Response received to villagers’ concerns

THE City of Ballarat has responded to issues raised by Cardigan Village residents about poor drainage and infrastructure issues in the satellite suburb, however, there are still calls for more action.

Director for infrastructure and environment, Bridget Wetherell, provided a written response to Member for Ripon, Martha Haylett, who had taken up the community’s cause.

The Herbert Street area, which was recently constructed and saw significant flooding at the end of last year, is currently being reviewed for full channel and kerb retrofitting which is expected to cost upwards of $6 million.

“This situation was not foreseen during the design approval stage for the subdivision and therefore not brought to the attention of the developer at the time,” said Ms Wetherell in the letter.

The City deemed low-level residential style kerb as appropriate at the time of construction.

“With the benefit of hindsight, however, kerb and channel, underground drainage and concrete footpaths would have been more appropriate,” said Ms Wetherell.

This response comes after a letter by 53 residents was brought before City of Ballarat council in March, which called for evidence the infrastructure in the village met planning requirements.

Neil Black, a resident who has been calling for change for years, said the response didn’t provide real answers.

“It was very much a company policy approach,” he said.

There is still concern over how the flooding issues were not foreseen in the planning stages.

“Obviously their engineering department weren’t doing their job properly,” said Mr Black. “It should have been foreseen; it was obvious to everyone.”

The $6 million upgrade has been welcomed by Mr Black although he hopes it can be done quickly and efficiently.

“As long as they don’t try to put the cost back on residents because that seems to be the way they are talking,” he said. “Just do it, it should have been done.”

One of the grievances in the residents’ letter was that drainage in the Village did not meet clause 56 of the local planning scheme, however, in her response letter Ms Wetherell said that the City instead used the infrastructure design manual when setting the infrastructure.

Mr Black said these two documents have similar obligations and therefore that statement doesn’t make sense.

“The design manual is the practical application of clause 56,” he said.

“What they’ve done is created a circular statement to try and justify themselves when in actual fact because the whole development hasn’t met the requirements of clause 56, it also hasn’t met the requirements of the infrastructure design manual.”

Despite the promise of an upgrade in the future, the current state of drainage still appears to lack regulation.

“If you go for a walk around the development, you’ll find people are now doing their own thing and there doesn’t appear to be any applications of rules or guidelines,” said Mr Black.

“Some people have put pipes in the gutters and filled them over, other people have put rocks right to the road so there is no safe access anymore.

“One person is putting carpet in his gutters and filling them with volcanic rocks, yet no one is telling him he can’t do it.”

The sentiment held by some residents in March seems to still ring true.

“No one is interested in out here,” said Mr Black.