kaufland stores in victoria advisory committee 1-3 ... · kaufland stores in victoria advisory...

KAUFLAND STORES IN VICTORIA ADVISORY COMMITTEE

1-3 GLADSTONE ROAD DANDENONG

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE BY ANDREW CLARKE ON PLANNING ISSUES

Prepared for Kaufland Australia Pty Ltd

NOVEMBER 2018

Matrix Planning Australia Pty Ltd A . C . N . 0 9 6 7 4 1 5 5 2

2 n d F l o o r , 5 0 B u d d S t r e e t C o l l i n g w o o d V i c t o r i a 3 0 6 6

T e l : + 6 1 ( 3 ) 9 4 1 9 3 2 2 2 Fa x : + 6 1 ( 3 ) 9 4 1 9 3 2 4 4


P18018-1

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION: PRACTICE NOTE – EXPERT EVIDENCE .................................................................. 1

2 SUBJECT SITE & ENVIRONS ............................................................................................................. 2

3 THE PROPOSAL ............................................................................................................................... 6

3.1 KAUFLAND STORES IN VICTORIA ..................................................................................................... 6

3.2 THE DANDENONG PROPOSAL ......................................................................................................... 7

4 PLANNING POLICIES & CONTROLS ................................................................................................. 8

4.1 PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK ..................................................................................................... 8

4.2 LOCAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK ........................................................................................... 9

4.2.1 Municipal Strategic Statement ........................................................................................ 9

4.2.2 Local Planning Policies ................................................................................................... 10

4.2.2.1 Urban Design in Commercial and Industrial Areas Policy ..................................... 13

4.2.2.1 Advertising Signs Policy ......................................................................................... 13

4.3 EXISTING PLANNING CONTROLS ................................................................................................... 13

4.3.1 Zoning ............................................................................................................................ 13

4.3.2 Overlays ......................................................................................................................... 14

4.4 PARTICULAR PROVISIONS ............................................................................................................ 14

5 OTHER STRATEGIC PLANNING DOCUMENTS ................................................................................ 15

5.1 AMENDMENT VC100 ................................................................................................................. 15

6 PROPOSED AMENDMENT ............................................................................................................. 18

7 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS ....................................................................................................... 19

7.1 USE AND POLICY ........................................................................................................................ 19

7.2 BUILT FORM AND LAND USE IMPACTS ........................................................................................... 21

8 RESPONSE TO SUBMISSIONS ........................................................................................................ 22

9 CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................................. 25


P18018-1

1

1 INTRODUCTION: PRACTICE NOTE – EXPERT EVIDENCE

Name and Address of Expert

Andrew Clarke

Director Matrix Planning Australia 2nd Floor, 50 Budd Street Collingwood Vic 3066.

Qualifications of Expert

Bachelor of Town and Regional Planning (Hons), University of Melbourne, 1982

Member, Planning Institute of Australia

Refer Curriculum Vitae at Attachment 1.

Any Private or Business Relationship between the Expert Witness and the Party for Whom

the Report is Prepared

None.

Instructions

Written instructions from Planning and Property Partners Pty Ltd acting on behalf of Kaufland

Australia Pty Ltd and dated 2 November 2018 included at Attachment 2 to this report.

Facts, Matters and Assumptions

Facts, matters and assumptions on which opinions expressed in the report are based are set

out in the report.

Documents and Materials Taken Into Account

The documents and any literature or other materials taken into account in preparing the

report are identified in the report. I have based my assessment on the exhibited plans

(Revision A1). I understand that based on input from a range of consultants Kaufland

Australia Pty Ltd has prepared an amending set of plans (Revision ACP).

Examinations, Tests and Investigations

All examinations, tests and investigations have been undertaken by me.

Summary of Opinion

A summary of opinion is included in the Conclusion.

Provisional Opinion

There are no provisional opinions.

Relevant Questions Outside of Expertise

There are no matters of relevance outside of my expertise.


P18018-1

2

Whether the report is incomplete or inaccurate in any respect

As far as I am aware the report is not incomplete or inaccurate in any respect.

Declaration

I have made all the enquiries which I believe are desirable and appropriate, and that no

matters of significance which I regard as relevant have to my knowledge been withheld from

the Committee.

2 SUBJECT SITE & ENVIRONS

The subject site, 1-3 Gladstone Road Dandenong is a large irregularly shaped lot located at

the north-east corner of Gladstone Road, Princes Highway and David Street Dandenong (refer

Map 1 and Aerial Photograph). The site has a frontage to Gladstone Road of 188.09 metres,

to Princes Highway of 54.89 metres and to David Street of 103.29 metres. Site area is 3.061

ha.

The site is relatively flat with a fall of approximately 1.5 metres from its south-west down to

its eastern boundary.

The site was previously used and developed as a Bunnings Warehouse. The former Bunnings

building was demolished in early 2018. Some remnant trees in the former car park remain.

