Planning and Environment Act 1987 - City of Melton · 2016-03-01 · Planning and Environment Act...

Planning and Environment Act 1987

Panel Report

Melton Planning Scheme Amendment C119

Botanica Springs Neighbourhood Centre

16 June 2015

Planning and Environment Act 1987

Panel Report pursuant to Section 25 of the Act

Melton Planning Scheme Amendment C119

Botanica Springs Neighbourhood Centre

16 June 2015

Lester Townsend

Melton Planning Scheme Amendment C119 Panel Report 16 June 2015

Contents Page

Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. i

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 The subject land and surrounds .............................................................................. 1 1.2 The Amendment ...................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Background to the proposal .................................................................................... 2 1.4 Submissions received .............................................................................................. 3 1.5 Issues dealt with in this report ................................................................................ 3

2 Policy context ............................................................................................................. 5 2.1 Policy framework ..................................................................................................... 5 2.2 The Retail and Activity Centres Strategy ............................................................... 10

3 Consideration of issues ............................................................................................. 13 3.1 Is a centre justified? .............................................................................................. 13 3.2 Proposed retail network ........................................................................................ 14 3.3 Changes to the Development Plan Overlay Schedule ........................................... 21

List of Tables Page

Table 1: Catchment population projection from witness reports ...................................... 13

Table 2: Logical inclusion area population projection from witness reports ..................... 13

List of Figures Page

Figure 1: Neighbourhood centre plan from Mr Ganly’s evidence ....................................... 16


List of Abbreviations

DDS Discount Department Store

DELWP Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning

DPO Development Plan Overlay

DTPLI Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure (former)

GRZ General Residential Zone

GWMP Green Wedge Management Plan

LPPF Local Planning Policy Framework

LSP Botanica Springs – Melton South: Local Structure Plan

MPA Metropolitan Planning Authority

MSS Municipal Strategic Statement

NRZ Neighbourhood Residential Zone

RGZ Residential Growth Zone

SPPF State Planning Policy Framework

UGB Urban Growth Boundary

UGZ Urban Growth Zone

VPP Victoria Planning Provisions


Overview

Amendment Summary

The Amendment Melton Planning Scheme Amendment C119

Common Name Botanica Springs Neighbourhood Centre

Subject Site Part of the land at 193 – 295 Brooklyn Road, Brookfield

The Proponent Ecosse Property Holdings Pty Ltd

Planning Authority Melton City Council

Authorisation On 21 October 2014, the Council resolved to seek Ministerial Authorisation to prepare the Amendment and was directed to exhibit the Amendment after 27 November 2014

Exhibition 18 December 2014 to 29 January 2015

Submissions Eight submissions were received:

‐ The Proponent

‐ QIC, the owner of the Woodgrove Shopping Centre

‐ Zhong Yin Properties Pty Ltd

‐ VicRoads

‐ Country Fire Authority

‐ Melbourne Water

‐ Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning

‐ Public Transport Victoria


Panel Process

The Panel Lester Townsend

Directions Hearing Planning Panels Victoria, 2 April 2015

Panel Hearing Planning Panels Victoria, 7 and 8 May 2015

Site Inspections Unaccompanied, 6 May 2015

Appearances Melton City Council represented by Greg Tobin of Harwood Andrews calling:

‐ economic evidence from Tim Nott

Ecosse Property Holdings Pty Ltd represented by John Cicero of Best Hooper calling:

‐ economic evidence from Sean Stephens

QIC represented by Tim Power of Herbert Smith Freehills calling:

‐ economic evidence from Justin Ganly

‐ town planning evidence from Andrew Biacsi

Further written submissions

During the course of the Hearing QIC raised an issue concerning the alleged prematurity of the proposal. It was not a matter disclosed on any fair reading of the submission of QIC to the Amendment, and accordingly leave was granted to Council and the proponent to make a further submission confined to the prematurity argument as it was presented by 15 May 2015.

Date of this Report 16 June 2015


Page i

Executive Summary

The Amendment will facilitate the provision of a neighbourhood centre in a location in the southwest of Melton which has long been identified for a neighbourhood centre and which has support from all submitters.

The only question is the size of the area to be rezoned. Council’s approach is that the area to be rezoned is commensurate with the catchment and role of the centre and importantly the geographical constraints of the area. QIC submitted that the proposed area was too large and instead of 4.93 ha of private land being rezoned to the Commercial 1 Zone only 3 ha should be rezoned.

Geographical constraints mean that provision of a single larger neighbourhood centre is appropriate in the circumstances.

The proposal is appropriate subject to the minor drafting changes in the DPO Schedule 18.

Based on the reasons set out in this Report, I recommend:

Melton Planning Scheme Amendment C119 should be adopted as exhibited subject to the following changes:

1 In Development Plan Overlay Schedule 18 change the second paragraph of Clause 1.0 to read:

• Where no Development Plan has been approved, the responsible authority may grant a permit for temporary use and development or minor buildings and works provided that Council is satisfied that the use or buildings and works will not prejudice the preparation of a Development Plan.

2 In Development Plan Overlay Schedule 18 change the third dot point of Clause 2.0 to read:

• A mix of appropriate uses on the site consistent with the role of a neighbourhood activity centre, which excludes provision of a discount department store.

3 In Development Plan Overlay Schedule 18 change the first dot point under the heading ‘Traffic management’ of Clause 2.0 to read:

• Public transport integration, connections and stops including potential provision for bus stops and shelters in locations, within and adjoining the Neighbourhood Activity Centre, approved by Public Transport Victoria, at no cost and to the satisfaction of Public Transport Victoria.


Page 1 of 22

1 Introduction

1.1 The subject land and surrounds

The Amendment relates to the rezoning of a 5.12 ha area (including road) of land bounded by Brooklyn Road to the north, located approximately 150m west of Clarkes Road, in Brookfield, in the southwest quadrant of Melton.

