Open letter to Victorian Planning Minister: Bendigo showgrounds redevelopment
- Dale Webster
- Apr 4
- 5 min read
Updated: Apr 5
To the Minister for Planning, Sonya Kilkenny
Submitted as part of the Engage Victoria community consultation – March-April 2025
Dear Ms Kilkenny,
I am a freelance journalist who in the course of covering the Bendigo Showgrounds Redevelopment has come across serious non-compliance issues in relation to the consultation process required for this project and the inappropriate use of sports infrastructure funding.
I believe these matters to be so significant they must warrant rejection of the planning application.
My research has shown that there is little doubt that the pavilion to be built as part of this project is the same as that proposed for the Commonwealth Games table tennis competition.
Evidence given to a senate inquiry in 2023 shows that no stakeholder consultation informed the decision to allocate sport and infrastructure funding for the building of the pavilion then. (Federal hansard: ParlView | Video )
A statement made by member for Northern Victoria Wendy Lovell in Victorian Parliament just a year before strongly indicates the pavilion’s actual intended use was a market shed to be used by Sunday market traders, for which Ms Lovell was attempting to secure more appropriate Regional Development funding. (Victorian hansard: Hansard search - Parliament of Victoria )
I note that even Development Victoria’s own planning documents refer to the new pavilion as having no sporting or active recreation purpose. “Construction of a new modern, multipurpose pavilion that includes a market hall, event space, and storage facilities.”
While sports and infrastructure funding is being used to fund a pavilion with no sporting purpose, the sporting group users of the showgrounds will be disadvantaged by the planned works to the point where certain events will no longer be able to be held there.
The reduction in the size of the arena by removal of the sand track and placement of the fenceline approximately 6m inside its current position takes away vital usable space when hosting large equestrian events.
Additionally, a lure coursing representative told me their dogs would “break their necks” if they attempted to hold an official competition on the reduced area.
They first learnt of the changes when turning up to this consultation process hoping to have a genuine say, only to be told by Development Victoria representatives that the work had already been put out to tender and planning process started.
The lack of transparency displayed to date is the reason I began investigating the project.
In the course of my reporting, I have encountered obstruction from all parties involved, from both the City of Greater Bendigo and the Bendigo Agricultural Society refusing to release a copy of the publicly funded Bendigo showgrounds master plan, to State Government departments fobbing off questions and ignoring emails put through as media inquiries.
Examples of questions that have been ignored range from simple matters about the planning process to more serious ones about the basis for the decision to allocate sports infrastructure to build a new pavilion, what sporting or active recreation group will be using the new pavilion and what percentage of the overall usage will the sporting activity comprise.
There has been no explanation as to why sports infrastructure funding is being used to build a market shed when actual sporting infrastructure at the grounds – stabling that is vital for equestrian events – is falling down around users’ ears.
The line that keeps coming back from Development Victoria and Sport and Recreation Victoria is that the government consulted with the Bendigo Agricultural Show Society and the society represented all user groups.
The Bendigo Agricultural Show Society is listed as a project partner for the showgrounds redevelopment.
A planning project applicant consulting itself should not satisfy the consultation requirements of a clause 52.3 planning application unless the project partner demonstrates it has held a genuine consultation with stakeholders.
The feedback I have received from user groups indicates the show society did nothing more than spitball the idea to reduce the size of the arena around the 25 people sitting at its own board table.
The role of the City of Greater Bendigo in blocking access to the Bendigo Showgrounds Master Plan also needs to be highlighted.
In 2019, according to a media release from the Victorian Government quoting Regional Development Minister Jaclyn Symes, the City of Greater Bendigo was given $50,000 in public money to lead a project to develop this document.
The money was for “extensive community consultation with diverse user groups”.
Ms Lovell confirmed in parliament in 2022 that this work had been completed saying, “in December 2019 the council released a detailed master plan and business case, which identified a nine-stage plan to improve and grow the showgrounds over an extended time frame”.
Every request for a copy of the master plan – by community or media – has been deflected by council to the Bendigo Agricultural Show Society, with council saying it is not their project.
The show society, in turn, has refused to release the document or ignored requests for it.
As the only document that can substantiate whether any consultation outside the offices of the council or show society occurred, and a Freedom of Information will take months to complete, I submit that the planning process for the Bendigo Showgrounds redevelopment should be put on hold until the master plan is made publicly available.
If it turns out that the City of Greater Bendigo did not use the grant money it was given for community consultation, the whole project needs to be put back on the table.
As it stands, my research indicates that equestrian and lure coursing events with all the economic benefits they bring will be lost to Bendigo as a result of this project.
In summary, from what I have been able to ascertain, the lack of consultation that is a genuine substitute “for notice, the consideration of objections, and the ability to appeal a decision at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal” and the project not meeting the criteria for the program it has been funded under amount to legal obstacles that should prevent approval of this planning application.
All of the above has been reported in the following articles:
Regards,
Dale Webster
The Regional
Stories on The Regional’s website are free to read and always will be.
If you enjoyed this article you can show your support by joining our mailing list (either by filling out the form below or sending us a message).
We'd also get very excited if you put a "like" on our Facebook page.
Commenti