The site is vacant.

The subject site is affected by a carriageway easement generally following its northern and

eastern boundaries known as Gateway Boulevard that provides perimeter access between

Gladstone Road and David Street.

Surrounding land uses include:

A carpet warehouse to the immediate north;

Warehousing/factoryettes to the east across Gateway Boulevard and along the north

side of David Street;

Residential uses on the south side of David Street and the south-west side of Princes

Highway;

Factoryettes along the west side of Gladstone Road, many of which accommodate auto

repair related uses.


P18018-1

3

Map 1: Subject site

Subject site from Princes Hwy


P18018-1

4

Aerial Photograph


P18018-1

5

Subject site from Gladstone Road

Subject site from Gateway Boulevard (north) looking south

North side of Gateway Boulevard

West side of Gladstone Road opposite the subject site


P18018-1

6

Factoryettes on east side of Gateway Boulevard near David Street

South-west side of Princes Hwy opposite subject site

3 THE PROPOSAL

3.1 KAUFLAND STORES IN VICTORIA

As noted in the Advisory Committee’s Terms of Reference, Kaufland is a German based

grocery chain, and a subsidiary of the Schwarz Group, the world’s fourth largest retailer.

I am instructed Kaufland currently operates in 28 countries across 11,730 stores and employs

more than 400,000 people.

The store format that is proposed in Australia as Kaufland stores will be a large full line

supermarket, larger than the largest Woolworths and Coles supermarkets.


P18018-1

7

The composition of each store is expected to be 70% food and groceries, 10% packaged liquor

and 20% in non-food and non-grocery categories.

I am instructed that the Kaufland offer will bring:

1. Regional sourcing. Some products will be sourced from the surrounding region to

maximise fresh produce;

2. A new approach to fresh food departments including direct delivery from producers and

multiple daily deliveries of fresh produce;

3. A new tier of labels. Kaufland will add to the available brand labels currently available in

supermarkets by introducing additional international brands which are not currently

available in Australia;

4. A range of non-food general merchandise items, such as crockery and cutlery, cookware,

small electrical appliances and white goods and seasonal promotions.

3.2 THE DANDENONG PROPOSAL

The proposal involves the construction and use of a new Kaufland supermarket.

The gross floor area of the new building will be 6,680m².

Component activities and their leasable floor area are proposed as:

Supermarket: 3,610m²

Liquor: 354m²

Tenancy 1: 224m²

Tenancy 2: 34m²

Administration Areas: 307m²

Food Hall: 278m²

Outdoor Eatery: 136m²

Back of House: 1,178m²

TOTAL LEASABLE 6,121m²

Non leasable areas include:

Entry: 53m²

Mall Area: 343m²

Public Toilets: 83m²

Services: 169m²

TOTAL “NON LEASABLE” 648m²


P18018-1

8

A total of 456 car spaces is proposed accessed from Gladstone Road and David Street along

Gateway Boulevard.

Inward loading access is from Gladstone Road and Gateway Boulevard to a loading bay near

David Street. Loading exit is from Gateway Boulevard to David Street.

Building height ranges from 6.75 – 11.0 metres.

An integrated signage pattern including Kaufland’s corporate livery is proposed. A 22m high

3-sided pylon sign is proposed in the car park near the Princes Highway frontage (presumably

internally illuminated).

I am instructed that the proposed hours of operation are 7:00 am – midnight each day.

Deliveries are proposed as up to 10 during the store opening hours and one overnight

(midnight – 7:00 am).

4 PLANNING POLICIES & CONTROLS

4.1 PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK

The Planning Policy Framework is the enunciation of State and regional planning policies

common to all Victorian new format planning schemes and their respective regions. State

and regional planning policies relevant to this matter include:

Clause 11: 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. Planning is to recognise the need for, and as far as practicable

contribute towards various outcomes including diversity of choice.

Clause 11.03-1S: Planning for Places – Activity Centres. The objective seeks to

encourage the concentration of major retail, residential, commercial, administrative,

entertainment and cultural developments into activity centres that are highly

accessible to the community.

Clause 13.05-1S: Noise Abatement. The strategy seeks to ensure that development is

not prejudiced and community amenity is not reduced by noise emissions, using a

range of building design, urban design and land use separation techniques as

appropriate to the land use functions and character of the area.

Clause 15.01-4R: Healthy Neighbourhoods – Metropolitan Melbourne. The strategy

seeks to create a city of 20 minute neighbourhoods that give people the ability to meet

most of their everyday needs within a 20 minute walk, cycle or local public transport

trip from their home.

Clause 17.01-1S: Employment - Diversified Economy. The relevant strategy seeks to

facilitate growth in a range of employment sectors, including health, education, retail,


P18018-1

9

tourism, knowledge industries and professional and technical services based on the

emerging and existing strengths of each region.