The intersection of Clarkes and Brooklyn Roads is the central intersection within the Botanica Springs residential development.

The Land is located within Zone C of the Botanica Springs – Melton South: Local Structure Plan (LSP), which comprises 111 ha of land to the south‐west of the Clarkes and Brooklyn Roads intersection. The LSP was prepared in the 1990s and has largely been implemented, but it provides a useful historical context.

The proponent described the Zone C land as follows:

Whilst the topography of the land is generally flat, there are minor pockets of undulation, with a sharp increase to a sheer ‘gorge’ in the centre of the site. This central gorge dissects the subject property and bestows upon the land a unique character and a high level of amenity. Due to the high amenity associated with the site as a result of the its reservoir and creek gorge abuttal – combined with the size of the site itself – a real opportunity exists to develop the subject site with potential access to high quality waterways and parkland to the benefit of the wider community.

The other ‘zones’ of the LSP, which total 238 ha, surround the Subject Land as follows:

to the north‐east of the intersection of Clarkes and Brooklyn Road is Zone A, which is a recently completed residential subdivision

to the north of the Subject Land, on the other side of Brooklyn Road, is Zone B which contains another area of residential subdivision that is substantially completed

to the west (on the other side of Brookfield Creek) and immediately adjoining the Subject Land to the south is the balance of Zone C. This area of Zone C comprises a proposed residential subdivision which is at planning permit stage for the first stage of development

to the east of the Subject Land on the opposite side of Clarkes Road is an established residential estate with larger allotments averaging 2,000 sqm. Further south along Clarkes Road is the Riverina Estate, which provides for smaller lot sizes ranging from 338 sqm to 792 sqm.

Further west of the Subject Land (beyond the balance of Zone C of the LSP) is approximately 190 ha area of Urban Growth Zone (UGZ) land south of the Western Freeway. This is designated to be developed under the Melton West Precinct Structure Plan (PSP) which is being prepared by the Metropolitan Planning Authority (MPA). This land was included within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) on 13 September 2012, by operation of Amendment C128, which gave effect to the logical inclusions process as Logical Inclusions Melton Area 3.


Page 2 of 22

The preparation of and background reporting for the Melton West PSP has commenced. However, Council has been advised by the MPA that the PSP is currently on hold pending third party funding contributions.

1.2 The Amendment

The Amendment proposes to:

Zone the Subject Land from General Residential Zone to Commercial 1 Zone

introduce DPO Schedule 18 – Botanica Springs Neighbourhood Activity Centre and apply it to the Subject Land.

1.3 Background to the proposal

The Botanica Springs – Melton South: Local Structure Plan was approved by Council in January 2003 and updated on 11 September 2006. It was approved by Council in satisfaction of a Section 173 Agreement which applied to all land within Botanica Springs.

This Section 173 Agreement was removed from the Subject Land in January 2014.

The LSP identified that there would be an area of land abutting Brooklyn Road comprising community facilities alongside 3 ha of commercial land at the north‐eastern corner of Zone C with frontages to Clarkes Road and Brooklyn Road. The LSP included the following text in respect of the ‘commercial area’:

The LSP nominates a local commercial precinct in the north east corner of Zone C, located centrally to the population catchment, on a main collector street and in proximity to other community focal points. It is envisaged that this area would cater for a local neighbourhood shopping centre as well as complementary community uses permissible within the Residential 1 Zoning.

By siting community and commercial uses together, occupiers, customers and users of the facilities would enjoy the benefits of shared car parking, landscaping, amenities etc.

The commercial area shown on the LSP is indicative only at this conceptual stage. The exact location and size of this area would be subject to further economic analysis as part of the planning application process for relevant stages of the development of the surrounding residential estate. However, initial indications are that local retail floorspace could be supported by the immediately surrounding population without impacting on existing retail facilities in the region.

This location and extent of commercial land identified in the LSP was developed prior to the inclusion of the additional land within the UGB to the west of the Subject Land in 2012.

Amendment C119 was first considered by Council in 2012. The request initially sought to rezone the Subject Land to Business 1 Zone (the applicable commercial zoning at the time) to facilitate the development of the Botanica Springs Neighbourhood Centre. Council resolved at a Council meeting on 29 March 2012:

That Council defer consideration of the proposal at the proponent’s amendment request to allow the proponents to amend the proposal


Page 3 of 22

The Amendment was subsequently resubmitted and on 20 September 2012 Council determined that it would authorise the Amendment subject to a Section 173 Agreement being entered in to which secured land for Active Open Space and the community facility and dealt with weed management and the handover of Public Park and Recreation Zoned land.

The required Section 173 Agreement was executed on 13 December 2013 and on 31 July 2014 the Proponent requested Council exhibit the Amendment which is now before the Panel for consideration.

1.4 Submissions received

Eight submissions were received in response to the exhibition of the Amendment

Three submissions were received from the owner of the Subject Land and owners of neighbouring land:

The Proponent confirmed its support for the Amendment.

QIC, the owner of the Woodgrove Shopping Centre at 585 – 591 High Street, Melton West, indicated that it did not oppose the rezoning of the Subject Land, but submitted that the Amendment could result in an oversupply of floorspace and should be amended to reflect the status of the proposed retail centre.

Zhong Yin Properties Pty Ltd, owner of 1 – 27 Balmer Grange, Brookfield and 80 – 82 Brooklyn Park Drive, Bookfield, to the west of the Subject Land, indicated it supports the Amendment, but considers the development of the proposed Botanica Springs Neighbourhood Centre will ‘generate a need for Brooklyn Road to be upgraded along its length’ and appropriate measures should be included in the Amendment to provide for this upgrade.

Five submissions were received from Government agencies and authorities:

VicRoads – no objection

Country Fire Authority – no objection

Melbourne Water – no objection

Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning – no wish to make a submission

Public Transport Victoria – no objection subject to a minor drafting change to the DPO which is supported by Council and the Proponent.

