I I I I I I I I ., I
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
I. ( I I I I I I Melbourne Metropolitan Planning Scheme .. 1 1 Amendment No. 280 1 Part 2 1 (Extensions to the Knox City 1 . .. Shopping Centre) 1 1 1 1- 'f . I . 1 I I ., I -I.' 1 Infrastructure Library 1 TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1961 I MELBOURNE METROPOLITAN PLANNING SCHEME 1 AMENDMENT NO. 280 PART 2 I (EXTENSIONS TO THE KNOX CITY SHOPPING CENTRE) I' I THE PANEL The Panel appointed by the Minister consisted of: ,'.- I Mrs. Helen Gibson, Chairman Mr. Alan Bunbury I Mr. Tim Biles : The Panel met at the Melbourne Metropolitan Board of Works head office, Spencer Street, Melbourne on 7th and 12th December 1984 I to hear submissions in respect of this item. I I· EXHIBITION Amendment No. 2BO was placed on exhibition for a period of one I month from I I ..... /1 1v- 2y ocvi- J~ I·· -r ~/4 - 711.4099 00111190 1·1 451 MEL:M Melbourne Metropolitan (1985) Part.2 Planning Scheme Amendment no. 280 Part 2 : I, Extensions to the Knox City shopping centre ," ~. I ~ - . I ~ . .~ I 2. I SUBMISSIONS Written submission only ~ere received from: City of Nunawading I David J. Schulz Victorian Chambers of Commerce and Industry Ministry of Transport I Boronia Chamber of £ommerce Written submissions which were supported at the Panel hearings were I received from: Australian Mutual Provident Society (AMP) - represented by Mr. G. Buckner QC, Mr. R. Evans I and Mr. H. McM Wright of Counsel I I City of Knox - represented by Mr. A. Atkins I City of Ringwood - represented by Mr. P.S. Boucher City of Waverley - represented by Mr. Clare The Forest Hill Shopping Centre Traders Association I Ltd. - represented by Mr. Morris of Counsel I The MMBW was represented by Mr. G. Edgar. THE AMENDMENT I The land owned by AMP on which is located the Knox City Shopping Centre is zoned Restricted Business. The gross leaseable floor area and number of car parking spaces are controlled by Clause 22AA I of the MMPS Ordinance. Item 2 of Amendment No. 280 proposes to increase the maximum permitted floor area of the Knox City Shopping Centre from 40,500 I square metres to 71,000 square metres and to provide for a minimum car parking ratio of ·6.6 spaces per 100 square metres of gross leaseable floor area. (The current requirement is for I a minimum of 6.5 spaces per 100 square metres up to an area of 33,000 square metres and a minimum of 8 spaces per 100 square metres in excess of 33,000 square metres.) I The Knox City Shopping Centre is strategically located at the intersectipn of Stud Road and Burwood Highway, Wantirna South, City of Knox. The Centre opened in 1977 with approximately 33,000 I square metres of retail gross leaseable floor space plus two cinemas, the Knox Library and an office tower. The Centre has not been expanded since then although an increase of 7,500 square metres (to 40,500 square metres) of~·gross leaseable floor space was permitted I by Amendment Nq. 190 Part 2 to the MMPS two years ago •. I I .', Vi t I 3. AMP, whilst supporting Amendment No. 190, contended at that time I that the maximum gross leaseable floor area for Knox City should be in,creased to 60,000 square metres. The Panel considering submissions in respect of Amendment No. 190 I did not support AMP's request for 60,000 square metres gross leaseable floor area essentially because it did not accept the population figures on which that request was based. It considered I that the population figures presented by AMP were "probably overly optimistic" and did not reflect the ,apparent downturn in population trends since the reports containing those figures were prepared. I The Panel was also critical of the extent to which the Ministerial guidelines on retailing had been addressed. I In support of its current application for an increase in gross leaseable floor area to 71,000 square metres AMP~~e~hpO:prepa~~dl e:~i:~!3:--~f"·re-P'Efr_ts-:~~V?~ume7,...-1- 3-):w~i,~h-dE!armos ~ .. careful'l y"' wfth7_. 'I alYl-asp§.~J?=of-the"""Mm~ 5 ter ~al gUl,delwe~rhe:~anei-:accepts--:tJ)e?e ~BAsul~tan1;s7!