Clause 17.02-1S: Commercial – Business. The objective seeks to encourage

development that meets the community’s needs for retail, entertainment, office and

other commercial services. Relevant strategies are:

“ Ensure commercial facilities are aggregated and provide net community

benefit in relation to their viability, accessibility and efficient use of

infrastructure.

Locate commercial facilities in existing or planned activity centres.

Provide new convenience shopping facilities to provide for the needs of the

local population in new residential areas and within, or immediately

adjacent to, existing commercial centres.”

Clause 17.02-2S: Out-of-Centre Development. The objective seeks to manage out-of-

centre development. Relevant strategies are:

“ Discourage proposals for expansion of single use retail, commercial and

recreational facilities outside activity centres.

Give preference to locations in or on the border of an activity centre for

expansion of single use retail, commercial and recreational facilities.”

“ Ensure that out-of-centre proposals are only considered where the

proposed use or development is of net benefit to the community in the

region served by the proposal or provides small scale shopping

opportunities that meet the needs of local residents and workers in

convenient locations.”

Clause 18.02-2S: Public Transport. The objective is to facilitate greater use of public

transport and promote increased development close to high-quality public transport

routes.

Clause 18.02-4S: Car Parking. The objective seeks to ensure an adequate supply of car

parking that is appropriately designed and located.

4.2 LOCAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK

4.2.1 Municipal Strategic Statement

The Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) is the expression of the planning vision, objectives

and strategies at the municipal level of consideration.

Clause 21.03-2 of the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme MSS identifies Central

Dandenong as a preferred destination for high quality government services, housing,

commercial, retail and entertainment activities.


P18018-1

10

On the Strategic Framework Plan (refer Map 2) the subject site is identified as “Commercial

2 Zone – Encourage Integrated Ind/Com Uses/Limited Stand Alone Offices”. The subject site

is not identified as a principal or major activity centre.

Clause 21.04-2 deals with Retail, Commerce and Entertainment. Under the sub-heading

Economic Issues the MSS identifies that Greater Dandenong’s retail, commercial, industrial

and entertainment uses provide a range of jobs. Strengthening these assets will attract

visitors from outside the municipality and improve employment opportunities. With suitable

promotion, they could realise increased economic benefits for the City.

The first objective under Clause 21.04-2 is to promote and further develop central

Dandenong as the pre-eminent Metropolitan Activity Centre for retail, commercial,

entertainment and community services in Melbourne’s south east. Relevant strategies to

implement this objective include:

“ Focus major retail, office and entertainment uses of regional significance

in central Dandenong.

Encourage and facilitate clustering of commercial, entertainment and

community facilities.”

The second objective seeks to reinforce and develop the role, character and identity of

activity and neighbourhood centres outside of central Dandenong. Relevant strategies

include:

“ Focus major new retail activities to Springvale, Parkmore and Noble Park

activity centres and in neighbourhood centres located throughout the

municipality.

Encourage additional retail diversity that complements the core retail

function.”

One of the areas for further strategic work is the preparation of a comprehensive Retail

Strategy focusing on demand for additional bulky goods/restricted retail development and

corresponding Commercial 2 zoned land.

On the Strategic Retail/Commercial Framework the subject site is not identified as being in

an activity centre at any level of the retail hierarchy (refer Map 3).

Clause 21.04-3 deals with Industrial land. The fourth objective seeks to encourage the

integration of commercial and industrial developments in existing Commercial 2 Zones.

4.2.2 Local Planning Policies

There are two Local Planning Policies relevant to this matter:

Clause 22.03: Urban Design in Commercial and Industrial Areas; and

Clause 22.1: Advertising Signs Policy.


P18018-1

11

Map 2: Strategic Framework Plan


P18018-1

12

Map 3: Retail/Commercial Framework


P18018-1

13

4.2.2.1 Urban Design in Commercial and Industrial Areas Policy

The policy applies to various zones including the Commercial 2 Zone. The policy prescribes

minimum building setbacks and landscape areas along Road Zone Category 1 (9 metres) and

minimum width of garden strips to any road (3 metres in this location) as well as a formula

for determining height and setbacks of a building from land in a residential zone.

4.2.2.1 Advertising Signs Policy

The policy includes broad guidelines for signs including for car based stand-alone

developments (Clause 22.11-3.4)

4.3 EXISTING PLANNING CONTROLS

4.3.1 Zoning

Under the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme, the subject site is in a Commercial 2 Zone

(C2Z, refer Map 4).

Map 4: Zoning


P18018-1

14

The purposes of the Commercial 2 Zone are:

“ To implement the Municipal Planning Strategy and the Planning Policy

Framework.

To encourage commercial areas for offices, appropriate manufacturing

and industries, bulky goods retailing, other retail uses, and associated

business and commercial services.

To ensure that uses do not affect the safety and amenity of adjacent, more

sensitive uses.

A supermarket exceeding 1,800 m² is a Section 2 permit required use and is subject to the

following conditions:

The leasable floor area must not exceed 1,800 square metres unless on land within the

City of Greater Geelong or within an urban growth boundary in metropolitan

Melbourne.

