I I District Centre Review Proiect Report I Asupplement to Cities in the Suburbs: The District Centre Policy for the 7990s I i . I I I I I I I I I I I
Deportment of PIaMlngand I Housing
GoYMYTl8OI II ~ of VIctoria August 1992 I I DPU G LIBR A RY
111111111111 11 111 11111111111111111111 1111111111 111 I M0021745 I I
I Contents I 1. Members of the District Centre Review Project Team 1 . 2. Members of the District Centre Review 1 I Technical Advisory Committee 3. List of submitters 3
I 4. Summary of submissions 5 I 5. Policy references 33 I I I I I I I I
I IIlf.CO I
711 . 5522 9404241 0994 5 VIC :V Distirct centre review I supplement project report I D" . o -- D· J J
-1
]'. ' J J ? l J ......
.J ., J 'or ( J J .
! J
J , ] (.. ~~~2 . 0994 I 5 J I VIC:V ,! supplement. j , I 1. Members of the District Centre Review Proiect Team in I the Department of Planning and Housing
Peter McNabb, Project Leader I Gordon Edgar Lynne Jannan Tim Cottrell Russell Guest I Deidre Johnson Richard Walker I Malcolm Weller
2. Members of the District Centre Review - Technical Advisory CommiHee Cr James Barrett I City of Caulfield Municipal Offices Hawthorn Road I Caulfield 3162 Mary Crooks Chairwoman I Social Justice Consultative Council Department of the Premier and Cabinet 2nd Floor, 1 Treasury Place I Melbourne 3002
Mark Curry I Project Manager Consultation and Services Planning i Ministry of Transport 589 Collins Street l Melbourne 3000
Don Larkin I Deputy Chief Executive Officer Victorian Employers' Chainber of Commerce and Industry 50 Burwood Road I Hawthorn 3122 Owen Lennie Chairm;m I Planning Committee . Building Owners and ManagersAssociation of Australia 96 Elizabeth Street I Melbourne 3000 Peter Newman I Associate Professor Director, Institute for Science and ~echnology Policy Murdoch University I Murdoch 6150 I 1 I J ,....
Ron Thomlinson I Government Mfairs Executive Retail Traders' Association of Victoria 2nd Floor, 104 Franklin Street I Melbourne 3000 Victor Szwed I Group Manager Planning and Development City of Sunshine POBox 70 I Sunshine 3020 I
-I- I I I I I I I I -I I I I 2 I I 3. List of submitters I Submitter Submission No.
I Adamson, William - Resident, City of Ringwood 62 Association of Inner Eastern Councils Inc. 70 A .T. Cocks and Partners Pty. Ltd. on behalf of Sussan 1 Corporation (Aust) Pty. Ltd. I Baillieu Knight Frank (Vic.) Pty. Limited 2 Berwick, City of 9 Box Hill, City of 10173 Bowden, David - Director, Jones Lang Wootton Vic. Pty. Ltd. 84 I (RAPI Seminar 1813192) Building Owners and Managers Association of Australia Limited 78 Brighton, City of 11 Broadmeadows, City of 12 I Caldwell, David - Resident, City of Ringwood 63 Camberwell, City of 65 Camberwell Hawthorn Planning Watch Inc. 54 Caulfield, City of 13 I Centro Properties Limited 75 Coburg, City of 14 Coles Myer Ltd. 3 Contour Consultants Pty. Ltd. on behalf of Westfield Developments 4 I Cranbourne, Shire of 15 Croydon, City of 16 Dandenong, City of 17/18 Department of Labour 38 I Diamond Valley, Shire of 61 Doncaster & Templestowe, City of S8 Essendon, City of 59 Footscray, City of 19/80 Frankston, City of 60 I Gandel Group of Companies 5 Glen Centre Pty. Ltd. 74 Growth Equities Mutual Limited 6 Hames Sharley Australia (on behalf of AMP Society) 7 I Haines, William, Executive Chairman, Hames Sharley Australia 85 (BOMA South-Eastern Forum 2413/92) Hawthorn, City of 20121 Heidelberg, City of 22 I Holdway, Anthony - Resident, City of Ringwood 51 Housing Industry Association VictorialTasmania Division 42 Inner Metropolitan Regional Association 43 Jones, Brian - Chief Executive Officer, City of Camberwell 82 I (RAPI Seminar 1813/92) Kaukas, Yvonne - Resident, City of Ringwood 50 Kennan, The Hon. Jim, Minister for the Arts 64 Kennan, The Hon. Jim, Minister for Major Projects 37 I Kew, City of 23 Kirner, The Hon Joan, Premier of Victoria 41 Knox, City of 24 Lennie, Owen - on behalf of the Building Owners and Managers Association of 83 , Australia Limited (RAPI Seminar 1813192; BOMA South Eastern Forum 24/3/92) Lend Lease Retail Projects Pty. Ltd. 8 , Lillydale, Shire of 25 Local Government Planners Association of Victoria Incorporated 44 I Melbourne, City of 26 Melbourne Western Region Commission 49 Moodie, Matjory - Director. Anthony Moodie & Associates, Pty. Ltd. 86 (RAPI Seminar 18/3/92) I Moorabbin. City of 71 Municipal Association of Victoria 45 Northcote. City of 27 North Eastern Melbol!rne Regional Organisation of Councils 46 I Northern ,Region Commission Inc. 47 North Ringwood By-Pass Group 79 I Oakleigh. City of 66 3 I Office of the Environment, Department of Conservation and Environment 40 I Phillips, Sylvia - Resident, City of Ringwood 52 Public Transport Users' Association 53 Prabran, City of 28 Preston, City of 76 I Retail Traders' Association of Victoria 48 Richmond, City of 29 RingwQod, City of 30/31 Royal Australian Planning Institute (Victorian Division) 67 I Sandon, The Hon. Malcolm, Minister for Police and Emergency Services 68 Sherbrooke, Shire of 55 South Melbourne, City of 32 Springvale, City of 69 I Spyker, The Hon. Peter, Minister for Transport 57172 Sunshine, City of 33 Upper Yarra Valley and Dandenong Ranges Authority 56 Vic Roads 86 I Victorian Employers' Chamber of Commerce and Industry 77 Waverley, City of 34 Werribee, City of 35 White, The Hon. David, Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development 39 I Whitney, David - Consultant, Perrott Lyon Mathieson Pty. Ltd. 81 (RAPI Seminar 18/3/92) Whittlesea, City of 36 I I I I I I I ,I I I I I 4 I I
I 4. Summary of submissions
1 . A. T. COCKS AND PARTNERS PTY. LTD. ON BEHALF OF SUSSAN CORPORATION I (AUST) PTY. LTD.
The current district centre policy is incapable of guiding future commercial, retail and community I development within metropolitan Melbourne. District centre policy objectives have not been achieved due to various physical constraints inhibiting further development opportunities, the static or declining population nodes around the district centre, over-reliance on fixed public transport to serve various centres, limited government I involvement to fund expansion, refurbishment and renovation programs, local political pressures and segregation of land ownership. I The policy has not been able to distinguish the role of large centres outside district centres. It also does not distinguish between the opportunities for further development at the various district centres.
While retailing activity in district centres has decreased, retailing activity has increased at regional I shopping centres. District centre policy fails to recognise that some new uses or expanding uses should be located outside district centres. The submission criticises the philosophy of concentrating activity at district I centres using the success of the regional shopping centres as an argument.
District centre policy needs to be more direct on a regional and individual centre basis. It should I properly recognise and respond to the cons'traints and opportunities of each of the nominated centres. Large retail and entertainment centres (e.g. Chadstone, etc) should never be district centres. However, because these centres play a vital role in providing the widest range of retailing and entertainment activities (outside a number of outer district centres and Central Melbourne itself) they need to be I recognised in a new retail hierarchy for metropolitan Melbourne. A policy needs to be established which maintains and encourages these centres to continue.
District centres should be encouraged to achieve a balance of activities. The diminution in the I importance of retailing as the base activity for property nominated district centres needs to be recognised. .
Good planning policy for retail activity should include goods and service provision, accessibility to I goods and services, consumer behaviour, transportation systems, land use patterns, local and regional employment structures, local and regional environmental impacts, utilities provision, strategic and I metropolitan policies and the application of policy. District centre policy needs to differentiate between the various centres and the roles and activities they offer. I Regional shopping centres at middle suburban locations have been more successful than district centres with respect to retailing activity and have assumed a secondary role to Central. Melbourne ..