On 10 March 2015, Council resolved to request a Panel to consider the submissions received during the exhibition period.

1.5 Issues dealt with in this report

I have considered all written submissions, as well as submissions presented to me during the Hearing. In addressing the issues raised in those submissions, I have been assisted by the information provided to me as well as my observations from inspections of specific sites.

This report considers the Policy context of the Amendment under the following headings:

Policy framework

The Retail and Activity Centres Strategy


Page 4 of 22

This report deals with the issues under the following headings:

Is a centre justified? - Population projections - Is rezoning justified?

Proposed retail network - The proposed network - Potential impact on a western neighbourhood centre - Potential impact on Melon Station Square - Disruption of the retail hierarchy - Is rezoning premature?

Changes to the Development Plan Overlay Schedule - Ensuring the proposed centre remains a neighbourhood centre - Public transport.


Page 5 of 22

2 Policy context

Council provided a response to the Strategic Assessment Guidelines as part of the Explanatory Report and Council and the proponent both provided a detailed assessment of relevant policy. I have reviewed the policy context of the Amendment. The salient points are summarised in this chapter.

2.1 Policy framework

(i) Plan Melbourne

Clause 9 of the SPPF requires consideration of Plan Melbourne, Metropolitan Planning Strategy (Plan Melbourne) wherever in the planning scheme reference is made to Melbourne 2030 and Melbourne @ 5 million.

Council is also required to have regard to Plan Melbourne by operation of Ministerial Direction No. 9 – Metropolitan Planning Strategy, which directs that when preparing a planning scheme amendment the planning authority must have regard to Plan Melbourne, and by Clause 11.04 – Metropolitan Melbourne of the State Planning Policy Framework.

The introduction to Plan Melbourne (page 2) describes the plan as follows:

Plan Melbourne is the vision for Melbourne. It is an evidence‐based plan designed to guide Melbourne’ housing, commercial and industrial development through to 2050. It seeks to integrate long‐term land‐use, infrastructure and transport planning to meet the population, housing and employment needs of the future.

The Government has committed to refreshing Plan Melbourne to ensure it accurately reflects community and expert priorities and advice. The various commentary around the refresh has not identified activity centre policy as a matter subject to review.

Plan Melbourne anticipates that Melbourne could grow to be a city of around 7.7 million people by 2051 (Page 5). The vision in Plan Melbourne is for Melbourne to become a ‘global city of opportunity and choice’ (page 18).

This vision is underpinned by 41 directions in seven different categories identified in Figure 3 (page 18). The most relevant of these are:

Delivering jobs and investment

Liveable communities and neighbourhoods.

Delivering jobs and investment

This section of Plan Melbourne includes a Metropolitan Melbourne Structure Plan at Map 8 (page 27) and Table 1 (page 30) which ‘identifies the important land‐use elements to be enhanced over the life of Plan Melbourne’. Read together, Map 8 and Table 1 identify existing and proposed activity centres and their respective status in Plan Melbourne.

Plan Melbourne also refers to five metropolitan subregions as shown on Map 9 (page 29). The Subject Land is in the Western Subregion.


Page 6 of 22

In respect of retail and activity centres in the Western Subregion, Map 31 (page 176) in the implementation section of Plan Melbourne identifies Botanica Springs and neighbouring activity centres as follows, in order of highest order to lowest order retail function:

Toolern – Metropolitan Activity Centre

Woodgrove Shopping Centre – Activity Centre and Health Precinct

Melton Town Centre – Activity Centre.

Neighbourhood centres are not shown on the plan and the Botanica Springs – Neighbourhood Centre would be at a lower level.

Liveable communities and neighbourhoods

This section of Plan Melbourne includes a number of sub‐sections which are relevant to varying degrees in respect of local retail and activity centre planning, the most relevant of these is Direction 4.1 – Create a city of 20‐minute neighbourhoods.

This section of Plan Melbourne reinforces longstanding planning policy objectives in respect of activity centre planning, which encourages provision of facilities and services and employment opportunities to people in the communities where they live. The way this is to be achieved and the categorisation of centres differs from earlier metropolitan strategies.

Direction 4.1 is to create a city of 20‐minute neighbourhoods. The introduction (page 11) explains:

20‐minute neighbourhoods are places where you have access to local shops, schools, parks, jobs and a range of community services within a 20‐minute trip from your front door. Creating a city of 20‐minute neighbourhoods relies on creating the market size and concentration that can support a broad range of local services and facilities.

Some areas in Melbourne already deliver a 20‐minute neighbourhood experience. In many inner suburbs, for instance, residents are within walking distance of many services and have good access to public transport. Newer suburbs in Melbourne’s growth areas (such as Selandra Rise in Casey and Riverwalk Town Centre in Wyndham) have been planned to be pedestrian‐friendly, active communities.

Current initiatives that are assisting to achieve a city of 20‐minute neighbourhoods include:

introducing reformed commercial and residential zones

updating Precinct Structure Planning Guidelines to increase activity centres in growth areas.

Initiative 4.1.1 – Support a network of vibrant neighbourhood centres

Plan Melbourne articulates its vision for neighbourhood centres in Initiative 4.1.1 (page 117):

Planning neighbourhood centres that maintain their ‘village’ character and feel, while enabling a mix of goods and services, is a key role for local governments working with their communities. However, more can be done through the planning system to encourage local governments and their communities to develop and energise these centres.


Page 7 of 22

Vibrancy can also be enhanced by supporting and improving access to cafés, dining and shopping, and by creating village shopping strips that promote small business. This can include accommodating more community‐based services, and shop‐top housing, and by creating more open space. Enhancing the quality of public spaces by making places safer, and improving pedestrian and cycle access, also boosts the investment appeal and economic success of smaller centres.