The site must adjoin, or have access to, a road in a Road Zone.

Both conditions are satisfied.

Shop is a Section 1 no permit required use subject to the following conditions:

Must adjoin, or be on the same land as, a supermarket when the use commences.

The combined leasable floor area for all shops adjoining or on the same land as the

supermarket must not exceed 500 square metres.

The site must adjoin, or have access to, a road in a Road Zone.

The bottle shop (if not regarded as part of the supermarket), the two tenancies and the food

court have a combined leasable area exceeding 500m², so in my view a permit is required.

The other two conditions are satisfied.

A planning permit is required for buildings and works.

4.3.2 Overlays

No planning scheme overlays apply to the subject site.

4.4 PARTICULAR PROVISIONS

Particular Provisions relevant to this matter include:

Clause 52.05: Signs

Clause 52.27: Licensed Premises.

Both provisions require permission for signs and licensed premises.


P18018-1

15

5 OTHER STRATEGIC PLANNING DOCUMENTS

5.1 AMENDMENT VC100

Prior to the approval of Amendment VC100 the subject site was in a Business 4 Zone, which

was primarily directed towards bulky goods retailing, manufacturing industry and associated

business services. Mainstream convenience shops including supermarket and most forms of

shops were generally prohibited in the zone.

Amendment VC100 came into operation on the 15 July 2013. It was significant in that it

deleted the Business Zones and substituted the Commercial 2 Zone for the Business 4 Zone.

The present controls on shop and supermarket were introduced which removed their

prohibition and made them permit required uses.

A major reason for this change was the Commonwealth Government Productivity

Commission Inquiry Report (November 2011): Economic Structure and Performance of the

Australian Retail Industry. Chapter 8 of that report which exceeds 40 pages provides a

detailed discussion on the role that planning and zoning regulation has on the retail sector.

Some of the Commission’s findings include:

“ Prescriptive requirements for activity centres can limit the availability of

sites in those centres for different business types — that is, they can be

exclusionary in character. (In the same way, prescriptive requirements for

bulky goods retailers located outside activity centres — such as

restrictions on business type or minimum retail area — are also

exclusionary). These exclusionary effects tend to be more prevalent at the

lower end of the activity centre hierarchy. For example, local centres (such

as a neighbourhood or village centre) may exclude the operation of a

slightly larger grocery retailer if its products are deemed to provide for the

weekly rather than day-to-day needs of local residents. In addition, given

local centres are typically promoted as destinations for small scale

commercial or retail activities, there are sometimes maximum floor space

restrictions to prevent the establishment of larger businesses.

While prescriptive requirements provide some clarity for developers, they

can also make it difficult for retailers (especially those with new business

models) to find suitable sites and thus enter the retail market. At the same

time, they also prevent or delay existing retailers from modifying or

expanding their businesses — foregoing potentially higher returns and/or

incurring higher costs by having to conform with regulatory requirements.


P18018-1

16

In the current retail environment, where there is increasing competition

from online retailers, and changing consumer preferences more generally

regarding their shopping experience, the extent to which planning

regulations should be used to restrict new businesses entering markets, or

even to preserve existing activity centres, is increasingly problematic. To

prevent developments that are perhaps more closely matched to evolving

market requirements may undermine the ability of retailers to respond to

consumer preferences and thus accelerate the decline of existing centres.”

(page 219).

“ To minimise the anti-competitive effects of zoning, policy makers need to

ensure that areas where retailing is located are both sufficiently large (in

terms of total retail floor space) and sufficiently broad (in terms of

allowable uses) to allow new and innovative firms to enter local markets

in a manner consistent with planning objectives. In other words, where

possible, retail areas should be large enough to include a number of

competitors and broad enough to ensure that the business models of

these competitors are not unduly constrained (that is, the area allows a

wide range of business types). Broadening the zones — for example, by

limiting industrial areas to narrow high-impact industrial uses and

creating broad employment zones which can include commercial, light

industrial, retail and even high-density residential where appropriate —

and reducing prescriptive land use conditions will free up land and make

it available to its most valued uses.” (page 224).

“ Planning and zoning regulations can serve valuable social purposes, such

as: protecting property owners from expropriation of their land values by

reducing the proximity of incompatible developments; and enhancing the

environment and managing town and city development in a way that

reduces costs to the general community (such as by reducing noise and air

pollution). But they may at times also serve as a barrier to entry to retail

markets by delaying, restricting, or even preventing the entry of new

competitors, or unduly raising the cost of starting new business activities

or expanding existing businesses in a particular area.

Striking the right balance between wider planning objectives and retail

competition involves a weighing of costs and benefits to the community.

However, in general, there is little to indicate that impacts on competition

— or an analysis that the benefits of the desired planning outcomes have

been weighed against the costs of restricted competition — are given

serious consideration by governments when establishing planning and

zoning regulations for the community (PC 2011b).

