Bendigo Developer Challenges Water Authority Conditions

The developer of a 1380-lot Bendigo housing estate is contesting a water authority’s conditions stipulating it must pay for, build and hand over key infrastructure.

MG Estates has launched the action with the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

According to ASIC documents, MG Estates’ directors are Matthew Tangey, Timothy Rogers and Damien Tangey, who is also founder of Birchgrove Property Group.

The developer is building a housing estate at 244 Edwards Road at Maiden Gully, 8km west of Bendigo CBD and 150km north-west of Melbourne CBD.

The developer filed plans for the “unproductive agricultural land” on the 125ha site that abuts existing residential development along Michelle’s Drive and Kathleen Terrace and the initial masterplan was approved in 2017.

The Greater Bendigo City Council issued a permit under the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme for the project in 2018, on the condition that it provide reticulated water and sewer services in accordance with Coliban Water Corporation’s specifications. 

Further applications to rezone sections of the site from residential to commercial to deliver a neighbourhood activity centre were approved in 2022. 

▲ MG Estates is developing the 125ha site at Maiden Gully.

But while Coliban Water approved preliminary plans for the water and sewer mains for the site, the approval was subject to conditions, to which MG Estates objected.

In February, when stage 1A of the project for the subdivision of 60 lots was referred, Coliban Water issued a further notice. 

The notice required MG Estates to pay new customer contributions of $2858.44 per lot for water and $2286.75 per lot for sewer with a rebate of $1331.30 for a sewer pump station. 

MG Estates objected to the notice and applied to VCAT to review the decision by Coliban Water to refuse its objection. 

The developer brought two related challenges to VCAT—the works application which required it to build and hand over the new sewer infrastructure, and the new customer contributions imposed upon it.

VCAT questioned whether the law required the owner to meet or contribute to the costs of these infrastructure works, and found ultimately that it does not. 

But the final decision was hampered by the use of a specific section of the Water Act in MG Estates’s case. 

VCAT considered whether MG Estates could even use the section of the Water Act which considers the requirement to make payments to the water authority, and found that it only applied to monetary contributions, not construction works.

This created an obstacle for MG Estates’s case. 

However, the tribunal did not dismiss the case but has kept the matter open pending amendments.

According to VCAT, an amended case could be brought that challenges the requirements under Section 145 of the Water Act.

That section covers consents to connect works to a water authority’s infrastructure, in which the authority may impose any terms and conditions it thinks fit.

It has given the developer until the beginning of December to make the amendments. 

Birchgrove Property and Coliban Water were contacted for comment.