Fireworks and animal-based entertainment will continue to be part of City of Greater Bendigo events, although alternatives will be considered.<\/p>\n
Councillors on Monday voted to support the continued use of fireworks and animals after a period of public consultation on two notices of motion submitted by Cr Julie Sloan in May.<\/p>\n
Cr Sloan wanted the council to move away from the use of fireworks and the use of animals at its events as soon as possible, arguing that fireworks are not always environmentally friendly and, in the case of animals, could cause distress and harm.<\/p>\n
City-run events covered by the motions included New Year\u2019s Eve and Bendigo Easter Festival fireworks, and the use of petting zoos, wildlife displays and pony rides at events such as the Easter festival, the Fun Loong Fun Day and Play in the Garden Day.<\/p>\n
A total of 3874 valid responses were lodged on the Let\u2019s Talk Greater Bendigo online platform \u2013 the highest number ever received for a project on the platform since it began in 2021.<\/p>\n
Speaking at Monday night\u2019s meeting, Cr Sloan said 92 per cent of responses favoured retaining the use of animals while more than 75 per cent wanted to keep fireworks.<\/p>\n
Cr Sloan moved the recommendation that fireworks and animal-based entertainment remain but that they be reviewed in three years or sooner.<\/p>\n
Cr Matthew Evans seconded the motion, congratulating Cr Sloan for her work on the issue.<\/p>\n
\u201cYes, the community has spoken and they resoundingly supported the continuation of fireworks and animals at our events,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
Cr Evans said he was glad fireworks would continue and added that families value the opportunity to engage with animals.<\/p>\n
But he said Cr Sloan\u2019s concerns did raise the importance of stronger animal welfare standards.<\/p>\n
As part of the motion, the City will strengthen its processes when contracting operators to provide animal-based entertainment.<\/p>\n
Decision on organic waste plant postponed<\/strong><\/p>\n A decision on whether to issue a planning permit for an organic waste processing plant in Huntly has been deferred.<\/p>\n Western Composting Technology had applied for a planning permit to build the plant on a 6.2ha site beside the Bendigo Livestock Exchange on Wallenjoe Road, Huntly.<\/p>\n But councillors voted to wait until the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) makes a decision on a concurrent development licence application before making their own decision on a planning permit.<\/p>\n The plan is to hold organic waste in a semi-enclosed building and shred it before placing it in climate-controlled vessels to undergo pasteurisation (a heating method to remove pathogens).<\/p>\n The material would then be transferred to long rows where it would mature for up to 16 weeks, screened and final compost product dispatched for agricultural and domestic use.<\/p>\n A recommendation to the meeting advised that councillors approve a planning permit, but the vote was tied.<\/p>\n Mayor Andrea Metcalf used her casting vote to defeat the motion \u2013 moved by Cr Jen Alden and seconded by David Fagg \u2013 to issue the approval.<\/p>\n She then used her casting vote to push through a procedural motion moved by Cr Evans to defer a decision on a planning permit until the first council meeting after the EPA development licence ruling is known.<\/p>\n Councillors were generally supportive of the composting plant but were concerned that issuing a planning permit before a development licence is granted was simply premature.<\/p>\n Moving the original recommendation, Cr Alden said she had inspected two similar operations and was confident the plant would work well on the Huntly site.<\/p>\n Cr Fagg said the plant could not proceed without approval from both the City and the EPA and if the council issued the permit and the EPA refused the licence, it simply would not go ahead.<\/p>\n But he said deferring a decision would just be \u201cpassing the buck\u201d on to a new council.<\/p>\n Cr Greg Penna said that nearly 150 objections to the plant indicated the level of community concern about it.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s a great project but the location leaves a lot to be desired,\u201d he said, listing possible flooding, dust, vermin and \u201cthe dreaded ibises\u201d that would be attracted to the site as major worries.<\/p>\n Cr Vaughan Williams said the proposed site was not the best because it was so close to the livestock exchange, and it had attracted \u201cclear and significant\u201d local opposition.<\/p>\n \u201cIgnoring these concerns risks damaging trust between Council and its residents,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n Speaking in favour of issuing a planning permit, Cr Margaret O\u2019Rourke said there had been a lot of misinformation about the project and she knew that stock agents were comfortable with the proposal.<\/p>\n Cr Sloan also supported granting a permit, saying it was consistent with planning policies and the site was in an industrial zone.<\/p>\n It would facilitate resource recovery and was an appropriate use for the land, she said.