If there is a scarcity of appropriately zoned retail space — that is, some

retail stores are excluded from the area because of insufficient space — or

there are large numbers of prescriptive requirements which unjustifiably

restrict competition, planning and zoning laws can have a harmful effect

by creating local retail monopolies.” (pages 235-236).


P18018-1

17

“ The Commission suggests that if allowable uses (particularly those

relating to business definitions and/or processes) were less prescriptive,

this would facilitate new and innovative businesses (retail or otherwise) to

locate in existing business zones. Rezoning and other changes to local

authority plans to accommodate various business models would then

become unnecessary.” (page 240)

“ While the proposed Victorian planning reforms to restricted retail

premises are a step in the right direction, in the longer term there should

be no distinction between different retail formats for planning purposes.

In other words, general retail and bulky goods outlets should be treated

the same under state and territory planning schemes — ideally, no retail

format should be able to use planning and zoning regulations to gain a

competitive advantage over others. In the longer term, the planning

objective should be to have one ‘open zone’ or multiple-use zone where a

broad variety of land uses can be considered — such as retail, commercial

and even some low-impact industrial uses.” (page 241).

“ RECOMMENDATION 8.1

State, territory and local governments should (where responsible)

broaden business zoning and significantly reduce prescriptive planning

requirements to allow the location of all retail formats in existing business

zones to ensure that competition is not needlessly restricted. In the longer

term, most business types (retail or otherwise) should be able to locate in

the one business zone.” (page 244).

“ Preserving an existing centre that may generate lower net community

benefits appears preferable for some jurisdictions, rather than approving

an out-of-centre development that may generate higher net community

benefits — to mitigate the risk of any social costs associated with ‘dead’

town centres.

But if, as a result of a new out-of-centre development, the existing centre

declined, the conclusion which should be drawn would be that the

community prefers the mix of services the new development is able to

offer. In this respect, it is worth pointing out that the new development

cannot ‘put the existing centre out of business’, but people within the

community can — by withholding their patronage from the existing centre

which does not provide them with what they want.” (page 245).


P18018-1

18

“ An out-of-centre retail location should be considered by planning

authorities where the proposed use or development is likely to generate a

net benefit to the community, even if there are likely to be some

detrimental impacts to an existing activity centre or to the commercial

interests of individual businesses within that centre (such as likely loss of

trade). Such public and private impacts can often be transient as existing

activity centres (and the businesses within those centres) counter the new

competition by changing their facilities, services, retail offerings and

business models — that is the essence of the competitive process.” (page

251).

As a result largely of this report1 the then Business Zones were replaced with two Commercial

Zones.

However, that was the extent of the changes made by VC100 with respect to retail activity.

There was a statutory change to the zones, but no policy change at State or local level. In the

present case the subject site has been included in a Commercial 2 Zone which allows for a

supermarket and associated shops, but the policy settings, at least at the local level have not

changed and still reflect the situation that existed before the introduction of Amendment

VC100. That is, the policy settings still reflect the previous Business 4 zoning wherein the

subject site is not identified as being in an activity centre. Insofar as the Victorian planning

system is policy driven, and zones are the instruments that implement policy rather than

directing policy, there is a dysfunction between the statutory changes introduced by

Amendment VC100 and policy which remains unchanged.

6 PROPOSED AMENDMENT

The draft planning scheme amendment seeks to include the land in a Specific Controls

Overlay, with the use and development of the land as a Kaufland store controlled by an

Incorporated Document.

The Specific Controls Overlay was recently introduced by Amendment VC148 and is intended

to replace the Specific Sites and Exclusions Particular Provision. It is similar but the overlay

provides greater transparency by identifying the area subject to the Incorporated Document

on a planning scheme map.

I have perused the Incorporated Document. Its content is similar to a planning permit. It

provides for the following:

It provides for the subject site to be used as proposed without a permit;

It requires the land to be developed and used generally in accordance with specified

plans and detailed endorsed plans;

It contains conditions relating to:

1 Paragraph 15 of Amendment VC100 Explanatory Report.


P18018-1

19

Compliance with SEPP N-1;

Preparation of a waste management plan;

Preparation of a loading management plan;

Preparation of a landscape plan;

Traffic mitigation and management report and implementation;

Preparation of a façade and materials strategy;

ESD report and implementation;

Preparation of a construction management plan;

Signage;

Expiry of control.

As a starting point, I have no matters of substance that should also be included. Other

matters may arise as a result of submissions (particularly some conditions requested by

Government agencies) and during the course of public hearings.

The purpose of the Specific Controls Overlay is:

“ To apply specific controls designed to achieve a particular land use and

development outcome in extraordinary circumstances.”

