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. pa is usually experienced after major I extensions to existing centres." (Vol. 1 page 24.)

I Thus the effect of the extensions on existing traders will be absorbed, at least partly, by traders at .Knox City itself. Obviously however, AMP does not anticipate that the effect of I the extensions will result in trading for the Centre as a whole falling below the thr~shold turnover level or. sustainable level - simply that the extent of the Centre's current overtrading will be I reduced.

Thus, ~~the:-absenCEf-of~trading figures for other tentres-i t is:' tmpossihle--to-assess whether ·they too are overtrading and howmuctl I weight to give to their claims that an expanded Knox City will J.eopardise their viability.- I The issue is further confused by apparently conflicting statements made by the likes of the Boronia Chamber of Commerce which alleges that; "The development when completed could only be sustained by attracting trade from the existing centres, which are already I experiencing financial difficulties ••• " (para. 3) but then refers to; "The partial revival of centres such as Boronia and Bayswater I which has recently commenced ••• " (para. 5.) I I -if I ,I \ t. I \. 6.

The Panel finds it surprlslng that there have been no detailed I studies conducted specifically on the effects of new or expanded shopping centres on existing centres (as distinct from reports on I anticipated effects .') - Notwithstanding this, the Panel tends to agree with the statement on behalf of AMP that I - "There are relatively few instances of where lower order centres have been so affected as to have their basic functions discontinued, as a direct I result of the introduction or expansion of a major regional centre. This is especially true of an area such as Knox where residential population is growing significantly. As a result I of increased competition there may be changes in ~~dividual store functions or operation. Furthermore other factors also influence I changes in established centres, namely obsolescence with regard to condition of premises and store type, and inability to I upgrade the support infrastructure such as car parking." - I (Vol. 3 page 70.) The Panel believes these statements are particularly apt with respect to the Forest Hill and Boronia Shopping Centres. With respect to the effect on both of these centres it was argued that extensions I at Knox City were premature. The Panel was advised that the Forest Hill Shopping Centre, developed I in the early 1960's, is by contempary standards, now becoming out­ moded. Studies_ in 19B1 had concluded: I "that the only feasible means of ensuring its on-going viability and the retention of its present desirable role in the overall shopping centre heirachy, would be to completely I redevelop the older part of the centre, and to provide within this ar~a a new building complex ••• accommodating a large supermarket, a full I sized discount department store, a large clothing store and a complementary range of smaller specialty shops. In addition to this new building work, the owner also saw the need to I up-grade the appearance of the centre as-a-whole, to consolidate and expand the off-street car parking facilities, and to carry out associated I external roadworks aimed at achieving a more orderly movement of traffic both within and about the centre." (page 2 Report by LM. d'Dliveyra, I Meldrum Burrows and Partners, dated 7th December 1984.) This resulted in an amendment to Clause 22AA of the MMPS Ordinance authorising an expansion of the Forest Hill Shopping Centre to I 43,900 square metres GLFA. I ,I' ",I t J '.

I 7. Although the owner of the Forest Hill Shopping Centre did not make any submission to this amendment, it was argued on behalf of the I Forest Hill traders that: " ••• the Forest Hill centre is in a particularly I vulnerable position (given its currently outmoded state and the increased trading competition with which it already has to contend (from Box Hill).) If the Knox City centre is massively expanded in I the short term and before the Forest Hiil centre has been up-graded and its balance with other centres re-established, then the additional trading I competition with which it will have to contend, from Knox City could well be enough to render this up-grading non-viable." '(page 5 I.M. d'Oliveyra I report.) Thus, it is not so much the present trading status of the Forest Hill centre which the traders appear concerned ~ill be affected I but'the future up-grading of the centre and the re-establishment of its role as "an important sub-regional shopping centre." I The difficulty with this proposition is that, if extensions to Knox City were delayed until the extensions at Forest Hill are complete and its market share re-established, the Knox City extensions may never be permitted as there is no guarantee that either of the I two events will occur. It is nearly two years since Amendment No. 247 authorising the extensions at Forest Hill was gazetted and I work has not yet commenced. It may also be that the Forest Hill centre is undergoing a permanent change in its role within the retail heirachy and never re-establishes I its former market share. The Panel does not believe that the possibility of preserving that "important sub-regional" role should be secured at the expense of the future of Knox City, particularly as the problems being faced by Forest Hill relate not only to I increased competition from Knox City but also to those other factors mentioned above (Vol. 3 page 70) - obsolescence with regard to condition of premises, store type, lack of support infrastructure I such as car parking etc.