The hierarchy of retailing activity in Melbourne is: (1) Central Melbourne, (2) Regional Shopping I Centres, (3) District Centres, (4) Community Shopping Centres, and (5) a combination of the above. The role of regional shopping centres has changed to include entertainment and leisure activities with I retailing. Regional shopping centres should not be designated as district centres. However, they do have worthy attributes such as their higher retail service provision, high accessibility, wide range of services provided and entertainment function. They should be complementary to district centres. I Their designation as 'regional activity centres' should not mean that expansion can be approved automatically.
District centres should be recognised to provide a wide range of activities to service their local and I . regional catchments. District centres should not be primarily retail. They are better suited for commercial activities (office development) due to their location in relation to public transport and the I fragmentation of land ownership. I 5 District centres close to Highpoint City should stay designated as district centres but their designation cannot imply a superior status to Highpoint City with regards to retailing and entertainment.
2 BAILLIEU KNIGHT FRANK (VIC.) PTY. LIMITED I Central Melbourne should remain the prime metropolitan focus for all activities. The number of district centres should be reduced. I Proposals for major development outside district centres should be rigorously examined and permitted only after an examination of their real costs. I Statutory authorities should be required to make submissions on rezonings .. They should include infrastructure costs to compare with district centre development costs.
District centres and activity centres should be determined after the preparation of a 'Veins and Arteries' I map of Melbourne, building on the work of the City of Melbourne.Infrastructure Group. The map should show major service lines and areas where infrastructure can support increased development.
District centre policy is supported. I
3. COLES MYER LTD. I
Retailing underpins the district centre concept and provides the .base for the establishment of other district centre criteria.
The new district centre concept should embrace the most appropriate means of serving the established community base and anticipated growth within' district centres with flexibility for expanding inner urban areas to be serviced by retail facilities equivalent to those available in outer areas. I Proper focus must be placed on the Services that support retail development including roads, parking, transport, size and convenience and a strong identity for centres. I The hierarchy of activity centres needs to be clarified. District centres need to be assessed in terms of community offering. I Use of structure plans should be encouraged.
Use of incentives to promote development within district centres by mechanisms including tax concessions, area improvement programs, relaxation of requirements. I
A centres focus should continue to be provided within the Department. A liaison officer of group should be available within the Department to interface between the public ·and private sectors on I issues pertaining to centres. I.
4. CONTOUR CONSULTANTS PTY. LTD. ON BEHALF OF WESTFIELD DEVELOPMENTS , The status of Doncaster Shoppingtown is not adequately recognised under the existing district centre or activity centre policy. Because of its regional entertainment and comparison shopping function the Centre should be nominated as a major activity centre. , The original selection criteria for district centre designation: overlooked the role of the regionaI shopping centres by placing emphasis on the availa1;Jility of I transport and community facilities.
are unsuccessful as Doncaster's trading performance is not constrained by being located away from the fixed rail network . I
. Growth at freestanding regional centres such as Doncaster bas been stifled. Doncaster Sboppingtown bas a great need and scope for expansion. I 6 I District centre policy did not have regan\ to the availability of land to cater for future and changing I retail requirements.
Growth at district centres in inner and intermediate municipalities has failed to occur due to obstacles I such as ownership, parking, and proximity to residential areas. The policy has contributed to losses in construction, employment and investment opportunities and I has increased rents and prices. The policy does not recognise the predominance of cars.
Doncaster Shoppingtown could play a complimentary role to Box Hill by providing the retail I facilities that Box Hill cannot provide due to its floors pace limitations.
I 5. GANDEL GROUP OF COMPANIES I The selection criteria for district centre designation: is inappropriate and unsuccessful in the inner and intermediate locations. It has created significant problems, (ie. parking, use of residential land and limited retail expansion). The policy is more appropriate to the outer suburbs. These centres within the inner and intermediate locations should be I delis ted or redesignated. was based to deliberately exclude regional shopping centres,. Heavy weighting was given to the I availability of fixed rail transport and theoretical availability of public transport. failed' in respect to the criteria for fixed rail transport as surveys suggest people do not use this mode of transportation.
I failed to recognise the use of buses at regional centres. I failed to recognise opportunities for expansion, or improvement at district centres. is flawed with respect to multi-purpose trips. Surveys suggest shoppers come directly from home.
Surveys suggest that the functions at regional shopping centres such as Chadstone and Northland have I expanded from retail to entertainment and leisure functions. Studies indicate that there\ is increased market demand for retail facilities at regional shopping centres.
I Regional shopping centres can and do function as district centres with respect to entertainment and retailing facilities. These centres need to be designated as 'regional activity centres' and their role in the metropolitan hierarchy need to be ascertained. This designation will achieve Government policy I objectives and encourage economic activity.
I 6. GROWTH EQUITIES MUTUAL LIMITED District centre policy is being used as a mechanism to inhibit development at competing centres (i.e. Parkmore- Keysborough) to the benefit of district centres for commercial rather than planning reasons. A comparison of interstate experiences in retail expansion with the proposed expansion of I Parkmore-Keysborough expands on this issue.
Parkmore will eventually be downgraded. District centre policy denies all retail owners the right to improve their centre's ability to meet customer demand and in turn sustain the original investment at a I competitive rate.
District centre policy is flawed with respect to Parkmore as it presents a static scenario and does not I recognise the community need for expansion.
Market forces should playa greater role in district centre policy to provide more flexibility to meet I community demands. Lengthy delays in the appeal process should be prevented. The planning sy'stem should be improved.
Major development proposals should not reside with loCal municipal authorities. The State planning I authority must have overriding involvement. I 7 I 7. HAMES SHARLEY AUSTRALIA ON BEHALF OF AMP SOCIETY Knox commercial and administrative centre should be designated as a district centre. I Not all designated district centres (e.g. Oakleigh. Preston) have performed strongly. due to their close proximity to Chadstone and Northland. I Some district centres are more significant in their commercial and community functions. Some district centres (Dandenong. Frankston. Ringwood. Greensborough. Prahran and Footscray) are strong regional retail centres. This variety is a reality recognised in the Melbourne Activity Centres Report 1989. I Centres to be designated in the future should perform a regional role with respect to the population served. the range of retailing services. transport accessibility. commercial and administrative facilities. entertainment and cultural facilities and the provision of infrastructure. If the present I district centres do not fulm these criteria they should be delis ted. I
8. LEND LEASE RETAIL PROJECTS PTY. LTD. I Clear affirmation of the Government's commitment to the 'outer strategic district centre' is required. Greensborough and Dandenong have capacity for significant growth to meet demands. I Future district centre policy should acknowledge that district centres and free standing centres do not compete. The policy should redress the imbalance. District centre policy should define the role of free standing centres relative to district centres. I District centre policy should state that retail development of the outer district strategic centres will take precedence. -
Considerable resources should be directed by the Government to formulate guidelines for I implementation.
District centres should still have a strong and viable retail core if the multi-functional nodal activity concept is to be fulfilled. I
Increased private sector involvement is required for the redevelopment of existing district centres. The private sector will not, however. undertake the task if regional shopping centres are allowed to operate with a commercial advantage.
The district centre concept reinforces urban consolidation policies via the provision of entertainment and medium density housing activities. The outer strategic district centres are most likely to contribute to the urban consolidation process. I
In determining the designation of district centres new criteria should include opportunities for development and commitment by local government. I The government through district centre policy and planning implementation should support developers and investors who advance the implementation of government policy. I The Government needs to be committed to maintain stability. provide certainty and therefore ensure investment.
District centre policy IS sliccesSful. Greensboruugll amI Damleiiong are exwnploo but the poliCY'E success relies on patience and time.
The philosophy of Lend Lease has been reflected with a proposal shortly to be lodged with Council after an assessment of Dandenong's retail needs. The benefits from the proposal include revitalisation of a poorly functioning retail centre. more effective utilisation of the McCrae Street Mall, improved road networks and greater public transport patronage.
Lend Lease is concerned that if the policy becomes centre specific. it will appear as if the policy is I being diluted. I 8 I The Review must maintain some certainty in the decision making process while ensuring continuation I of metropolitan policy.
The Review should analyse the type of development to be supported at various locations and determine I the appropriate means of implementation. There is general support for the 1991 Moodie Report, but not agreement with a number of conclusions I and recommendations including the dismissal of Dandenong's Twin City status. District centre policy has been unsuccessful due to the policy being poorly articulated and implemented.
I District centre policy needs to be stable to ensure investment opportunities.
District centre policy is now more sophisticated. Each district centre needs its own' approach to accommodate its characteristics. The activity centres policy appears to acknowledge that district I centres are not the pre-eminent location of all major activity in a region.