The proposed uses and development could have been dealt with as a permit application as

none are prohibited. However, the proposal forms one of six initial sites intended for the

Kaufland entry into Victoria, some of which are currently prohibited, so a relatively simple

and standardised approvals approach has been adopted for all sites. The extraordinary

circumstance is the almost simultaneous establishment of a number of new format

supermarket stores entering the Victorian market.

7 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

The proposal raises the following planning considerations:

1. Appropriateness of the use at this location from a planning policy perspective;

2. Built form and land use impacts to neighbours.

7.1 USE AND POLICY

State and regional and local policy strongly support the aggregation of retail facilities into

activity centres.

As I have identified in Section 6 of this report, despite Amendment VC100 removing retail

prohibitions over the subject site policy has not been changed. Depending on how an activity

centre is defined (whether by zone or policy), the proposal can be considered an out-of-


P18018-1

20

centre development if the Commercial 2 Zone is not regarded as an activity centre.

In terms of the State policy for out-of-centre development, single use retail facilities are

discouraged outside of activity centres. In my view, the proposal is not a single use retail

facility because:

The product range is wider than other Australian based supermarket chains, for both

grocery and non-grocery items. Multiple purchase options that would otherwise only

be available from different stores are now proposed in a single outlet;

In addition to the supermarket, 2 specialty shops, a food hall with associated outdoor

dining area and a bottle shop are proposed.

The other test under State policy is whether the proposal is of net community benefit in the

region served or provides small-scale shopping opportunities that meets the needs of local

residents and workers in convenient locations.

In my view the proposal is not a small-scale shopping opportunity.

In terms of net community benefit, the benefits of the proposal are:

Increased jobs associated with construction;

Ongoing jobs once the facility is operational;

Increased choice and diversity of the retail offer currently available;

Increased competition with expected price advantages for customers.

I have assumed at the time of writing this report that there will be no loss of other nearby

supermarkets as a result of the proposal and separate evidence to this effect will be provided

to the Committee.

The disadvantages of the proposal are:

An inconsistency with activity centre policy with an associated spatial fragmentation

of the retail offer.

The inconsistency with activity centre policy needs to be considered in the context that

Amendment VC100 itself represents a loosening of activity centre policy. In this regard, a

zone that contemplates supermarkets and shops such as the Commercial 2 Zone can be

regarded as an activity centre, despite the policy settings indicating this location is not an

activity centre. That is, the Commercial 2 Zone can already accommodate a supermarket of

1,800m² plus 500m² of associated shops without the need for land use permission.

Whilst it is difficult to quantifiably compare the relative benefits and disbenefits, provided

existing activity centres in the region continue to perform, then the disadvantages of an out

of centre location are negligible compared to the benefits of a new retail operator providing

the above benefits.

In addition, I note the proposal replaces a former retail use of the site of a different type, but

nevertheless in a “big box” format. I note that the Committee will be receiving expert urban

design evidence on the proposed built form.


P18018-1

21

I note the VCAT decision Vicinity Centres Pty Ltd v Mornington Peninsula SC [2017] VCAT 1802,

the Tribunal determined at paragraphs 68-69 in relation to a new 4,250m² Coles supermarket

in a non-activity centre location in a Commercial 2 Zone that:

“ We agree that the subject land would operate as a convenience centre,

assisted by the high level of accessibility along main roads. We further

agree with the applicants that the proposed supermarket will create a

node of retail and commercial activity. That will occur on land that is

currently, and has historically been, used for commercial land use

(including the former use of the subject land as an antique centre and then

the Masters store).

However, we are not persuaded to the view that a new activity centre is

being established. The subject land would largely be used for convenience

supermarket shopping trips but without associated facilities found in the

activity centres such as speciality retailing and entertainment.”

My review of aerial photography of nearby larger activity centres (Dandenong, Springvale,

Noble Park and Parkmore) indicates no available sites in commercial zones in excess of 3 ha.

7.2 BUILT FORM AND LAND USE IMPACTS

The proposed building is contemporary but nevertheless uncomplicated in design. External

building materials are predominantly timber pattern and dark grey cladding and glass.

The built form is well set back from existing dwellings in David Street.

The location of the proposed road access arrangements for cars and delivery vehicles are

unchanged from the present, noting that the site was previously in retail use as a Bunnings

Warehouse.

I note the Incorporated Document does not prescribe general hours of operation (noting

above they are proposed as 7:00 am – midnight, daily). Given the proximity of nearby

dwellings in David Street, such a control may be appropriate. I understand acoustic evidence

will be provided to the Committee and this should provide advice on whether trading hours

should be regulated. If such a control was proposed it should be qualified by words such as

“Except with the further consent of the responsible authority,…”.

The loading bay and access to David Street is proximate to dwellings fronting the south side

of David Street. I understand acoustic evidence will be provided to the Committee and this

should provide advice on whether loading and unloading times should be regulated.