\E15~::£lElAel--8oes""not~th'er-efotesupport· the submissions made by The, I cEores-t-H:i+l~.SAopp±ng··Cefitre· Traders' Association Ltd:o that the I?toposed~extensiorls·to··KrfOx City are -prernatufe"'vis a vis the Forest Hill centr:e. A similar argument was advanced by the City of Knox that the I amendment is premature pending

(a) near completion of structural changes at I the Boronia shopping centre, and (b) establishment of a shopping centre on Council owned land at Stud Park to service I the Rowville/Scoresby communities. I I I I ~' '. ~/t , , \ \ I 8.

In its "Retail Strategy Policy Document" adopted by Council in 1981 I the City of Knox identified Knox City as the Regional shopping centre. Boronia shopping centre was identified as a District Community shopping centre~ In discussing the Boronia shopping I centre it was stated: "Whereas its initial size contributed towards a regional function before the introduction of I the Knox City Shopping Centre,the introduction of the Knox City Shopping Centre has created a situation whereby the Boronia Shopping Centre I will be required to undergo stru~tural change as an evolutionary process. That is not to say that Knox City has brought about any drastic I change in the function of the Boronia Shopping Centre, but merely that Knox City has assumed the role of the major regional centre and the Boronia Shopping Centre, which is developed I largely as a community centre which performed a regional role, will now revert back to that of a community centre." I (page 13 City of Knox "Retail Strategy Policy Document".) I The general tenor of the remainder of this section in the "Retail Strategy Policy Document" is that the effect on Boronia by Knox City has not been as dramatic as expected and that each has their I own natural advantages. This appears to be at odds with statements on page 5 of the Council's written submissions to the Panel. Nor do the percentage figures for 1978,intended to illustrate the structure I of the Centre in terms of retail composition and mix, quite line up with the figures given on pages 11 and 12 of the "Retail St~ategy Policy Document" and ignores the 10% of floor area identified there I as representing motor vehicle, boat and caravan dealers. In its submission to the Panel the Council submitted:

"The downgrading of this role to- a lower order I Centre is clearly recognized by the Council within this retail strategy, however, because of the large amount of existing retail floor space, the I ability of the Centre to undergo structural change takes a considerable amount of time. Presently this Centre is undergoing such a I change ••• albeit slowly, and Council is of the opinion that the proposed extensions would severely hamper this necessary change to the I overall disbenefit of Boronia and -its surrounding community. • •• As the Boronia~ Centre already represents a considerable investment _in terms of bricks and mortar alone, Council I believes it has a duty to ensure that the Centre is afforded maximum protection until structural change is almost compiete."

I Unfortunately, the Council does not say when it anticipates this change to be complete or how such completion is to be recognized when it occurs. Nor is any indication giVen of the rate of change I in Council's eyes.

- -- --~ -- 1------_. -~------I I' . \.'" '. '\ I 9.