<\/p>\n Cr Metcalf stressed she believed that granting a permit before the EPA had finished its work would be premature, and impacts on the amenity of the area had not been fully dealt with.<\/p>\n Growth strategy adopted<\/strong><\/p>\n Land in Ravenswood on the eastern side of the Calder Highway has been included as an investigation area in the City\u2019s Managed Growth Strategy, which aims to ensure a long-term supply of housing and guide residential growth over the next 30 years.<\/p>\n The strategy has been prepared over a period of several years, with the municipality expected to have 87,000 new residents by 2056. Based on an assumed growth rate of 1.6 per cent, 38,000 new dwellings will be needed \u2013 32,000 of them in urban areas.<\/p>\n Cr O\u2019Rourke moved the strategy be adopted but with the inclusion of the Ravenswood land, with council officers to prioritise planning for identified potential growth areas including Huntly, Maiden Gully, Marong and Strathfieldsaye.<\/p>\n She argued that the strategy\u2019s proposed aim of future growth being split between 70 per cent infill (townhouses, apartments and other compact buildings) and 30 per cent greenfield development was \u201cvery ambitious\u201d.<\/p>\n But her desire for Ravenswood to be included sparked prolonged debate.<\/p>\n Cr Evans supported the inclusion of Ravenswood as an investigation area, but Cr Alden did not.<\/p>\n A \u201clast-minute attempt\u201d to include Ravenswood would disregard the conclusions of three years of work, she said.<\/p>\n \u201cI believe that those who are proposing that Ravenswood be included as an investigation area are trashing our legacy on this, the most substantial legacy of this term of council.\u201d<\/p>\n Cr Alden said including Ravenswood would all but guarantee loss of that land for farming.<\/p>\n Cr Sloan also spoke against including Ravenswood, arguing there was sufficient land available to cater for the desired 30 per cent greenfield development.<\/p>\n Cr Fagg including Ravenswood sounded innocuous, but doing so would send a strong message to developers that the City is not serious about its existing preferred areas, or that it is serious about infill development.<\/p>\n \u201cDevelopers will not tackle the challenge of infill if they have a huge greenfield site such as Ravenswood to feast on,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n \u201cIncluding Ravenswood as an investigation area is the sugar hit that feels good but won\u2019t get us to where we need to go.\u201d<\/p>\n Cr Metcalf argued that Ravenswood should be included because it represented 2074ha under single ownership with few impediments to development.<\/p>\n Summing up, Cr O\u2019Rourke said any development at Ravenswood was years away and the City would still have control.<\/p>\n \u201cI would hate for us to be caught short or have something happen outside of the control of the City,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n The vote was Crs O\u2019Rourke, Penna, Williams, Evans and Metcalf in favour; Crs Sloan, Alden and Fagg against.<\/p>\n Ascot housing application fails<\/strong><\/p>\n A proposal for a 16-dwelling development in Ironstone Road, Ascot, has been blocked, with Cr Metcalf using her casting vote to refuse a permit.<\/p>\n The applicant wanted to build a mix of two- and three-bedroom single-storey residences, with a planning officer recommending the plan\u2019s approval subject to conditions.<\/p>\n It had attracted six objections — including a petition with 125 signatures — most of which raised traffic and safety concerns and did not like its proximity to a childcare centre.<\/p>\n Cr Fagg moved that a permit be granted, saying that the project was acceptable given the City\u2019s desire for infill development.<\/p>\n He said the fact it would be near a childcare centre was not sufficient reason to knock it back.<\/p>\n Cr Sloan agreed, arguing that higher density housing should be supported on sites that can accommodate it.<\/p>\n It also complied with planning scheme requirements, she said.<\/p>\n Cr Penna said it was an excellent site but there were issues. He cited potential flooding, over-development and parking problems as drawbacks.<\/p>\n Crs Fagg, Sloan, Alden and O\u2019Rourke voted in favour of the recommendation; Crs Williams, Metcalf, Penna and Evans voted against.<\/p>\n Cr Evans then moved a motion that a permit be refused, saying its location and \u201cintensity\u201d was not appropriate and the density did not accord with neighbourhood character.<\/p>\n It was an over-development and fewer buildings on the site would be better, Cr Evans said.<\/p>\n In opposition, Cr O\u2019Rourke said it was concerning how the council considered infill development an important strategic direction but proposals like this one were often knocked back.<\/p>\n Cr Sloan agreed, describing the proposal as \u201cterrific\u201d.<\/p>\n Cr Fagg, meanwhile, described the over-development argument as \u201cwrong-headed\u201d and predicted a refusal would wind up at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.<\/p>\n The vote on Cr Evans\u2019s motion was a reversal of the first, with Cr Metcalf using her casting vote to push it through.<\/p>\n