…

Actions include:

In the short term

Update the State Planning Policy Framework to specify the role of neighbourhood centres. This will articulate their retail, residential and mixed‐use role to assist decision makers, including local governments and the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

Prepare a practice note giving guidance for deciding permit applications for shops and supermarkets in the reformed commercial zones.

(ii) Reformed zones

As noted above Plan Melbourne explains that an initiatives to assist in achieving a city of 20‐minute neighbourhoods is the introduction of the reformed commercial zones. An important element of the reformed zones is the removal of floorspace caps.

The report of the Reformed Zones Ministerial Advisory Committee Commercial and Industrial Zones Report February 2013 states (page 33):

Floorspace caps on land uses are a mechanism to regulate the leasable floorspace related to various uses such as shop, office, restricted retail premises and trade supplies in commercial zones. Such caps have sometimes been used in conditions against specific uses in the table of uses of various zones; other caps have been used in schedules in commercial and industrial zones. …

The Government’s proposal with the reformed zones is to remove floorspace caps for all uses in the new commercial zones and to remove the 500 square metres restriction against office in the industrial zones and allow office floorspaces to be specified in the schedule. This is to enable greater competition with the provision of commercial uses to better service local communities and to ensure greater efficiency of the Victorian planning system.

The Committee generally supports this approach but with an exception for interface areas around the fringe of Metropolitan Melbourne, non‐metropolitan Melbourne and regional areas of Victoria. In these locations, it felt that the ability to retain floorspace caps could help to prevent leakage from centres and support the establishment of a robust retail hierarchy in developing growth areas and non‐metropolitan locations and make best use of often scarce existing infrastructure.


Page 8 of 22

Clearly, the published material and policy shows that the removal of floorspace caps was a deliberate change aimed at assisting the creation of the 20‐minute neighbourhood with vibrant neighbourhood centres that fulfil a range of functions.

(iii) State Planning Policy Framework

Clause 11 – Settlement

It is policy at Clause 11 of the SPPF that in respect of ‘Settlement’:

Planning is to anticipate and respond to the needs of existing and future communities through provision of zoned and serviced land for housing, employment, recreation and open space, commercial and community facilities and infrastructure.

Clause 11 includes the following specific objectives in respect of the activity centre network and activity centre planning which are relevant in respect of the Amendment:

11.01‐1 Activity centre network

Objective

To build up activity centres as a focus for high‐quality development, activity and living for the whole community by developing a network of activity centres.

11.01‐2 Activity centre planning

Objective

To encourage the concentration of major retail, residential, commercial, administrative, entertainment and cultural developments into activity centres which provide a variety of land uses and are highly accessible to the community.

In respect of the activity centre network, Clause 11.01‐1 includes the following two strategies:

Develop a network of activity centres that:

Comprises a range of centres that differ in size and function

Is a focus for business, shopping, working, leisure and community facilities.

Provides different types of housing, including forms of higher density housing.

Is connected by public transport and cycling networks.

Maximises choices in services, employment and social interaction.

Support the role and function of the centre given its classification, the policies for housing intensification, and development of the public transport network.

Clause 11.01‐2 contains a detailed range of strategies in respect of activity centre planning, which encourage consideration of appropriate location and strategic planning for activity centres and provide strategies in respect of how activity centres should be plan once the location has been designated.


Page 9 of 22

(iv) Local Planning Policy Framework

Municipal Strategic Statement

The Planning Objectives at Clause 21.03‐2 then include several relevant objectives in respect of sustainability, urban development, employment, integrated transport and movement and, most relevantly, retailing:

Retailing

To encourage the growth and development of vibrant and dynamic retail centres.

Clause 22.06 – Retailing Policy

Council’s retailing policy at Clause 22.06 applies in respect of all land in the municipality zoned for commercial purposes.

This clause also then includes a detailed statement in respect of the policy basis, which describes the range and examples of different types of retail centres that are sought to be provided in the municipality:

Policy Basis

Retail centres perform a variety of roles and functions in our community. To some, shopping is a necessity. To others, it is a recreational pastime that represents an opportunity for social inter‐action and community contact. Retailing is also an important source of employment, particularly for women and the young. Melton’s shopping areas, like its community, are at an early stage of development. As the population grows however, shopping areas in Melton township and Melton East will become more established, and will offer a more diverse and sophisticated array of commercial services and facilities. A greater diversity of shopping and commercial facilities will add to the vitality and liveability of the area, making the City a more attractive place in which to live and work. The location of shopping areas offers opportunities to promote community interaction and define a sense of place. The co‐location of community facilities around shopping areas will help to heighten activity levels and create a sense of urban character. Shopping centres represent a significant financial investment, and it is essential that investors and the community be provided with a degree of certainty in terms of their location, size and timing.

The stated policy objectives of the clause include:

To provide a clear and concise hierarchy of retailing facilities across the municipality.

To encourage and support the establishment of an economically and socially thriving and diverse retail sector, which provides the community with a range of quality retail facilities and options.

To develop, encourage and support measures that reduce the level of escape expenditure from the local economy.


Page 10 of 22

To encourage a broader range of activities to locate in and around shopping precincts.

Clause 22.06 further states the local policy, which includes the following:

Implement a hierarchy of commercial centres across the municipality (as identified in Clause 21) which takes into account current and projected population growth and distribution, existing and committed retail floorspace levels and private and public transport infrastructure.

Promote the development and expansion of retail facilities in accordance with the adopted commercial centre hierarchy.

Ensure that any future rezonings or expansions of commercial centres only occur as a result of demonstrated need.

Encourage the consolidation of higher levels of retail activity and concentration of retail activities by discouraging the outward expansion of the Melton’s High Street shopping precinct.

Commercial and community facilities will be encouraged to locate on main traffic links.

2.2 The Retail and Activity Centres Strategy

The most recent strategic planning undertaken by Council which includes consideration of the Botanica Springs Neighbourhood Centre is the Retail and Activity Centres Strategy prepared by Tim Nott with Harvest Digital Planning and Hansen Partnership.