District centre policy has failed to achieve suburban nodal entertainment, leisure and' housing I functions. Throughout the evolution of district centre policy, the concept of balanced development and the establishment of multi-functional activity nodes has been consistently adhered to. The concept I makes good planning sense. There are concerns about proposals on exhibition for the expansion of Northland and Chad stone as I there is a need to examine the appropriate roles of each regional centre beforehand. District centres and regional shopping centres should not compete in a free market situation as the retail environment ensures the expansion of the regional shopping centres to the detriment of the district centres. The fragmentation of ownership in district centres intensifies problems of parking I and poor pedestrian circulation. Structure planning is essential to alleviate these problems with on guing commitmenl from government and the private sector. I 9. BERWICK, CITY OF
Policy statements for the Fountain GatelNarre Warren District Centre should be in the context of the I draft Structure Plan and South East Growth Area Plan.
The role of regional shopping centres needs to be clarified.
The development of megacentres or the 'twin city concept' should not be encouraged. I The Government should provide greater funding assistance to councils and greater commitment. Policy statements should reinforce the role of di!>trict centres as the major focus for activity. I Major retail investment should be focussed at existing centre. Any major office development should be focussed within Central Melbourne or district centres. I Community facilities should be located where they provide the highest level of accessibility. The policy's effectiveness has been constrained by the lack of Government commitment to the' policy I particularly through funding. I 10. BOX HILL, CITY OF The failure of district centres to attract after-hours facilities and major department stores is a result of the liberal attitude of the State Government towards regional shopping centres.
I Excessive development of office parks and suburban offices is occurring at undesignated areas and outside district centres. I District centre policy is supported and being achieved at Box Hill. I 9 The policy is a major planning initiative contributing to urban consolidation. I The role of regional shopping centres in relation to district centres must be reviewed. I 11. BRIGHTON, CITY OF The designation of district centres must be reviewed based on criteria reflecting market forces, work I preference and car domination. The hierarchy and relationship of activity centres needs to be ascertained. I The policy framework should have a broad statement in the regional section of planning schemes and specific policies in the local section. I
12. BROADMEADOWS, CITY OF
'Substantial development has occurred at the Broadmeadows Di~trict Centre in terms of office, retail and community facilities. - Council has developed a district centre strategy, municipal precinct strategy and a landscape strategy. I The policy is supported and is working. I
13. CAULFIELD, CITY OF
The role of regional shopping centres and strip centres requires review. I
The decentralisation of Melbourne's office, employment and shopping needs further acknowledgement. I Retail expansion in areas outside district centres requires review.
Caulfield should be a major activity centre because of the presence of the Victorian Amateur Turf Club, I Monash University-Caulfield Campus. I 1 4 . COBURG, CITY OF
Any future policy should recognise the detailed hierarchy of activity centres across the metropolitan area. I
Each centre's strategic importance to the metropolitan economy and other policy objectives should be recognised. I High level activity centres should be designated in the north and west to encourage urban cOnsolidation and deter the sprawl in the south and east. I There is little representation of centres in the north and west of Melbourne compared to the eastern and southern regions. Coburg shopping centre is underrated. Its potential for further deve16piilelU is prejudiced by Ilisuicl I centre policy. The centre should be designated as a 'regional activity centre'. All centres should be. allowed to develop to their potential in terms of their local community and a broader regional catchment. I
15. CRANBOURNE, SHIRE OF I It is premature to carry out the Review given there is no decision on the long-term urban development strategy for Victoria. . I 10 I I There was insufficient time to comment. Conclusions of MaJjory Moodie's report should be supported, especially Section 6.10. Care should be . taken not to duplicate the work. In particular there is support for the recommendation that existing regional shopping centres should not be designated as district centres and their expansion should not I be supported. . I 16. CROYDON, CITY OF I The review should ensure the following: Consideration of the relationship of each district centre to other existing centres and how other centres compete and sustain economic viability in the established retail network;
I Consideration of recent trends in retailing( peripheral sales );
Consideration of whether fixed rail continues to be most accessible and popular mode of public I transport; Recognition of the role and future development opportunities of. outlying centres; I The examination of the trend towards networking of centres rather than maintaining a hierarchical pattern;
Recognition of the importance of commercial employment opportunities. entertainment and I community services in addition to office and retail activities;
Consideration of the notion of higher density housing in proximity to district centres;
I Consideration of the notion of self-containment and diversity of opportunities. I 17. DANDENONG, CITY OF I Council agrees with the objectives and suggested outputs of the study. Council agrees with MaJjory Moodie's recommendation for Government to confirm its commitment to district centres. However her objection to the Twin Cities concept is not supported.
I Policy statements on the distribution of retail. office and community facilities within the hierarchy of activity centres is required. I The role of regional shopping centres in the current retail hierarchy needs to be examined. Medium density housing development is not viable in Dandenong as there is no demand for it due to I the low cost of detached housing. Council is concerned with the proliferation of office development outside district centres and activity centres, the rezoning of inner and middle land from industrial to office and the expansion of I community retailing centres to beyond a district centre role in the retail hierarchy. Dandenong is going to develop as a mini Central Melbourne and the necessary infrastructure is required from government. I Council promoted regionally based discussion with municipalities on how various local governments can work together. I Government should be committed to infrastructure funding for district centres. Government sbould be committed to district centre policy as developments outside the designated I centres undermine the future development potential of district centres. I I 1 1 I 18. DANDENONG, CITY OF I Concern about Amendments RL 142 and RL 143 to the Malvern and Preston planning schemes . respectively, due to the lack of a definition of 'regional activity Centre'. The Review should be undertaken and the policy should be strengthened beforehand. If 'regional activity centres' are to be introduced they should be established at one level below district centres in the hierarchy. I Similarly a number of other amendments (e.g. Waverley Planning Scheme Amendment L22, Nicholas Kiwi site) have been placed on exhibition to the detriment of district centre policy. I Overall co-ordination and research evaluation at the State level is required to avoid amendments contrary to planning policy being undertaken by individual planning authorities. I 19. FOOTSCRAY, CITY OF I The Brief for the Review is satisfactory. The City of Footscray wishes to be consulted on all aspects of the Review. I There needs to be a more fundamental review to consider basic objectives of district centre planning.
The City of Footscray is presently conducting a review of its district centre and future objectives for the centre include improving economic viability, encouraging its regional role and strengthening I investment potential. I 20. HA WTHORN, CITY OF Council supports the District Centre Review and its objectives. I Government has not allowed sufficient time for consideration of the issues. Council believes in the policy's original aim to reduce car travel and make access to all facilities more I convenient. I 21. HAWTHORN, CITY OF Council supports the review. I The capacity for future growth at each centre should not jeopardise the expansion of Central Melbourne .. I State Government needs to develop proposals to increase investment, (e.g. provlSlon of medium density housing, investment in physical and social infrastructure) at district centres.
Firmer controls to restrict larger commercial development outside district centres are required." I " i CouncJI is concerned about amendment RL142 to the Malvern Planning Scheme (Chadstone shopping I centre) as: I the documents fail to demonstrate that the proposal will not threaten the viability of Camberwell Junction or district centre policy generally; and
the designation of 'regional activity centre' is premature in light of the District Centre Policy Review. I I I 1 2 I I I 22. HEIDELBERG, CITY OF The Review should include an assessment of whether existing district centres are the appropriate centres, bearing in mind their present levels of development and the population changes which have I occurred since ·1980. The Council encourages the Review and supports the regular review of the policy.
Only a few district centres have developed their full district centre role. The growth of district centres . I has been restricted by the presence of other major centres such as Northland.
The main deficiencies with district centre policy is that there is a strong emphasis on the development I of district centres with little recognition of the lower order centres· such as Heidelberg which possess the potential to establish a greater role and image within their regions.
The growth of centres such as Northland, Doncaster and Chadstone show a major weakness with the I policy. There is an apparent inability for government intervention to regulate actions of large firms which operate at a national scale.
The Council agrees with Moodie's assessment that district centres are still in their infancy and a I longer time period should be allowed to elapse before decisions are made about their designation: The potential of the Heidelberg Shopping Centre to develop a greater regional profile should be recognised. Marjory Moodie's report identified a greater role for this centre. Heidelberg has a major I role is in the provision of public sector employment (i.e. the Social Security Office, the office of Vic Roads and the Austin Hospital).
There is further potential for Heidelberg in terms of the completion of development in the office zone, I the actions by Council in attracting a major retail attractor, the expansion of the Austin Hospital and improvement works to the shopping centre.
