in Bendigo and I want to tell your stories.
I grew up in Bendigo and I want to tell your stories.