The strategy was informed by the Retail and Activity Centres Strategy Background Report. The strategy was adopted by Council and the background report noted at the Council meeting on 1 April 2014.

The Retail and Activity Centres Strategy involved review of existing and proposed retail and activity centres to provide:

… a robust policy framework to support the long term integrated land use planning and delivery of a hierarchy of Retail and Activity Areas across the municipality.

The Retail and Activity Centres Strategy identifies a proposed network of retail and activity centres in the following three primary categories:

Neighbourhood Centres – focal points of the local community providing highly accessible day‐to‐day requirements such as food and groceries, pharmacy, newsagents, take‐away food, hairdressing, childcare and local health and fitness services.

Activity Centres – substantial focal points for the Melton community providing a broad range of retail and service activity and jobs. In most cases, Activity Centres will have a sub‐regional retail role providing a wide range of routine comparison goods (such as clothes, furniture and household items) as well as


Page 11 of 22

food and groceries. Many community services will be delivered from these centres.

Metropolitan Activity Centre – at Toolern, will eventually be the largest centre for the municipality providing higher order goods and services as well as providing all the goods and services found in other centres. Toolern will be strongly connected to the rest of the metropolitan area via public transport. It will contain job‐rich service activities that generate income for the region.

This hierarchy is ‘based on the hierarchy emerging from the latest metropolitan plan’ noting that the established centre hierarchies have changed somewhat between Melbourne 2030 and Plan Melbourne.

In respect of the Subject Land, the Retail and Activity Centre Strategy, which was finalised after the approval of the additional land within the UGB in the 2012 logical inclusions process, identifies the Botanica Springs Neighbourhood Centre for a ‘large neighbourhood centre’.

The Retail and Activity Centres Strategy has not yet been incorporated into the Scheme however, it has been the subject of a dedicated notice and consultation process, which is summarised as follows in the Council Minutes of 1 April 2014 (page 22):

The draft City of Melton Retail Strategy was released for public comment on 11 November 2013 for six weeks with submissions closing on 23 December 2013. The draft strategy was advertised in local media and through the City of Melton website.

Submissions were received on the draft Strategy from the Department of Transport Planning and Local Infrastructure and the Metropolitan Planning Authority (MPA) who were both generally supportive of the draft Strategy …

The Retail and Activity Centres Strategy is proposed to be formally introduced into the Scheme in due course through preparation of a planning scheme amendment.

Mr Biacsi gave evidence that Council’s should not rely on the Retail and Activity Centres Strategy, because while it is adopted by Council it does not yet have any statutory status, as it has not been the subject of a planning scheme amendment to introduce it as a reference document or incorporated document in the Melton Planning Scheme.

Council submitted:

In truth it is not sufficient to discard a document on a broad assertion that it has not tested. It is true that it is not yet part of the Planning Scheme. However it was prepared with rigour, went through a process of consultation and is in the preparatory stages of being the subject of a Planning Scheme Amendment.

The Strategy should be given appropriate weight as Council adopted policy but more importantly interrogated on the facts. That is the purpose of the hearing and ‘tested or otherwise the Council submits that it represents sound strategy for the area.


Page 12 of 22

The Strategy as a whole has not been tested, and is not yet part of the Planning Scheme. However, I accept that the Strategy was prepared with rigour, went through a process of consultation and is in the preparatory stages of being the subject of a Planning Scheme Amendment.

For the Amendment I have benefitted from detailed evidence on the specific proposal and have relied on this information in preference to the Strategy, accepting that the Strategy explains Council’s approach in this matter.


Page 13 of 22

3 Consideration of issues

3.1 Is a centre justified?

3.1.1 Population projections

The Melton municipality has experienced rapid growth in recent years and is anticipated to continue to experience substantial growth, including in the vicinity of the Subject Land, over the next twenty to thirty years to support a population of approximately 400,000 people at full development in mid‐century.

It is common ground between the experts that the population in the catchment area for the proposed Botanica Springs Neighbourhood Centre once it reaches full development will be between 17,000 and 22,000 people. This is reflected in the expert witness statements which identify estimated population projections for the Botanica Springs Neighbourhood Centre ‘catchment’ as shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Catchment population projection from witness reports

Witness called by Estimated population demand

Timeframe of estimated population

Tim Nott Melton City Council 20 – 22,000 At full development

Sean Stephens The Proponent 21,040 2030

Justin Ganly QIC 18,688 2036

Forecasts by .id consulting have the population at 18,688 by 2036 but this is forecast still has population growing at that time by a very healthy 1.8 per cent per year.

The expert witness statement estimates for the in population increase expected by the inclusion of the area west of the Subject Land into the UGB through the logical inclusions process in 2012 are shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Logical inclusion area population projection from witness reports

Witness called by Estimated increased population by logical inclusion

Tim Nott Melton City Council 4 – 5,000

Sean Stephens The Proponent 3,830

Justin Ganly QIC 2,120

This represents a range of difference of 3,000 to 6,000 people between estimates.

Accepting that a population of around 10,000 persons is the appropriate level for provision of a neighbourhood centre providing a full‐line supermarket with associated specialty stores there is clear need for more than a single supermarket in the area.

Land outside of the UGB will contribute little to population and catchments for retail and other services.


Page 14 of 22

I conclude that the area will reach a population that will support two full‐line supermarkets.

3.1.2 Is rezoning justified?

The Council supports rezoning of the Subject Land for provision of the Botanica Springs Neighbourhood Centre.

The strategic justification for the Amendment is set out in the Explanatory Report to the Amendment which includes Council’s detailed response to Ministerial Direction 11 – Strategic Assessment of Amendments and was tabled at the Hearing.