Heidelberg Shopping Centre has the potential to develop a local and regional role as it is not closely I aligned to any centre. I Future actions at Heidelberg should encourage medium density housing and entertainment facilities. It would be appropriate for a review of the lower order centres. I 23. KEW, CITY OF
The review needs to consider the role of district centres within the activity centre hierarchy. This will establish the benefits and disadvantages of these centres compared with strip centres.
Council is concerned with the City of Preston and City of Malvern exhibiting amendments for I Northland and Chadstone prior to the Review being finalised.
I 24. KNOX, CITY OF Council has a general interest in respect to the outcome because the Review may have an impact on the I strategy plan for the Knox City Centre and the Knox District Centre There has been insufficient time for consideration of the issues. I 25. LILLY DALE, SHIRE OF
The Council considers that Lilydale meets the criteria and should be designated as a district centre. The I submission encloses the Lilydale Town Centre Structure Plan and requests that the actions of the Council in designating the centre be endorsed. I I 1 3 Lilydale has a number of attributes for designation as a major regional centre - its central location, easy access, historic and community focus, population demand, and consistency with regional P:Olicy III objectives. I I 26. MELBOURNE, CITY OF The role of Central Melbourne in the retail hierarchy should not be undermined. I The policy needs to be stronger and more directive.
District centre policy should provide a clear defmitive statement of office and retail location policy I which recognises the role of Central Melbourne. The policy should discourage developments such as regional shopping centres which are likely to have a detrimental or cumulative impact on the viability of Central Melbourne. I District centre policy should: address the role of regional shopping centres; I provide a fmn unwavering commitment to district centres; allow for major development proposals to be vigorously assessed; I provide clear written policy on the role and purpose of district centres;
market and promote district centres with Councils and the private sector; I
commit itself to an on-going monitoring program;
investigate and promote medium density in and around District Centre locations; I seek a range of activities. I The Council is concerned that· any changes to district centre policy should support urban consolidation and metropolitan planning policy.
District centres have had limited commercial success, limited policy support by the State Government I and most centres have failed to develop a mix of activities commensurate with their role. Some attempt must be made to modify the policy because it is not fulfilling its objectives.
There are too many designated district centres. It would be more appropriate to have half the number I of centres with a greater range of functions. Advantages of this include: I prioritising funding commitments; creating additional feeder bus services; I clustering community facilities; and
providing a greater employment focus. I
27. NORTH COTE, CITY OF I
District centre policy has not succeeded due to the development and emergence of regional shopping centres. I District centre policy has contributed to the decline of other retail/commercial centres such as High Street, Northcote. I District centre policy should address the impact which the policy has had on other commercial/retail centres. I 14 I I Policy statements should outline the role of sub-regional centres including statements in relation to the type and level of development which can occur. I District centre policy should be considered in light of the retail hierarchy as a whole. Council is concerned with the definition of 'regional activity centre' proposed for Northland; due to the Review not yet being completed.
I Council considers it unsatisfactory that two centres - Preston District Centre - and Northland be in close proximity if they have a similar status. This is considered to be to the detriment of High Street, I Northcote. I 28. PRAHRAN, CITY OF Evaluation of existing district policy objectives is required. I Clarification of the role of district centres and individual centres is required. Policy statements for individual centres must be prepared in consultation with Council to ensure policies recugnise the character and problems of each Centre. .
IL Greater care should be taken in derming district centres to ensure they fulfil their proper district centre role. I District centre policy should be maintained and supported by the State Government. District centres should be actively assisted (Le. research, funding improvement works) by the I Government to fulfil their role. I 29. RICHMOND, CITY OF Insufficient time for Council to examine district centre policy. I Council supports the Government in its examination of the policy. , Request to be kept informed. 30. RINGWOOD, CITY OF
There are a number of flaws with the implementation of the policy.
The centres should be packaged and marketed. The social and institutional network n~ to be organised to ensure economic activity. IJ. There was insufficient consultation and community input for the original designation of centres.
The expectations placed on local government have been enormous and councils have been. I~I J. overwhelmed by the emerging policy issues.
The policy's success has been limited by the absence of policy guidelines. District centre policy I encourages local and regional development by providing accessibility to the range of services and goods to satisfy metropolitan community requirements. District centre policy is based on the 'central place theory' ..
I State Government should provide more assistance to councils who are burdened by infrastructure costs.
The State Government should support its policy. The development of major freestanding office I developments gives the appearance of contradictions in policy. The statutory planning process needs to be streamlined to ensure development opportunities can be I capitalised. 15 Incentives for district centre developments such as reduced parking are required to encourage development. I I· Policy statements must be flexible to achieve long term strategic objectives. They need to be driven by both planning and market forces. I Council gives its support for the major development of Ringwood as an 'outer strategic district centre'. The Council has used a consultative process with developers and the community.
The importance of Ringwood as an 'outer strategic district centre' cannot be over-emphasised for its I contribution to job opportunities and service provision. I 31. RINGWOOD, CITY OF
Objection to proposed Amendment RL 142 to the Malvern Planning Scheme and Amendment RL 143 to the Preston Planning Scheme. These amendments should be deferred pending the outcome of the Review. The major concerns are that the proposed designation of regional shopping centres as 'regional activity centres' places regional shopping centres on par with district centres in respect to retail development. District centre policy is weakened by distributing retail development over a number of centres. I 'Regional activity centres' should be secondary to district centres as the intention of Government policy is that district centres are the. main suburban centres.
District centre policy is supported and it achieves the objectives of efficiency and equity. I 32 . SOUTH MELBOURNE, CITY OF District centre policy does not achieve the objectives of providing cultural and community functions. I The Government should make a stronger commitment to the policy. I 33. SUNSHINE, CITY OF Insufficient time for the review to be completed. I Each region should be examined and poliCies rermed to suit each region.
The three levels of Government should be committed to the policy to ensure inv~stment and infrastructure is at the. appropriate locations.
District centre policy should encourage a range of services rather than just retail activity.
Sunshine's potential for further development should not be overlooked due to its central regional location, proximity to railway lines and highways, recent development approvals and land availability for future. development I. Sunshine should be designated as a Strategic Centre as it meets the criteria outlined in Review Report 2 to the Technical Advisory Commit~ to the Review. I 34. WAVERLEY, CITY OF I District centre policy is working at Glen Waverley District Centre. The base of the Glen Waverley District Centre Structure Plan is the regional retail component which still lacks higher order comparison shopping. I The main features of the Centre are a catchment population of 150,000 (128,000 reside in Waverley), proximity to established public transport and the availability of community facilities. I 1 6 I l
The Structure Plan for the Centre is achieving momentum with $300 million worth of proposals being I completed by 1994, and concept plans for the office and community precincts are being undertaken. The plans will incorporate 7()()()() sq.m of office space and the Council has contributed $2.75 million to increase community services.
I The Glen Waverley District Centre has the ability to serve 150,000 people. I The Council needs to encourage medium density housing at/near the district centre. Council's attitude is that Glen Waverley District Centre is a demonstration of the effectiveness of district centre policy and the Centre's success has been because of its district centre designation.
I Evolution of the Glen Waverley District Centre demonstrates that: (i) continuity of policy has . provided certainty and attracted investment; (ii) that planning geared to the market place generates redevelopment; and (iii) that a clear policy has produced a structure plan capable of implementation I and framework for mutually supportive components. Retailing is the key economic and functional element of a district centre. All district centres should I have similar levels of retailing to avoid the overlapping of networks
35. WERRIBEE, CITY OF
I The relationship of district centre policy and other metropolitan policies requires examination. I The role of district centres relative to another major activity centres should be assessed. Prior to any delisting an understanding of the role of different activity centres is required. I Policy statements for each district centre and subregion are required.
I 36. WHITTLESEA, CITY OF The restriction in major development outside designated centres results in an increase in the price of I district centre floor space. District centre policy should be flexible to adapt to change.
In implementation attention should be drawn to the Government having a leading role and providing I infrastructure and facilities.
37. THE HON. JIM KENNAN, MP, I MINISTER FOR MAJOR PROJECTS
Local councils are ill-equipped to deal with the administration of the relevant planning controls 'as the I controls are of regional significance. Therefore the State Government should have a greater role. The problems involved are compounded when more than one Council is involved. I 1 " ,I: 38. DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR
I The Review is timely with the emergence of the Building Better Cities Program. I No other comments as the Review issues are not central to the Department. 39. THE HON. DAVID WHITE, MP, MINISTER FOR MANUFACTURING AND INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT
I No comments are made on the Review. I I 1 7 I 40. OFFicE OF THE ENVIRONMENT, DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND ENvIRONMENT
Due to the fragmentation of controls and the lack of environmental objectives in the first place, the I district centre concept has suffered in terms of achieving environmental objectives. There are short-term difficulties in achieving the Policy because of the office glut in Central I Melbourne. More strategic and co-ordinated controls of critical land uses are required.
