VCAT blocks 100-place Huntly childcare centre on bushfire grounds

The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) has dismissed an appeal for a 100-place childcare centre at 21 Oakridge Drive, Huntly, in the City of Greater Bendigo, finding the bushfire plan did not put human life first, the Bendigo Advertiser reported on 13 October 2026.

For Victorian developers and builders, the decision shows that a permit condition promising a management plan later will not satisfy a tribunal on a bushfire-prone site. The detail has to be in the application.

Why it matters

Tribunal member Tracey Bilston-McGillen found that a proposed permit condition requiring a bushfire management plan did not adequately prioritise human life, according to the Advertiser. Childcare centres house vulnerable occupants, so the test is stricter.

The member said the application lacked basic answers. It did not say when closing the centre would be appropriate, or who would decide on an extreme fire day. It also gave no detail on sheltering in place or how parents would be contacted.

“I have no information as to when it may be appropriate to close the centre,” the member said, as quoted by the Advertiser.

The backers argued there was very little risky vegetation within 300 metres of the site. The member disagreed, given the children involved. The Advertiser did not name the applicant or operator, and the decision date is not stated in the article.

The tribunal also raised concerns about possible flooding at the site. It found noise could be managed through permit conditions and that the building design could be acceptable with the right controls. Bushfire was the deciding issue.

The practical lesson for permit applicants is about sequencing. A bushfire management plan lodged after approval, as a condition, leaves the tribunal with nothing to test. Applicants on sites near grassland or bushland should expect to table the plan, the closure protocol and the shelter arrangements with the application itself, and to be ready to defend the vegetation assessment against a member who weighs the occupants’ vulnerability.

The numbers

The proposal was for 100 places, including babies, at 21 Oakridge Drive. The Advertiser reports that one in 10 Huntly residents is aged five or under, which is the demand case put to council by supporters.

Greater Bendigo councillors voted in August to oppose the centre, per the same report. Two councillors raised the shortage of childcare options in the town, but the council’s case before VCAT was that protecting human life must come before other policy considerations in bushfire-prone areas.

We could not locate the VCAT decision or the council planning record independently, so the figures above are as reported by the Advertiser.

What’s next

The report does not say whether the backers will lodge a fresh application or seek a review of the decision. Any new proposal would need to answer the gaps the member listed: closure triggers, decision-making authority, shelter measures and parent communication.

Developers eyeing childcare sites in other Greater Bendigo fringe areas should expect the same scrutiny. Our Melbourne desk tracks regional planning decisions, and the council’s recent Maiden Gully town square draft plan shows how site hazards are shaping its approach.