It is,now seven years since Knox City Shopping Centre commenced I operations. From its inception it was intended to assume the role of major regional shopping centre. Thus Boronia has had seven years in which to make those structural changes referred to. If this part I of Amendment No. 2BO proceeds it will be at least another two years until the extensions are operational. Nine years is a reasonable length of time for an adjustment period. 1~~anf;:!i-does-not' rther'efot-e -accept'-that Amendment No. 2BO is premature in terms of I :the-~Borcirirasnopping centre needing more time to adjust to its ~downgraded-To1:e'. The structural changes referred to by Council may need the impetus of the proposed extensions to Knox to ensure that I they do happen at all. Nor is the Panel inclined to consider that extensions to Knox City should be delayed until the Council's Stud Park shopping centre at I Rowville is complete. This may never occur for all sorts of reasons. It is entir~ly unreasonable from a regional planning point of view to delay extensions to a regional shopping centre such as proposed I ad infinitum pending construction of a totally new local shopping centre nothwithstanding that from a purely local planning point of view the Panel suspects that the Rowville development may never end I up being on a scale apparently justified by the geography of the area. Therefore, in conclusion on this point, ~J58::Pane~-does-not--accept' Cenat ---th-e- proposed Amendment No. 2BO Part 2 is premature. Not-does I tt-accept that the effects on other nearby centres will be so' ~±gntfrcant as to cause a net community disbenefit. Some centres may experience some reorganization within their composition as I they adjust to a different hierarchal role. Others may exper~ence additional competition however this is an accepted and intrinsic feature of· the free-enterprise system. The Panel accepts the figures provided by AMP as establishing room within the market I for the proposed extensions to Knox City although as discussed in the next section of this Report, the Panel suspects that the estimates of sustainable floor space are overstated - but not to I the extent that they affect the overall argument.

I MARKET ASSESSMENT AMP, in detailed submissions, set out two main bases for justifying the increase in floor area sought by the amendment - firstly, by I examining population projections.and hence the area of retail floor space which will be required in the future to service the population _ and secondly, changing trends in the structure of retailing services I and customer preferences. Retail Floor Area Required by Demographic Changes I (a) Trading Sphere of Influence

Plan 2 of Volume 3 of the proponent's submission displays an"B5% I Trade Area Boundary" developed from an in-centre interview study in 1982. This is described in ~he submission as demonstrating that the "trading sphere of influence" of Knox City Centre extends I beyond a 10.kilometre radius in all directions, 15 kilometres to the west and further to the east. A further customer-origin study I I I ~' " ( , '.' \1 I 10. in 1983, the findings of which were not included in the submission, I stated to have confirmed the earlier findings, and to have "established the current extent of Knox City's trade area" (Volume 3, page 25.) I The submission then goes on to define a "core trade area" as constituting the municipalities of Knox and ~herbrooke, which together contribute 71% of the number of shoppers. The "periphe:ral trade area" is then stated to be "essentially confined to parts of Waverley I and Nunawading ••• and Ringwood, Croydon and Lilydale." The Panel agrees with the submission of Mr. d'oliveyra, for the Forest Hill Shopping Centre Traders' Association Ltd., that the I proponent's submission fails to .clearl¥ identify the boundaries of the trade area. I The trade area assumed in the proponent's submission may be larger than that shown in Plan 2 of Volume 3, as in two other parts of the proponent's submission, (main submission to the hearing, , I page 4a, and Volume 5, page 7) it is stated that the trade area established by the 1983 studies is greater than that previously estimated.

I (b) Demographic Changes

Separately for the core trade area and the peripheral trade area, I the proponent's submission then examines a range of demographic factors, and presents the' results of the Standard Cohort Forward Survival method to project the number of households in 1986, 1991 I and 1996. The MMBW submission supported these projections. While the Board had made no independent estimates, its submission stated that strong I population growth is likely, and that the City of Knox rates highly in terms of various measures of growth by comparison with other municipalities. The Board representative commented that the I projections had been de'rived from independent data. The City of Knox representative also considered the population I projections to be reasonable. Objections were raised to the population projections on the grounds that a report from an MMBW officer (the "Zakharov Report") contained I the passages (Panel's underlining): "Overall, the information provided is acceptable although more detail in the population projections I ••• would have made ••• future demand ••• easier to understand"