The confirmation of district centre policy would reduce green house gas emissions. However, it needs . to be strongly related to transport and urban consolidation policies. I Marjory Moodie's work is deficient with respect to greenhouse policy and environmental issues. These issues involve: I the inclusion of a criteria for energy consumption to consider development applications; public transport; I the consolidation of existing district centres (limiting development on the periphery of district centres);
the reduction in private vehicle trips I
the application of Trip Reduction Ordinances in planning schemes, tax concessions, reductions in parking etc; I the institutional constraints; the application of mixed use and integrated planning concepts: and I the limitation of office parks and technology precincts as they encourage private transportation. I 41. THE HON. JOAN KIRNER, MP, PREMIER OF VICTORIA
Request that the Minister brings a submission to Cabinet outlining the proposals for district centre I policy.
The submission should report on the outcome of the Review and seek approval of any proposed policy change. I
42. HOUSING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION, VICTORIAffASMANIA DIVISION I There is little attention paid to residential accommodation in or adjacent to District Centres. I 43. INNER METROPOLITAN REGIONAL ASSOCIATION I The Review is timely. Late submission and request time for extension. , 44. LOCAL GOVERNMENT PLANNERS ASSOCIATION OF VICTORIA INCORPORATED I Recognitiqn of need for a comprehensive commercial policy for Melbourne. An advisory committee should be created for the Review with representation from the Local I Government Planners Association. The Review should: I 1 8 I
____ 1 I establish a hierarchy of commercial activity centres in Melbourne; ensure the protection of community centres and transport interchanges; I differentiate between retail only and other mixed commercial centres; encourage incentives and objectives rather than rules and regulations; I consider the role of all levels of activity centres in Melbourne; support local councils which have prepared realistic structure plans for their centres; I recognise strategic planning and emphasise local structure plans; encourage the development of regional networks of activity centres, complementing each other in their function and location;
I use names which reflect the true roles of centres;
recognise the need for each centre to pursue its particular niche;
I link district centre policy to residential consolidation;
use the activity centre policy to support the public transport system. I District centre policy was intended to be a long-term strategy and should not be totally disregarded at this time.
Local Government planners are responsible for strategy implementation. They are the professionals I who negotiate with business and are able to understand the existing hierarchy of centres. They are also responsible for relating policy to the community, and are able to provide immediate feedback to I encourage guidelines. They are also familiar with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and panels. 45. MUNICIPAL ASSOCIATION OF VICTORIA. I Clarification on whether the Review embraces other activity centres is required. The time frame of three months is too short. It should be undertaken after completion of the Victorian I Housing and Residential Development projects. District centre policy is essential to achieve urban consolidation. I 46. NORTH EASTERN MELBOURNE REGIONAL ORGANISATION OF COUNCILS I Insufficient time to comment as the organisation only meets every two to three months. I 47. NORTHERN REGION COMMISSION INC. Broadmeadows should remain as district centre because of its location in a growth corridor and because any downgrading would affect development and investment in the centre. I Coburg should be designated as a major retail centre in order to attract development, employment and investment.
An extension should be made to the urban hierarchy to include a middle range classification of urban I centres.
I 48. RETAIL TRADERS' ASSOCIATION OF VICTORIA The diversion of funds and activity to the 17 district centres has contributed to Central Melbourne's I lack of viability. Interstate experience suggests 4-6 centres is a more appropriate number of district centres.
The district centres least likely to succeed should be deleted. These centres should not apply for I funding and they should become sub-retail centres. I 1 9 Regional shopping centres should be allowed to expand. ~I The predication that district centres are based on public transport hubs is flawed as Chadstone, Forest Hill and Knox are successful centres without major public transport interchanges.
The Retail Traders Association does not support district centre policy. I
49. MELBOURNE WESTERN REGION COMMISSION I Too many commercial centres outside district centres (Highpoint City) are being developed. I The Review is timely to determine the achievements and failures of district centre policy and also to refine the policy to reflect current concerns. The time lines appear inadequate to achieve the Briefs objectives. In particular, the policy statements I on the interface between district centres and surrounding areas and the distribution of retail, office and community facilities within the hierarchy of activity centres should require considerable analysis. I 50. KAUKAS, YVONNE, RESIDENT, CITY OF RINGWOOD There was inadequate consultation on the designation of district centres. I The submission is predominantly concerned with the objection to the Ringwood By-Pass. District centres create ideal communities. They can provide facilities to be shared by a number of I municipalities. There is an objection to the title of 'district centre'. It should be called an 'integrated centre' instead. I The Review should address: what is the role of public transport in district centres; I should facilities be clustered; what facilities should district centres contain; I what does Ringwood lack; where should the money come from; I Ringwood District Centre should be a site for a major library, art gallery, theatre, a concert hall, and a college. A district centre should service 20 municipalities. I
51. HOLDWAY, ANTHONY: RESIDENT, CITY OF RINGWOOD I The present planning process will not achieve the objectives of the Government's district centre policy.
Ringwood District Centre has been allowed to freely develop without essential input from Government I Departments. I 52. PHILLIPS, SYLVIA: RESIDENT, CITY OF RINGWOOD
District centre policy is being abused as there are no proposals to replace the housing lost by the proposed office development at Ringwood District Centre. I
Ringwood District Centre is too spread out and encourages car usage. The proposed plans for the Centre do not address this problem. I Further office development at Ringwood District Centre is oot viable because of the unfilled office space io Central Melbourne and the eastern suburbs. I 20 I District centre pOlicy is being abused by developers interpreting it as an opportunity to build large I developments.
The objective to reduce car travel will not be met if enormous retail office and entertainment I developments are built with an emphasis on car parking.
I 53. PUBLIC TRANSPORT USERS' ASSOCIATION District centres have had little impact on car travel. Only 5% of workers at Box Hill travel by public transport. This compares with 60% at North Sydney and 75% at Toronto. I The excessive provision of car parking in the planning scheme has worked against the policy objective of reducing car independence.
A review of rail transport to district centres is required to ensure, there are adequate express trains I running to and between district centres. The running speeds of trains must be increased to compete with private car usage. I Car access must be limited to minimise the land required for parking and also to reduce environmental costs. I Bus services should be focused at district centres. Stronger controls are required to prevent development at isolated locations.
Many local centres compete with designated district centres on more or less equal footing (Box Hill I and Doncaster). In some cases it would make sense to incorporate both centres. Head offices should be located in Central Melbourne. Suburban developments on the scale of the I Coles Myer Office at Tooronga should be prohibited as they weaken the role of CentraJ Melbourne. District centres which are located at the end of rail lines do not generate inward travel. These centres (Glen Waverley, Broadmeadows) should be delisted. Frankston is an exception as it is a free-standing I 'city. Any delis ted district centres should become a local centre.
The list of district centres should be Werribee, Footscray, Moonee Ponds, Preston, Heidelberg, I Ivanhoe, Camberwell Junction, Box Hill, Ringwood, PrahranlRichmond, Oakleigh, Cheltenham, Dandenong and Frankston.
District centre policy' is relevant to metropolitan objectives and with increased medium density housing, urban consolidation will be achie,ved.
District centres located in the outer suburbs will facilitate urban sprawl. District centres should be I located in the built-up metropolitan areas (i.e. the intermediate suburbs). District centre policy is not to create rival centres to Central Melbourne. The intention of district centre policy is to focus suburban development and provide a strong centre city. This can only be I achieved with an efficient public transport system. District centres should be distinguished from other suburban centres by the range of services they provide. I District centres should serve a large catchment area and offer a wide range of services and employment opportunities.
I.' 54 . CAMBERWELL HAWTHORN PLANNING WATCH INC.
The Camberwell Hawthorn Planning Watch supports district centre policy. However, it is concerned with the interpretation and implementation of the policy ~y the State Government and the I municipalities of Hawthorn and Camberwell.
The major flaw in 'district centre policy is there is no distinction between different designated district I centres. While district centre policy promotes containment and mixed uses including housing, district centre I development encroaches into residential areas. I 21 ,...... ------_.. __ .__ ._ ..