In terms of pedestrian access I note that there are bus routes along both Princes Highway

and Gladstone Road. Pedestrian footpaths are proposed in the vicinity of two bus stops

proximate to the site and from the three road frontages to the store entry. The site integrates

seamlessly and with a high level of pedestrian connectivity with the surrounding

neighbourhood without the need for additional off-site pedestrian infrastructure.


P18018-1

22

In terms of advertising, the advertising theme appears to be well integrated. However, the

22m high pylon sign appears to me to be unnecessarily high. Again, I understand separate

urban design advice will be provided to the Committee.

I understand that parking is provided at rates higher than the minimum planning scheme

requirements. An over-provision is of no particular concern. An under-provision would be

more of a concern.

8 RESPONSE TO SUBMISSIONS

Submission D01: Pagan Barrett-Woodbridge

Hours of operation

Refer to Section 7.2 of this report.

Rubbish

The Incorporated Document requires a waste management plan.

Bottle shop/liquor sales social issues

I simply observe that a bottle shop is a standard adjunct to a supermarket.

Traffic

Refer to separate traffic evidence.

Signage

I agree the 22 metre high pylon sign is unnecessarily excessive.

Submission D02: The GPT Group

Planning policy/out of centre development


Lack of economic impact assessment

I understand economic expert evidence will be provided to the Advisory Committee in

relation to each new Kaufland store.

Submission D03: Dandenong Community Association

Landscaping concerns

I understand separate landscaping evidence will be provided to the Advisory Committee.

ESD Issues

The Incorporated Document requires preparation of an ESD report and its implementation.

Lack of night time lighting

A requirement for a lighting plan could be included in the Incorporated Document.


P18018-1

23

Pedestrian Safety

Three footpaths are provided from each road frontage to the store entry.

Signage


Submission D04: Guy Di Domenico

Hours of operation and Loading Bay


Landscaping concerns

I understand separate landscaping evidence will be provided to the Advisory Committee.

Pedestrian Safety

Refer to separate traffic evidence.

Signage


Rubbish and abandoned trolleys

The Incorporated Document requires a waste management plan. It is customary for

supermarkets to arrange for abandoned trolley retrieval and this could be included as an

additional requirement in the Incorporated Document if considered necessary to do so.

Staff Cycling (EOT) Facilities

Refer to separate traffic engineering evidence.

Accessibility of Outdoor Eatery

I am unaware whether the outdoor eatery is accessible to the public at large. I expect it would

be accessible. In any event a separate outdoor plaza is now also proposed.

Submission D05: VicRoads

Additional Access Conditions


Submission D06: IGA Dandenong

Submission D07: Menzies Cellars

Increased competition, possible store closures, employment issues

The submissions raise principally economic competition arguments and I understand

economic evidence will be provided to the Advisory Committee.

Process

The process provides a public forum for written and verbal submissions.


P18018-1

24

Submission D08: Transport for Victoria

Upgrading of Gladstone Road bus stop


Submission D09: Greater Dandenong City Council

Planning Policy/out of centre development

Refer to Section 7.1 of this report

Visual Amenity and Safety

The extent of FC sheet cladding is now proposed to be reduced. Refer to separate urban

design evidence.

Signage

I agree the 22 metre high pylon sign is unnecessarily excessive. I consider the product signage

adds colour and visual interest to large expanses of wall without extending above the height

of the wall and is acceptable.

Pedestrian Connectivity

With pedestrian paths to the three street frontages I consider adequate provision is made

for pedestrian connectivity.

Traffic management


Landscaping

Refer to separate landscaping evidence.

ESD

The Incorporated Document requires an ESD report and its implementation to the

satisfaction of Council. The additional provisions requested could be included as additions

to this requirement.

Submission G01: EPA

Land Use Conflict

Refer to Section 7.2 of this report

SEPP N1

Compliance with SEPP N1 is included in the Incorporated Document.

Construction Management

The Incorporated Document requires a CMP. The specific matters raised could also be

itemised in the control.

Submission G02: Fastnet Consulting on behalf of Master Grocers Association

Planning Policy/out of centre development



P18018-1

25

No floor space cap

There is no absolute floor apace cap in the existing C2Z. Retail floor space cap prohibitions

are usually avoided in Metropolitan Melbourne commercial zones. In any event the

Incorporated Document requires the uses and development to be generally in accordance

with specified plans which specify floor areas for the various activities proposed.


The submission raises economic competition arguments and I understand economic

evidence will be provided to the Advisory Committee.

Submission G03: Ritchies Stores

Submission G04: Victorian Small Business Commission


The submissions raise principally economic competition arguments and I understand

economic evidence will be provided to the Advisory Committee.

Process

The process provides a public forum for written and verbal submissions.

9 CONCLUSIONS

I am of the view that:

1. In terms of the existing planning policy and control matrix the proposed Kaufland store

at Dandenong can be considered an out-of-centre development. The proposal will

deliver outcomes that result in a net community benefit.

2. Subject to acoustic evidence about loading and access arrangements there are no

adverse land use or built form impacts of the proposal to existing residential areas.