I "Our appreciation of general growth in the Knox area is sufficient to accept the consultant's assumptions regarding population growth. However, their I projections do appear optimistic and their conclusions might require further investigation." I I Infrastructure Library

c~~I., ------I i , ,I' ." \1 I 11. "The rate of population growth, being sufficient to support an enlarged Knox City is acknowledged, I although detailed aspects of the approach used by the consultants to estimate future population should be I investigatedj" The MMBW representative at the hearing stated that the officer's suggestion for further investigation had not been adopted by the I Board. Another objection was raised that the Panel report preceding Amendment No. 190, which in 1982 increaseq the permitted gross I leaseable floor area from 33,000 to 40,500 square metres, reported that the population growth figures submitted in support of an extension to 60,000 square metres (less than proposed in Amendment No. 280) were overly optimistic and that they should not be relied I upon as providing adequate justification for the increase in floor area sought by the proponent.

I The Panel does not accept this objection. No detail to support this argument was submitted, and the projections submitted to the Amendment No. 190 Panel appear to have been based upon earlier. I census data than that used in the projections submitted to the, Amendment No. 280 Panel.

The Panel notes that an average household size of 3.31 (the 1981 I figure) is used in forward projections, although this figure had declined from 3.48 in 1976, and was higher than the metropolitan average of 3.05 persons per household. If a continued decline had I been assumed, the estimated number of families would be larger, and to this extent, the estimates are conservative.

(c) Estimates of Retail Floor Space Sustainable by Population I Within the Trade Area

The AMP submission proceeds to derive estimates of sustainable I retail floor space for regional shopping centres in the area by assumptions based on three factors:-

I 7 expenditure available to each household for retail goods and expenditure; the likely share of the available household expenditure I likely to be attracted by regional shopping centres in the area; the threshold turnover level per square metre I required by a retailer for a viable retail business. From the resultant estimate of sustainable floor space for regional I shopping centres in the area, the submission then subtracts the present area of the Knox City Centre (32,400 square metres) plus the area ~f the Boronia Shoppihg Centre (34,900 square metres) - a total of 67,300 square metres - to arrive at estimates of the increase I in gross leaseable floor area sustainable at an enlarged Knox City Centre, on the basis that the area of the Boronia Shopping Centre . I remains static. I I ; I " "\.,1 I 12.

Compared with the increase of 38,600 square metres proposed by I Amendment No. 280, the estimates of additional floor space sustainable at Knox City Centre are: I TABLE 1 Square Metres

I Core Trade Core Plus Area Periphe;ral I Trade Area 1984 11,480 45,240 1986 15,820 48,140 I 1991 27,880 ·57,110 1996 39,400 67,700 I From these estimates, the proponent makes a number of claims:

taking the core plus peripheral trade area, the total I increase in area sought is currently supportable, without affecting the viability of the Boronia I 'Shop~1ng'Centre. This, the Panel notes, is consistent with the Board's comment that the level of sales generated by Knox City I Centre is significantly higher than that to be expected by a centre of this size and na~ure.

relying,on the core trade area alone; demand would I sustain the increase in floor space at some time before 1996.

relying on the peripheral trade area alone, the I Knox City Centre, to sustain the increase in floor space, woutd have to attract 4.5% of its total retail expenditure, or 10% of its regional retail I expenditure.

However, these claims do not make allowance for the retail gross I leaseable floor area proposed for the low-density retail complex on the Summit (Knox) Pty. Ltd. land immediately to the east of Knox City Centre. This is acknowledged by AMP in Section 4.4' of Volume 2, where the future retail gross leaseable floor area of I this complex is estimated at 20,000 square metres.

No time scale is available for this development but if it were I completed between 1986 and 1991, the estimates of sustainable additional floor space at Knox City Centre (compared with the increase of 38,600 square metres proposed by Amendment No. 280) must be I revised to: I I " I ,-- ".r' I 13. I Infrastructure Library TABLE 2 Square Metres

Core Trade Core Plus I Area Peripheral Trade Area I 1984 11,480 45,240 1986 15,820 48,140 I 1991 7,880 37,110 1996 19,400 47,700 I and the extensions to the Knox City Centre would be dependent for viability on attracting business from the peripheral trade area.