Council submitted that:

A threshold matter that the Panel must be satisfied of in respect of the Amendment is that there is sufficient strategic justification to support the proposed rezoning and application of a DPO to support the delivery of the Botanica Springs NAC on the [Subject] Land.

None of the submitters in respect of the Amendment (being five government agencies, the Proponent, QIC and Zhong Yin Properties Pty Ltd), have disputed that strategic justification exists which supports the rezoning of the Subject Land to accommodate a neighbourhood centre in this location.

Mr Biacsi’s expert witness statement filed on behalf of QIC concludes that strategic justification for the Amendment and the designation of a neighbourhood centre on the Subject Land ‘is not in question’.

I conclude that rezoning land to facilitate a neighbourhood centre in Brookfield is justified.

3.2 Proposed retail network

I have concluded that population growth will support two full‐line supermarkets and that a rezoning for a neighbourhood centre is justified. The issue is whether the local neighbourhood centre and retail network proposed by Council is appropriate.

3.2.1 The proposed network

The discussion of the Botanica Springs centre in the Melton Retail and Activity Centres Strategy – Background Analysis and Discussion (November 2013) provides a good summary of the rationale for the Amendment:

8.5.1 Botanica Springs

In the suburb of Brookfield in south west Melton, the approved location for a neighbourhood centre is at the centre of the suburb close to the intersection of Clarkes Road and Brooklyn Road. Following the extension of the Urban Growth Boundary, the catchment for this centre is around 20,000 people. This would normally trigger the need for a second neighbourhood centre. However, the position of the proposed centre is such that no new centre could command a natural catchment sufficient to support a neighbourhood retail function.

In this case, it is sensible to expect Botanica Springs to grow to be a larger than usual centre with, perhaps, two full‐scale supermarkets, some larger


Page 15 of 22

specialty stores, and a total retail floor area of up to 15,000 sqm. In order to provide walkable services for Brookfield residents, it may be possible to provide several local centres towards the edge of the suburb.

Council submitted that having identified the subject land for a neighbourhood centre it sought to determine whether a second neighbourhood centre could command an appropriate catchment of around 10,000 persons. It concluded that given the location of the Botanica Neighbourhood Centre it could not:

There is not sufficient population outside of the natural draw of the Botanica site to substantiate a second NAC anchored by as full‐line supermarket. This is logical because there is only approximately 1.2 kilometres to the UGB west of the relevant land.

Council submitted that:

Council therefore has a difficult choice – provide a NAC capable of accommodating retail and other facilities at a provision level associated with a population of around 10,000 persons or, designate a larger NAC that can provide local convenience good and community services to the catchment of 20,000.

The Council considers it logical and appropriate that it has selected the later – a larger NAC that may accommodate and be anchored by two full‐line supermarkets or a full‐line supermarket and alternative such an Aldi or a large IGA. Ultimately the market will determine the offer guided by the constraints in the DPO which necessitate that the mixes of uses and development are appropriate for a neighbourhood centre.

Mr Nott confirmed this approach in evidence that ideally, the catchment area and population area ascribed for Botanica Springs would justify two neighbourhood centres being delivered for the neighbourhood. However, due to constraints – in particular the layout and extent of development of existing subdivision in Brookfield and physical constraints including the Brookfield Creek to the west of the site – Mr Nott concluded that there was no viable site available to accommodate a second neighbourhood centre.

On this basis, Mr Nott supported a ‘large’ neighbourhood centre at Botanica Springs which is:

of sufficient size to deliver an appropriate level of retail services to local residents; but

not so large that the retail capability of the site would compromise its role in the hierarchy as a neighbourhood centre and would have an impact on the catchment and economic viability of nearby higher‐order centres, including Woodgrove Shopping Centre.

Mr Nott identifies that the Botanica Springs neighbourhood centre needs to be able to accommodate up to approximately 20,000 sqm of commercial (retail and non‐retail space). This is the basis for the Amendment.


Page 16 of 22

Mr Ganly was critical of this approach on the basis it would not meet current guidelines1:

The … Activity Centre Design Guidelines dictate that 80‐90% of residents living in growth areas should be able to access a supermarket within 1km of where they live.

Should all retail floorspace in the Botanica Springs catchment area be confined to the Botanica Springs Neighbourhood Centre, I estimate that only 56% of catchment area residents would live within 1km of the NAC’s supermarket(s) once Brookfield is built out.

To address this problem, I suggest that a small NAC (including a supermarket) should be planned towards the western edge of the Brookfield estate, close to where Brooklyn Road meets Brooklyn Park Drive as shown … below:

Figure 1: Neighbourhood centre plan from Mr Ganly’s evidence

Note: added by Panel

Mr Ganly’s position on the need for supplementary retail services to the west is not controversial, what is at issue is how much floorspace that should be planned for in each centre, or location.

I note that a crossing of the Western Freeway is proposed at Brooklyn Road/Harkness Road (shown with a on Figure 1). This might make a more northerly location better for retail

1 Ganly evidence page 21


Page 17 of 22

services than Mr Ganly suggests. These issues would need to be decided in the precinct structure planning for the area.

Council submitted that services for the catchment will not be inaccessible when accommodated in the neighbourhood centre and stated that in reality the distances involved in this catchment or corridor are modest. The distance to the west of the neighbourhood centre to the urban growth boundary is:

1.2 kilometres to Harkness Road

1.65 kilometres to the point where Harkness Road meets the Western Freeway to the north west

1.7 kilometres to the most distance part of the western UGB.

Adopting the typical walking speed of 4.8 km/h, most of the catchment is within the 20 minute walk objective of Plan Melbourne.

The Botanica Springs site is a logical site for a neighbourhood centre servicing the area, being at the confluence of the major east to west road, a road that has linkages through Coburns Road to the Western Highway and the alternate crossing of the Western Highway.