I have made all of the enquiries that I believe are desirable and appropriate and that no

matters of significance which I regard as relevant have to my knowledge, been withheld from

the Advisory Committee.

Andrew Clarke B.TRP (Hons.), MPIA

16 November 2018


P18018-1

1

ATTACHMENT 1: ANDREW CLARKE CURRICULUM VITAE


P18018-1

1

CURRICULUM VITAE

ANDREW CLARKE

OCCUPATION: Consultant Town Planner

DATE OF BIRTH: 9th July 1960

NATIONALITY: Australian

ACADEMIC QUALIFICATIONS:

Bachelor of Town and Regional Planning (Hons.), University of Melbourne, 1982

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS:

Corporate Member, Planning Institute of Australia

Member, Victorian Planning and Environmental Law Association

SUMMARY OF CAREER HISTORY:

Director, Matrix Planning Australia Pty Ltd, 2001-present

Planning Manager, Fisher Stewart Pty Ltd, 1995-2001

Senior Planner, SJB Planning Pty Ltd, 1993-1995

Senior Planner, Fisher Stewart Pty Ltd, 1992-1993

Town Planner/Senior Planner/Associate, Wilson Sayer Pty Ltd/Wilson Sayer Core Pty Ltd, 1982-1991

OVERVIEW OF EXPERIENCE AND EXPERTISE

Since 1982, Andrew Clarke has been employed as a consultant town planner, providing advice to private individuals

and firms, as well as Commonwealth, State and local government.

The particular expertise of Andrew Clarke has been in the area of planning and development approvals associated

with a range of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and institutional development projects.

Andrew regularly appears as an expert witness in planning panels, tribunals and courts. Between 1988 and 2015,

Andrew was regularly appointed by the Minister for Planning to sit on and chair planning panels and enquiries

including advisory committees, environment effects statements and planning scheme amendments.

Andrew is a former secretary (1990-91 and 1992-93) and chair (1993-94) of the Australian Association of Planning

Consultants (Victoria Division).

Andrew established Matrix Planning Australia Pty Ltd in June 2001 as a town planning consultancy.


P18018-1

2

Representative projects undertaken by Andrew under the Matrix Planning Australia Pty Ltd banner include:

Melbourne Cricket Ground Northern Stand Redevelopment for MCG5 Sports Architects on behalf of the

Melbourne Cricket Club and Melbourne Cricket Ground Trust (2001)

Central Creek Grasslands Residential Subdivision and Conservation Project for the Urban and Regional Land

Corporation (2001)

Pharmacy College, Redevelopment, Royal Parade Parkville for the City of Melbourne (2001)

Watt Road Mornington, Residential Rezoning and 100 Lot Subdivision for private client (2001-2002)

CSIRO Division of Petroleum Resources, Syndal, Subdivision Development, for CSIRO (2002)

Hutchison Telecommunications Mobile Phone Towers Visual Impact Assessment, Hoppers Crossing (2001)

Marlows Ltd, Marlows automotive outlets, Sunshine and Preston (2001-2002)

Melbourne Sports and Aquatic Centre, Stage 2 Redevelopment for 2006 Melbourne Commonwealth Games

(2002)

The Esplanade Hotel, St Kilda Redevelopment for the City of Port Phillip (2002)

Deakin University Melbourne Campus, Burwood, development control advice for Deakin University (2002)

BassGas Project Environmental Effects Statement Panel Inquiry Chair for Victorian Department of

Infrastructure (2002)

Cheltenham Green: Land Subdivision, Apartment and Townhouse Complex, Cheltenham for VicUrban

(2003) (2008 Winner Urban Development Institute of Australia (Vic) Award for Excellence in the category

of Urban Renewal Projects)

West Field Coal Mine Hazelwood Project, for International Power – Hazelwood (2004-2005)

Various School Building and Site Extensions for Brighton Grammar School (2004)

Parkside Gardens Residential Subdivision, Shepparton, for VicUrban (2004)

South Melbourne Supermarket and Mixed Use Commercial Development, for private client (2005)

Mortlake Gas Fired Power Station, for Origin Energy (2005-2006)

School Expansion Planning Scheme Amendment and Stage 1 Buildings Permit, for Donvale Christian College

(2005-2006) and Plenty Valley Christian College (2008-2009)

Princes Highway, Traralgon Bypass, for Department of Primary Industries (2007)

Shaw River Gas Fired Power Station and Gas Pipeline, for Santos Ltd (2009-2010)

Planning Controls Assessment, Nelson Place, Williamstown for Nelson Place Village Pty Ltd (2011)

Numerous Licensed Premises Amenity Impact Assessments (ongoing)

Numerous residential unit and land subdivision proposals for various private clients (ongoing)

Numerous highest and best use advices and opinions in relation to land acquisition and compensation cases


P18018-1

3

ATTACHMENT 2: INSTRUCTIONS