Inner area municipalities should have the policy documented coherently so that it is not misinterpreted by developers or the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. I The wide range of State Government programs indicates a serious commitment to the district centre concept. Unfortunately many of the programs have been cut before they could be used to improve Camberwell Junction District Centre. I Local municipalities should retain the right to determine the development of district centres. However there is also a need for the Department of Planning and Housing to offer its expertise. I The State Government is powerless to resist the pressure applied by vested interests wanting to develop contrary to district centre policy (Chadstone, Highpoint, and Coles Myer Headquarters at Tooronga). I Programs are required to stimulate change. It is inappropriate to facilitate development outside district centres .. I District centre policy should recognise the special characteristics of strip centres.
District centre policy should distinguish between offices that have small tenancies and those for one corporate tenant so that new office growth in the suburbs serves only local needs. I The importance of housing at district centres needs to be emphasise,
The Council has noted the brief and has requested that a discussion paper or draft be circulated for comment prior to development of new policies. I
56. UPPER YARRA VALLEY AND DANDENONG RANGES. AUTHORITY I
District centre policy and programs have been of assistance in developing activity areas in selected situations. I The single exclusionary focus on district centres acts as a negative influence on other centres.
Lilydale and Chirnside Park are the only centres in the Upper Yarra and Dandenong Ranges Region to be considered as at district centres 1
The Government should have major commitment to district centres such as Ringwood by funding grants, promotion, technical assistance, planning advice and infrastructure provision. This could also apply to Lilydale Town Centre. 1
Lilydale Town Centre should be nominated as a district centre because of the long-term outcome of its policies relating to an additional 12,500 sq.m retail floor space at Chirnside Park and 30,000 sq.m at Lilydale. The two centres should be viewed as complementary. I
Recognition of certain centres other than district centres in the provision of services to residents is required. Policies and programs need to be directed to these centres whilst recognising the high priority of district centres. I
Policies need to be targeted to outcomes.
If Lilydale Town Centre is to provide services required by regional residents, traffic needs to be I diverted around the Town Centre. The Government road priorities program needs to be modified urgently to provide these diversions. .1 I 22 I I 57. THE HON. PETER SPYKER, MP, MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT
Nomination of Mark Curry, Project Manager - Consultation and Transport Policy, as the I representative on the Technical Advisory Committee. I Consideration of an extension of time for completion of the review beyond the end of October.
58. DONCASTER & TEMPLESTOWE, CITY OF
I Council supports the Review
The number of district centres should be reviewed. There are too many centres and this does not allow I the full potential of each centre to be achieved.
Council is concerned with the willingness of the State Government to support the major expansion of I regional shopping centres. . Examination of the retail hierarchy and the impacts upon district centre policy and strip centres are required.
I The Council objects to amendments RL 142 and RL 143 to the Malvern and Preston Planning Schemes respectively. The grounds of objection are that there is insufficient information on the impact on the regional retail hierarchy, and the decisions on the Amendments may pre-empt the findings of the I Review. . I 59. ESSENDON, CITY OF Moonee Ponds District Centre had performed well with respect to the office and community functions but has had limited success with its retail facilities. I District centre policy has failed in respect to most centres because there is insufficient floor space to allow for the expansion of all activities.
District centres are vital to achieving metropolitan planning policy, in particular medium density I housing. The selection criteria for district centres should include local government commitment, the existence of a structure plan, a range of private and public facilities, accessibility, strategic location, the ability' I to grow, the advantages the centre has over other centres, the centre's regional role, the management history of the centre and its image.
Heavy weighting should be given to council commitment and all centres should earn their I designations as district centres. District centres should not be delisted as this will undermine the policy and create doubt for the private I sector~ Extensive consultation of the existing structure plans with the community is required. I The State Government should co-ordinate the policy. , 60. FRANKSTON, CITY OF Suburban office parks are a threat to the integrity of district centres.
The differences between district centres and regional shopping centres needs to be emphasised in I relation to their functions. The designation of Dandenong as a 'twin city' will require careful planning to ensure the benefits are I distributed amongst other centres. Uniform data on car parking and cash in lieu arrangements are required.
Joint monitoring and promotion of the centres are warranted. Improvements to the administrative I procedures are required to expedite approvals for district centres. I 23 The State Government has not been fully committed to implementing the policy. I 61. DIAMOND VALLEY, SHIRE OF I Support for the Review.
The Council has been heavily involved in the development of the Greensborough District Centre by preparing appropriate policies. structure plans and development concepts including the east side of I Main Street. Stage I of this development involves the provision of office. entertainment. and community facilities and car parking. The status of Greensborough as an 'outer strategic district centre' should be strengthened. I Major development outside district centres should not be supported. I 62. ADAMSON, WILLIAM - RESIDENT, CITY OF RINGWOOD District centres should not encourage office development until the office space in Central Melbourne I has been utilised.
Office development at Ringwood District Centre is a short-term gain for developers. A viable alternative to office and retail development is to establish a tertiary institution. I
63. CALDWELL, DAVID: RESIDENT, CITY OF RINGWOOD I
The encouragement of office development at district centres is not necessary due to the glut in office space in Central Melbourne. I Medium density housing should be encouraged at district centres. Ringwood should remain designated as a district centre. I 64. THE HON. JIM KENNAN, MP, MINISTER FOR THE ARTS I Financial contributions can be made through grant programs or the Regional Arts Task Force. I 65. CAMBERWELL, CITY OF Council supports the use of the activity centres framework identified in Report 1 to the Technical I Advisory Committee as a basis for policy review subject to on-going local government involvement. I 6 6 . OAKLEIGH, CITY OF
The enforcement and implementation of district centre policy was not consistently applied or adhered to and the approach has been driven by controls rather than incentives. I District centres provide the opportunity for developing a community focus and higher residential densities with access to public transport. I District centre designation should be based on the centre's role. its niche. its ability to complement other centre. the commitment of local government and the preparation of a structure plan. No district centres should be delisted as this undermines the credibility of the policy. developer I confidence. and is a waste of infrastructure. investment and time.
District centre policy should revitalise existing district centre to ensure usage of the opportunities available at these centres. I A new approach other than rezoning is required to facilitate development at district centres.
A longer time frame to allow the development of district centres and more specific objectives are required to ensure accurate assessment of the policy. I 24 I ----~
I A research data base should be developed and maintained.
I 67. ROYAL AUSTRALIAN PLANNING INSTITUTE (VICTORIAN DIVISION)
RAPI support the Review and considers the Review's Technical Advisory Committee will ensure a I more comprehensive review. The deliberations of the TAC should receive public comment prior to any amendment.
The progression of the amendments to increase the size of Northland and Chadstone regional I shopping centres should be reviewed as these amendments will have significant implications for the activity centres hierarchy. I The relationship between district centres and the regional shopping .centres needs to be ascertained. Initiatives should be offered to developers. These include development bonuses and fast-track approval.
I Increased residential densities should be supported.
I 68. THE HON. MALCOLM SANDON, MP, MINISTER FOR POLICE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES
Police stations and combined law activities are appropriate to be .located on the periphery of district I centres to act as a transitional buffer between the commercial activities and residential areas.
I 69. SPRINGV ALE, CITY OF Council supports district centre policy as it provides a foci for metropolitan development, it concentrates jobs and business destinations at public transport interchanges, it sustains development I and it provides the opportunity to encourage tertiary employment in the outer-south eastern suburbs. Springvale Shopping Centre should be designated as a district centre. I District centre policy has had a chequered history but some centres with the help of Government and councils have achieved major improvements in their urban environments, retail strength, and office roles. I There has been insufficient time to allow the policy to achieve its expected results. Support for Moodie's Report. I The Government should encourage job growth at district centres.
I 70. ASSOCIATION OF INNER EASTERN COUNCILS INC. The Review should include studies on the role of regional shopping centres and the functions of 60+ I centres. ? The preferred framework is Central Melbourne, 5 - 7 outer strategic centres, and 60+ important suburban centres. I More information is required on the understanding of regional shopping centre hierarchies and the dynamics and variables that influence their performance. I Concern about the impact of the expansion of regional shopping centres on traditional strip centres. I 71. MOORABBIN, CITY OF' Council does not support the development of Dandenong as a second Central Melbourne as it accentuates the inequities between the south east, and north and west of Melbourne. I Stronger government commitment to the policy is required. The policy is now only beginning to be implemented. I 25 Cheltenham District Centre has not developed like Box Hill or Frankston as its social and economic I function is different. Although there has been limited development. the Council has been entrepreneurial and has invested resources in promoting the centre. Developments such as Tally Ho. Brandon Park. and the Coles Myer office at Tooronga have been to I the detriment of district centre policy.