Mr Ganly suggested2:

I then suggest retail floorspace allocations as follows for the two NACs:

Botanica Springs NAC 8,000 sqm

Western Brookfield Small NAC 2,000 sqm

Total 10,000 sqm

In this situation, the proportion of catchment area residents living within 1km of a supermarket increases significantly from 56% to 80% and, therefore, meets the … [MPA’s] criteria for supermarket accessibility in growth areas.

The issue is not whether a neighbourhood centre should be constructed on the land, or whether this should occur now, but how much land should be rezoned. This needs to be determined considering:

the potential impact on a western neighbourhood centre

the potential impact on Melton Station Square

the potential disruption of the retail hierarchy.

3.2.2 Potential impact on a western neighbourhood centre

Council’s strategy and evidence seeks:

… that smaller local centres should (and will be) planned for the western part of the catchment. This is expressly considered in the strategy and the evidence of Mr Nott and the strategy. It is consistent with the provision of a range of activity centres under State policy.

These centres expected to be up to 1,000 sqm will service a walkable catchment in the area, provide basic convenience and services. Because of the nature of such centres as lower order facilities whose catchment is very

2 Ganly evidence page 21.


Page 18 of 22

localised, the Botanica NAC will not compete or stifle the implementation of truly localised centres. The small neighbourhood centre proposed by Mr Ganly will support only a small supermarket – up to 1,500sqm. This will not provide the level of service that that the market would want. It is very likely that people in that catchment would travel to the larger supermarket(s) at Botanica Springs in any case for their main grocery shopping.

I agree with Council that there is not sufficient population outside of the natural draw of the Botanica site to substantiate a second neighbourhood centre anchored by as full‐line supermarket. Mr Ganly’s suggestion of a neighbourhood centre of 2,000 sqm in this area would seem to support this proposition.

At the Hearing the issue of relative competition between a larger neighbourhood centre and smaller neighbourhood centre was discussed. A larger neighbourhood centre might be more attractive that a smaller neighbourhood centre to shoppers, (because of the range of goods it sells) and therefore attract shoppers from a longer distance, but this is not really the issue here.

It is not simply an issue that the Botanica Springs Neighbourhood Centre might be more attractive because it is larger. Even if the new neighbourhood centre to the west and the Botanica Springs Neighbourhood Centre were equally attractive, the west neighbourhood centre would not have enough population to support a full‐line supermarket. This is simple geography. There is no prospect of moving the proposed centre to the east because the land is already developed, and so the catchment of the proposed centre, whether it contains one supermarket of two will militate against a full‐line supermarket in a more westerly neighbourhood centre.

I conclude that restricting the size of the proposed centre would not make a full‐line supermarket in a western neighbourhood centre viable.

3.2.3 Potential impact on Melton Station Square

Melton Station square is the neighbourhood centre to the east of the Subject Land.

I do not accept submissions that the size of the proposed centre should be limited to give Melton Station Square a better chance of expanding on the basis that that centre is better located being next to a railway station.

There is a clear need to meet the neighbourhood centre needs of Brookfield in the current location. I do not see that this would unfairly undermine the potential growth of the Melton Station Square Centre. That centre serves a different neighbourhood, but I accept that its turnover might drop with the establishment of the new centre because current residents do not have a convenient quality centre serving their needs.

I conclude that restricting the size of the proposed centre cannot be justified on the basis that this will boost the prospects of improvements at Melton Station Square Centre.

3.2.4 Disruption of the retail hierarchy

Woodgrove is identified as an activity centre and health precinct in Plan Melbourne.


Page 19 of 22

The current approved Development Plan allows up to the 50,000 sqm of ‘shop’ floorspace. The Business 1 Zone has now been translated into the Commercial 1 Zone and the floorspace caps have been removed.

The current provision of ‘shop’ floorspace is 48,754 sqm for stage 2 (ultimate layout). Stage 1 comprises a total shopping centre of 49,475 sqm and a provision of ‘shop’ floorspace of 43,254 sqm.

Brands at Woodgrove include:

Kmart

Coles

Woolworths

Big W

Bunnings

Centrelink

Blockbuster

Dan Murphy’s

McDonalds, KFC and Red Rooster.

Mr Ganly provided evidence that:

The Melton AC Strategy also fails to acknowledge that the scale of NAC envisaged at Botanica Springs would be unprecedented in Melbourne’s growth areas. To my knowledge, there is no existing centre in these areas which contains two full‐line supermarkets and no centre which has retail floorspace of 15,000 sqm or more.

The danger, then, is that the Botanica Springs NAC could be developed for purposes which are contrary to the orderly planning and distribution of NACs within Melton. As an example, a Discount Department Store or other higher‐order retail anchor could trade on the site in conjunction with one supermarket and within the 5.12 ha of land to be rezoned.

Such an unintended consequence would have the potential to significantly disrupt Melton’s hierarchy of activity centres.

Maintaining a retail hierarchy is not an end in itself. Restricting private investment to favour some locations (and inevitably some land owners) over others should only be done when there is clear community benefit in doing so. The benefit might be from:

a better distribution of services ‘on the ground’ with an aggregation of services in one centre providing more convenient access for people

a more efficient transport network

‘investor certainty’, supporting investment in better locations.

State level changes in policy in Plan Melbourne and to the planning tools available with the new commercial zones makes it clear in my mind that preservation of existing hierarchies at a local level does not have the priority it once had. Removing floorspace caps from Commercial Zones would seem to indicate that competition in existing metropolitan areas is seen to deliver more benefit than trying to manage investment to conform to an established hierarchy.


Page 20 of 22

This is not a proposal for a major activity centre in direct competition with Woodgrove. If it were, issues of the retail hierarchy would need to be fully considered. No one is suggesting that the intended role of the new centre is anything but a neighbourhood centre.