-reports-as""fon y" comply ing-wi tff~these -guideH I)e 57 "'..... ---- - - ~ ... ~ I POPULATION FIGURES In addition, AMP has had fresh population figures prepared using I the cohort forward survival technique. An in-Centre survey, and an analysis of customer origin undertaken in late 1983 have indicated a larger catchment than was previously estimated and a larger I expenditure potential in the core trade area. The current core trade catchment of Knox City Shopping Centre has been identified as the municipalities of Knox and Sherbrooke. It I is estimated that by 1986 this catchment will have a population of 137,780 persons. The population is estimated to increase to 157,800 persons or 47,820 households by 1991, and 176,900 persons I or 53,610 households by 1996. The peripheral trade area has been identified as the five adjacent municipalities of Lilydale, Ringwood, Waverl~y and Nunawading. The total trade catchment (both core and peripheral) is estimated to have a population of 515,490 persons by 1986. I (See Table 3.4, page 34, Volume 3, "Market Assessment" prepared by Wilson Sayer CorePty. Ltd.) I Whilst some criticisms of the methods employed in reaching these conclusions were raised, particularly by the Forest Hill Traders Association, these population projections were not seriously ·1 challenged by any of the parties. They w,ere supported by the City of Kno~ which is carrying out its own cohort forward survival population projections. The Council advised the Panel that the figures it has derived are not dissimilar from those put forward by I AMP. [.O"e .... Panel::tnerefore accept5:tne popUlation 'figures-su6mil:tea~6y I ®Mp.,'--j(.• Having accepted these figures however, their interpretation in terms ,I of the effect of an expanded Knox City Shopping Centre on other nearby shopping centres was the subject of dispute between the ,I various submittors. :1 I i1 I 4. I IMPACT ON OTHER CENTRES AMP submits that taking account of both core and peripheral trade I areas the expansion of Knox City is immediately sustainable. On the other hand, the majority of other submittors argued that the extensions proposed were premature and would have the effect of drawing such a significant volume of retail trade from other I existing shopping centres as to seriously prejudice the continued viability of those centres. Specific reference was made to the I effect on Forest Hills, Boronia, Ringwood and Glen Waverley. AMP admits that the proposed expansion at Knox City will have an effect on other shopping centres but not a significant effect. I In discussing the effect on Boronia, which shares a similar core trade area with Knox City AMP submits that: I "Whilst Boronia Centre would be affected by inclusion of competing stores in Knox City, the resultant impact would not threaten the I ongoing viability of the Boronia Centre in view of the amount of available expenditure in Knox City trade area. Indeed the demand for retail space as highlighted in section 5.5 I can sustain both an expanded Knox City and Boronia Centre." I (Vol. 1 page 25.) With respect to the implications for community and neighbourhood I centres it is concluded that: "An expansion of Knox City would not have any significant adverse impact on lower order retail I centres in or near the Knox City core trade area. This is due to the different roles which these centres perform relative to Knox City and the likelihood,given previous experience, that ,they I will continue to sustain their appropriate share of aggregate retail floorspace." I (Vol. 1 page 26.) And with respect to implications for centres in the peripheral I trade' area: "Whilst an expansion of Knox City may draw some trade from existing regional centres I in the peripheral trade area, the amount of trade drawn would not affect the ongoing viability of the centres given: I the nature of each centre's individual trade area; the presence of major magnet stores I in most of the centres; and I I I I 5. the desirability of allowing market I forces to benefit the consumer in the form of widened shopping opportunities and greater competition which then allows I the continual process of adjustment of centres to occur!" . I (Vol. 1 page 26.) Whilst the market assessment provided by AMP and a closer analysis of the possible effects on other centres are dealt with in the next section of I this report the Panel would make the following general comments. Firstly, it is extremely difficult to accurately assess other centre's claims that their viability will be affected in the absence I of up-to-date trading figures for these centres. The only centre for which the panel has such figures is Knox City I which had an anticipated turnover of $115 million for 1984. (Vol.l page 24.) AMP agreed that the Centre is ·currently overtrading by almost I double what is accepted to be the threshold turnover level of $2,010 per square metre of retail floor space per annum. It has also impliedly admitted that its o~n tenants at Knox City will be I adversely affected by the proposed extensions due to a reduction in their annual turnover. "The proposed extension cannot be expected I to double turnover (in 1984 $ terms), becaus a dilution of the trading performance in $ MZ.