The role of lower order centres should be recognised but should exist under the umbrella of deSignated district centres. I The role of Central Melbourne requires investigation. Regional shopping centres should only be developed if it is demonstrated that they will not be to the I detriment of existing district centres. Promotion and marketing of district centres is required. I No additional district centres should be designated.
The Council would oppose any move to change the designation of Cheltenham due to existing investments and inadequate time for the centre to develop. I
72. THE HON. PETER SPYKER, MP, MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT I District centre policy supports Victoria's Long-Term Urban Development Strategy by retaining the primary role of Central Melbourne. and clustering of key activity centres on fued rail routes. I District centre policy helps achieve urban consolidation through the more efficient use of infrastructure. and the overall need for car travel. It has not been successful in attracting higher density housing. Increases in employment and housing are required to increase public transport, and improve road work utilisation. I A needs-based approach to resourcing and promoting centres should be encouraged in a balanced manner across the metropolitan area; in particular to promote growth in the north and west. , I The policy should encourage two zones of activity centres: an inner zone with Central Melbourne as the prime focus and an outer zone with five or six catchment regions.
Developers should be required to cover the· full cost of consequential transport infrastructure for I developments outside district centres. The number of centres should be between 15 and 20. I The framework should create balanced growth and development across the metropolitan area. I 73. BOX HILL, CITY OF
The Council endorses the resolutions of the meeting of district centre councils in November 1991. (See Submission 80 for details) I
The Council is concerned with the ad-hoc re-zoning proposals (Nicholas Kiwi. England Road) in light of the current review. I
74. . CwI.F.N f:F.NTRF. PTY. LTD. I The Government should remain committed to district centre policy as it secures existing and future investment by creating a stable environment.
Future development proposals at the Glen Waverley 'District Centre involve 52,300 square metres of I retail space together with developer contributions for a new rfug road, drainage and u:affic upgrading.
Greater emphasis on facilitating district centre projects through incentives, clear objectives, relaxed land use controls, and limited third party appeal rights. I
The number of district centres should be restricted to flfteen.
Support for district centre policy as it encourages and directs major activity into selected centJ:es. I 26 I I Measures included in the MMBW's Metropolitan Strategy Implementation Report (1981) need to be undertaken to indicate a clear preference for district centres and to establish a framework for investment.
I The role of regional shopping centres can be complementary when they are at appropriate locations and at an appropriate scale. I 75. CENTRO PROPERTIES LIMITED
There is not support for district centre policy as planning should not restrict property owners in I managing their assets, except if there are compelling reasons to do so.
District Centre policy should be subject to a critical review from a market-oriented perspective. Such a I review should include a cost/benefit economic analysis of the policy. I 76. PRESTON, CITY OF Preston's role as a district centre has been unclear. Its major strength lies in its government, community and food shopping focus. I Council commitment to Preston District Centres has involved $1.168 million for street improvements, $5,000 for marketing and various planning studies. I Support for the expansion of Northland. State Government commitment is required. I
77. VICTORIAN EMPLOYERS' CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
I The option of abandoning the policy should be fully canvassed. I VECCI supports the Position Paper prepared by BOMA (See Submission 78).
78. BUILDERS OWNERS AND MANAGERS ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA LIMITED
I District centre policy has failed. There have been declines in the proportion of retail and office stock in the metropolitan region. I The policy should be abandoned because : it has II doubtful basis in theory or in prllCtiCal research. The idea of a district centre fulfilling all the I needs of a local community does not work in Melbourne. it has never had a clear set of objectives or been assessed against stated goals. The objectives have been modified several times. There is no research to support the policy with respect to the impacts of clustering on car usage, the more efficient use of infrastructure or the achievement of either social I justice objectives or a sense of place. the Government has not been committed to the policy. Major development proposals outside district centres have been approved, viable projects in district centres have not been expedited, and the policy I has been ignored when the Government has made decisions about the location of government services.
it is static, it distorts priorities and detracts from the importance of Central Melbourne. A I performance based approach to the assessment of development proposals can cope better with change. District centre policy is unnecessary if sound sectoral policies are in place. Sectoral policies should be based around a clear set of policy objectives and development performance criteria. Land use zones I should contain 'deemed to comply' standards. Prohibition in zones would only relate to uses of land. Development should be regulated by performance criteria, derived from the sectoral policy objectives and related to the environmental, I social or economic impact of development for a particular land use. I 27 Increased government involvement in the monitoring of policies and controls is required, including I the reduction of the powers of local authorities to ensure effective policy implementation. I 79. NORTH RINGWOOD BY-PASS GROUP The Review is supported. I The encouragement of office development at district centres is not necessary due to the glut in office space in Central Melbourne. Medium density housing should be encouraged at district centres. I
80. FOOTSCRAY, CITY OF I The representatives of the district centre councils passed the following resolutions at a conference held at Footscray on 19 November 1991. I 'That this meeting:
1 . Strongly supports the refinement and strengthening of a strategic framework for metropolitan economic development; I 2. That a district centre policy is the critical element in the implementation of that strategy; 3. In order that this objective is achieved, long-term commitment be sought from all levels of state I government and its agencies, the opposition and other key interested parties to support the district centre policy.' The meeting developed suggested actions which are: I The establishment of direct local government communication access to state cabinet to have effective input into decision making regarding these matters. I That a district centres forum be re-established, under the umbrella of the MAV with the objectives firstly of better involving local government in the district centre review and secondly to hold an annual information session on district centre development That membership be based on all councils with district centres. I I 81. WHITNEY, DAVID: CONSULTANT, PERROTT LYON MATHIESON PTY. LTD. (RAPI SEMINAR 18/3/92)
The idealistic expectations of what district centre policy is trying to achieve has created an over I reaction to developments occurring outside district centres ..
District centre policy does not need to be continuously reviewed. Commitment to the policy is required to create sensible, realistic and gradual change. I
The advantages of clustering and maximising the use of existing infrastructure can occur at any activity centre. I The original selection criteria for district centre designation are doubtful as there was a bias toward strip centres and fIXed rail public transport with little recognition of growth potential. I The Structure Plan process is a monumental task for some councils. The process needs to ensure that statutory controls for Plans can be implemented.
The introduction of developer contributions by some district centres is a form of discrimination I against the development of district centres. It is contrary to the initiatives canvassed in Amendment 150 and the Metropolitan Strategy Implementation Report. Many of the initiatives have not been undertaken and these include developer bonuses, relaxed parking requirements, reduced information aquirements, and assistance with land assembly. I
Urban design guidelines and strategy plans have not stimulated development at district centres. Development should be encouraged by an 'as of right' approach, in particular to attract medium density housing. I 28 I Councils sbould look at their activity centres in an objective manner and determine where and how I community needs may best be catered for. I 82. JONES, BRIAN: CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CITY OF CAMBER WELL (RAPI SEMINAR 18/3/92)
I The City of Camberwell does not want Camberwell Junction to be designated as a district centre. It would prefer the centre to be a centre at tbe sub-regional/community level.
The Council welcomes the Review as an opportunity to look at the effects on inner centres sucb as the 1 Junction. It supports the option for the activity centres framework wbich bas Central Melbourne as the prime focus, a few outer strategic centres, a diverse range of major mixed use centres and a limited number of specialist centres.
I The role of the State Government is to set the framework while local government is involved with the detailed planning.
The decline in activity at Camberwell Junction is linked to the high level of speculation wbicb bas I forced out small speciality traders or bas increased the prices for goods and services.
1 83. LENNIE, OWEN: ON BEHALF OF THE BUILDING OWNERS AND MANAGERS ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA LIMITED (RAPI SEMINAR 18/3/92; BOMA SOUTH·EASTERN FORUM 24/3/92)
I· The concept of naming district centres sbould be abandoned because there is no theoretical basis for striving to locate major retail and office precincts together in the suburbs. I District centre policy bas not and cannot meet its environmental, economic and social objectives. The objective of tbe 'multi-purpose' trip has not been fully tested. Researcb suggests tbat employment and sbopping are not related activities:
I Tasman Market Researcb on bebalf of The Gandel Group suggests that 89.1 % of people come from bome to sbop at Dandenong.
A survey of suburban office uses publisbed by Baillieu Knigbt Frank in the Melbourne Suburban Office 1 Market Report indicated that proximity to sbopping or recreation facility was insignificant in the location decision of offices.
The idea of the multi-purpose trip is based on an implicit notion that the district centre is a medieval I market town.