Mr Nott identified that the site is not large enough for a Discount Department Store (DDS) with the normal complement of supermarkets, speciality stores and non‐retail activities. Investment in a DDS was seen to be highly unlikely since:

… there will not be a sufficient catchment. A DDS would require 35,000 people in its catchment and even at full development, the catchment for Botanica Springs would be 22,000 and this not until beyond 2040.

For those people east of Coburns Road, Woodgrove will be the nearer centre and will have a much wider range of stores, including two DDSs.

Investing in a DDS would leave little room for the more lucrative specialty stores, or the second supermarket that would be in demand by the catchment residents.

Mr Ganly saw a danger that a range of a smaller establishments that compete with the offer at Woodgrove could establish in the centre. It is not clear to me that such a retail offer could be established under the provisions of the DPO, and it is not clear to me that such competition would not deliver net community benefit.

Council itself wants to prevent any development on this site usurping the proper role of a neighbourhood centre and the hierarchy.

The exhibited control required a development plan that described uses consistent with the role of an activity centre. Council submitted:

It is important that the debate in respect of this amendment not be clouded by supermarket or retail competition or competitors. Activity centres are important for community development not just because they accommodate retail, but because they also provide a range of offices, community facilities, public spaces and the like. While demand is sometime referenced to a capacity to accommodate a full‐line supermarket in truth it is the provision of these other services that will make places liveable and provide facilities that truly benefit and differentiate communities.

In this instance the proposal by QIC to constrain the NAC, possibly for competitive reasons, will also constrain the provision of other vital community services that may not be provided on a smaller NAC and secondary site.

3.2.5 Is rezoning premature?

QIC submitted that approval of the exhibited Amendment would:

prejudice the strategic planning for the area

in particular prejudice the preparation of the Melton West PSP.

Council submitted:

In order for QIC to substantiate an argument that the Amendment is premature, it is not enough to merely assert that there is a future strategic process intended to occur. Planning does not support the notion that future


Page 21 of 22

Structure Planning should be viewed as a panacea3 that would justify stasis in decision making including strategic planning.

Rather, to establish prematurity in a form that would warrant alteration of a decision‐making or recommendation process such as that before this Panel, it must be demonstrated that in fact some substantive planning harm will accrue in the event that the Amendment first in line proceeds.

I do not see any planning harm arising from the Amendment proceeding. I am satisfied that there is no effective strategic choice on the distribution of neighbourhood centres in this area given the geography and the development to date. The die has been cast, and proceeding with the Amendment will not close off what might have been a better outcome for the community. On the contrary, I agree with Council that not proceeding might close off the option of a well‐designed neighbourhood centre of an appropriate size for the area.

I conclude that the Amendment is not premature.

3.3 Changes to the Development Plan Overlay Schedule

3.3.1 Ensuring the proposed centres remains a neighbourhood centre

Council submits that the area of land to be rezoned C1Z is appropriate.

This position is supported in the expert witness statement of Tim Nott, which states that:

… the site should be big enough but no more in order to allow adequate provision of neighbourhood level services for the expected population but not to encourage a level of service that would take the centre to the next level in the hierarchy.

In order to place this issue beyond all doubt the Council suggested amended wording that would prevent, on any basis the establishment of a discount department store.

In practice there would be insufficient catchment to augment the development of such a store. On the proposed wording of the Schedule it would be prohibited.

Therefore once rezoned the land will develop on a needs basis determined by the market. There is no incentive to provide more floorspace than the market will bear.

That is a supermarket is likely to develop early and if and when a proprietor considers that a further supermarket can be accommodated it will. If in the prevailing circumstances the highest and best use of the land is accommodation or mixed use then the market will determine this also.

Under the structure of the Amendment the indicative plan submitted with the application has no weight but it represents an illustration of how the land may be developed. In practice the expansion of the site is appropriately challenged by the area to be rezoned.

3 See Golden Ridge v Whitehorse CC (Mitcham Towers) [2004] VCAT 1706 (7 September 2004), paragraph 72.


Page 22 of 22

The materials surrounding the new commercial zones consistently provide that no cap should be included in metropolitan C1Z areas and these should not be sought to be imposed by DPOs.

This is appropriate and if a development plan was submitted which challenged the notion of the site as a neighbourhood activity centre then this would be rejected – as it must be – because the Schedule mandates this outcome.

In preparation for the hearing and having regard to the submissions and expert evidence, Council recommends that some minor drafting changes be made to improve the operation of the DPO Schedule 18.

The first change limits the nature of preliminary applications that can be made in the absence of an approved development plan. This means that the developer cannot submit a permit application that is other than temporary in nature.

The second change builds upon the notion of what a neighbourhood centre is by mandating that a discount department store cannot be constructed.

These changes are reasonable and had support at the Hearing.

I recommend:

In DPO Schedule 18 change the second paragraph of Clause 1.0 to read: 1.

Where no Development Plan has been approved, the responsible authority may grant a permit for temporary use and development or minor buildings and works provided that Council is satisfied that the use or buildings and works will not prejudice the preparation of a Development Plan.

In DPO Schedule 18 change the third dot point of Clause 2.0 to read: 2.

A mix of appropriate uses on the site consistent with the role of a neighbourhood activity centre, which excludes provision of a discount department store.

3.3.2 Public transport

Public Transport Victoria sough changes to the wording of the DPO Schedule in relation to transport infrastructure. This change is reasonable and reflects a more realistic approach to public transport infrastructure.

I recommend:

In DPO Schedule 18 change the first dot point under the heading ‘traffic 3.management’ of Clause 2.0 to read:

Public transport integration, connections and stops including potential provision for bus stops and shelters in locations, within and adjoining the Neighbourhood Activity Centre, approved by Public Transport Victoria, at no cost and to the satisfaction of Public Transport Victoria.

Planning and Environment Act 1987 - City of Melton · 2016-03-01 · Planning and Environment Act...

Documents

Transcript of Planning and Environment Act 1987 - City of Melton · 2016-03-01 · Planning and Environment Act...