Researcb suggests tbat public transport is not significant for sboppers or employees at district centres. At Dandenong only 1% of sboppers came by train (Tasman Market Researcb), parking and 1 access ranked significant in the location of offices (Baillieu Knigbt Frank). District centre policy ignores the importance of the motor car for access in Melbourne and buses in 1 public transport pr:ovision. Retail and office uses have completely different transport characteristics and should be treated separately. 1 Most researcb is being carried out by firms such as Baillieu Knight Frank, BOMA and tertiary institutions. .. The role of the Department of Planning and Housing should be to coordinate and influence tbe , direction of researcb in the private sector. District centre policy is an overlay policy whicb complicates planning scbeme documents. The Policy also diverts planners from the real environmental, economic and social affects of proposals as I planners become pre-occupied with the treatment of developments outside the hierarcby. District centre policy creates the expectation that all district centres with the same classification I should bave the same range of facilities. In respect of developer contributions BOMA supports the user-pays principle. Three requirements are necessary. These are: the cbarges must be reasonable; the charges must be predictable; and the proceeds must be. directed to the area of the development for the purpose for wbich the cbarge was I levied. I 29· Better use of infrastructure will only be achieved by increasing urban densities. I Location policy should be sector-driven. I 84. BOWDEN, DAVID: DIRECTOR, JONES LANG WOOTION VIC. PTY. LTD. (RAPI SEMINAR 18/3/92) District centre policy is flawed as it concentrates development in certain precincts and does not· I provide land for development.
District centre policy should not be based on railway nodes or public transport as only 5% of metropolitan trips are by train. I Mixing and integrating major regional shopping centres with commercial centres can be counter productive due to the problems of accessibility. 1 Many district centres do not have the profile or locational characteristics appropriate for their designation. Location choice is fundamental to a properly balanced and functional market. Office parks and low I rise office environments are attractive to many organisations.
Local government should not have the planning responsibility for implementation of strategic policy. I. Many centres have grown despite their district centre designation. Community needs will dictate where and what development will occur. I District centres have not been supported by market preference. Major retailing and office development has not located in district centres. Increased densities are required to achieve a viable transport system network. The intensification of I housing will lead to the re-emergence of the neighbourhood retail centre. .
The land availability at district centres is essential for future development. The development of many centres will not be encouraged if the functional. demographic and locational qualities are not I appropriate to the market.
Ringwood. Dandenong and Box Hill should retain their district centre designation but not to the expense of other centres being able to develop commercially to meet market demands. I
85. HAMES, WILLIAM: EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN, HAMES SHARLEY AUSTRALIA I (BOMA SOUTH-EASTERN FORUM 24/3/92)
As 85% of Australians live in cities. it is important that a .sustainable society is created to build affordable cities. I District centres can help create a sustainable. affordable city. The Federal and State Governments are therefore correct in their encouragement of more efficient town planning.
Energy and social justice are key iss'ues for sustainability. Energy efficient cities save capital I expenditure which can be better used in enhancing quality of life. while sustainable cities provide more equitable and affordable access to jobs. housing. recreation. education and services.
District centres: I ensure people have good access to jobs. goods and services; and , promote energy efficiency economic sustainability and social equity. ,~
There are problems in promoting district centres because:
the designation of a district centre is questionable; I
Governments have been uncomprising once a centre has been designated; and
budget restrictions in Government limit the expertise available to assess the market and societal I shifts. In particular the State Government's skill base has been badly eroded. District centre policy should be supported . I 30 Legislators, owners and consultants have been simplistic in the interpretation of the Policy. There I has been insufficient professional work completed on the designation and ascertaining the content for each district centre. The philosopby of district centres should not be challenged. However the private and public sectors I should: establish procedures for monitoring change;
determine guidelines of how multiple functions can viably co-exist in terms of tenure, financial return I and social enhancement; develop documents which show how multiple uses can function together; 1 begin to work together and to trust one, another by having the common purpose of creating an efficient and affordable city.
The 'District Centre concept' has been successfully implemente~ in Perth where there are eight I strategic regional centres, and in North Auckland, New Zealand, The experiences with these centres have involved: i the lack of understanding by owners for the opportunities at each centre; the legislators not having the ability to implement their theories, to account for the variation 1 between centres; the failure of architects in understanding the design of district centres; and the relationship of the buildings within it; 1 Visionaries who recognise the differences between centres, but have the capacity to steer projects are required for the Policy to be successfully implemented. 1 86. VIC ROADS
Vic Roads' submission 'Transport Strategy Development for Metropolitan Activity Centres', supports' I' the emerging tiered structure of activity centres. A previous submission by Vic Roads for Victoria's Long-Term Urban Development Strategy made reference to a small number of major interlinked regional activity centres such as Dandenong,. Frankston and Ringwood in the east and an opportunity for regional centre development in the outer west-to-north quadrant of Melbourne.
For the outer west-to-n'orth quadrant, 'the private and public sectors need to work together to resolve the siting of regional activity centres, using the development potential of the Ring Road.
The selective designation of 'Activity Centres' focuses State attention on a strategic role to their development.
87. MOODIE, MARJORY: DIRECTOR, ANTHONY MOODIE & ASSOCIATES PTY LTD 1 (RAPI SEMINAR 18/3/92) It was timely to evaluate how effective the district centre policy has been, as it has been developed and 1 implemented for over a decade. " Only a few district centres (Dandenong and Prahran) have fulfilled a fully fledged district centre role as being the regional foci for administrative, commercial, culture, recreational and medium density housing activity.
I Box Hill, Footscray. Frankston and Ringwood district centres are achieving their district centres roles, hut have narrow functional bases and only have regional roles in terms of a single function. 1 District centres were never expected to operate in each activity area at the highest level. The 17 district centres are different in their achievements, progress, level of market interest and their commitment by local government.
1 Greater Council commitment through marketing, and resource allocation have generally seen a more successful results.
Retailing at district centres has expanded by an increase of 284,000 square metres of floor space over 1 the past decade. ' 1 31 Many district centres are deficient in comparison shopping opportunities despite their strong convenience shopping base.
In the future more district centres will assume a greater retail role. Sixty-nine per cent of retail proposals or 311,000 square metres are targeted at district centres. The role however will be limited I by the expansion of regional shopping centres.
District Centres have been successful in attracting office development. As at December 1989, 45% of suburban office space w~ located at district centres despite a relaxation of office policy in the mid- I 1980s.
Proposals for 270,000 sq.m of office space in business office parks in the middle south eastern suburbs ar a threat to the viability of district centres such as Glen Waverley, Oakleigh and I Cheltenham.
Box Hill, Dandenong, Preston and Footscray district centres have. built up strong diversified public sector roles. I The medium density, community service and entertainmentlrecreation roles of most district centres are poorly developed. i It is to premature to make judgement on the success of district centre policy.
It is not appropriate to recommend additional centres for designation or removal of district centre status. There are however too many centres. I District centres have not been actively marketed or promoted. There is a low public proflle and a lack of understanding by the community of what constitutes 8 district centre. I I I I I I I I I I I I 32 I I 5,. Policy references
A Place to Live: Urban Development 1992-2031, Government of Victoria, April 1992.
Directions 1992-95: A review of the City ofMelbourne Strategy Plan 1985, City of Melbourne and Department of Planning and Housing, July 1992.
District Centre Review Project Report, Government of Victoria, August 1992. '
Evaluation ofDistrict Centre Policy and Programs, OverviewReport by Marjory L. Moodie for the Department of Planning and Housing, August 1991 .
.. ' Housing Affordability, Victorian Housing and Residential Development Plan I Project 1, Department of Planning and Housing, May 1992. Housing Affordability Benchmarks, Victorian Housing and Residential I Development Plan Project 2, Department of Planning and Housing, May 1992. Metropolitan Activity Centres: A Policy Statement for Activity Centres, Retail Development, Office Development and Technology Precincts, Ministry for I' ' Planning and Environment, April 1989.
Metropolitan Strategy, Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works, July 1980.
I Metropolitan Strategy Implementation, Melbourne and Metropolitan Hoard of Works, April 1981
I Retail and Office Development Guidelines, Ministry for Planning and Environment, October 1989. I Shaping Melbourne's Future: The Government's Metropolitan Policy, Government of Victoria, August 1987.
The Victorian Code for Residential Development: Multi-dwellings, Department I of Planning and Housing, May 1992.
The Victorian Code for Residential Development: Subdivision and Single I Dwellings, Department of Planning and Housing, April 1992. Vision for Central Melbourne, Victorian Government Major Projects Unit, ,I February 1992. I. I I I I 33