One submission, by Mr. d'oliveyra on behalf of the Forest Hill I Shopping Centre Traders' Association, criticised a number of factors in the proponent's derivation of sustainable floor space. I A most important component of the proponent's derivation is the statement that 45% - 50% of retail floor space, "and to some extent retail expenditure" has been generally devoted to "regional (including sub-regional)" shopping centres. In the derivation, 45% is applied I to retail expenditure. Mr. March, for AMP, stated at the hearings that this figure is based I upon surveys by Wilson Sayer Core Pty. Ltd. and by Plant Location International, and that later figures showed this percentage to be increasing. Mr. d'oliveyra stated that the surveys of Meldrum I Burrows and Partners showed this figure "to be closer to 40%". T~e Panel has no firm data on this important factor.

Mr. d'oliveyra further pointed out that the proponents (in their I submission Volume 3 .page 12) state that "the proportion of regional space in the municipalities of Knox and Sherbrooke is around 35%", and submitted that a figure of 45% is fallacious and misleading. I The Panel considers that this may merely confirm that the Knox City Centre is over-trading, with a higher-than-average return per square metre of floor space~

I A significant criticism by Mr. d'oliveyra is that the proponent's derivation assumes that all expenditure at regional shopping centres from households within the core trading area (45% of total retail I expenditure) would be at the regional shopping centres of Knox City Centre or Boronia, and that no allowance had been made for leakage to other regional shopping centres. The Panel accepts this criticism, I but has no data to assist in evaluating its importance. Mr. d'oliveyra further criticised the assumption of attraction of retail expenditure from the peripheral trade area of 30% in 19B4, I 28% in 1986, 25% in 1991 and 20% in 1996 as "very large given the inevitable escape." No further details were provided by the proponent or the objector, and perforce the Panel accepts this I assumption. I _. c~lc==~c.~=c",=c I \' '. "'/ , ~..J I 14. The Panel does not accept the further submission of Mr. d'Oliveyra that the projections do not take account of the proposed Rowville I Shopping Centre, as this is not envisaged as either a regional or .a sub-regional shopping centre. I To test the sensitivity of these criticisms, the Panel has calculated the effect on sustainable floor area if only 40% of household expenditure from the core area was spent at the regional I shopping centres of Knox City Centre and Boronia - to take account of the criticisms that 45% is too high, and that allowance has not been made for leakage to other regional shoppihg centres.

I On that assumption, and after allowing for the Summit (Knox) Pty •. Ltd. development as before, the sustainable floor area at Knox City Centre (compared with the proposed increase of 38,600 square metres) I would be: TABLE 3 I Square Metres

Core Trade Core Plus I Area Peripheral Trade Area I 1984 2,730 36,480 1986 6,580 38,900 I 1991 - 2,700 26.,540 1996 7,720 34,220 I and the proposed increase could not be substantiated. The Panel does not present these figures as representative of the probable future, but the figures do demonstrate the importance I of important assumptions not substantiated in the proponent's submission, and upon which doubt has been thrown by objections. I f)yera'fI; "the--Pahel' sji;Jdg,?me-rit is ttiatthe estimates of sustainable tFt1oor- space at Knox. Ci ty Centre of Table 2 are probably optimistic::> b.~t=that this may not be so significant given the structural changes I q~eeorringin retail patterns·~ . I The Efect on Other Shopping Centres Clearly the major extension proposed for Knox City Centre could affect other shopping centres, bo'th large and small, in the area.

I (a) Major Shopping Centres

The major shopping centres in the area, which are all shown as I within the trade area of Knox City Centre (proponent's submission, Volume 3, Plan 2) include: I I I I ~ '~/ I 15.

Boronia, 4 km distant, with a floor area equivalent I to Knox City Centre; I Bayswater, 4 km distant; Vermont South, 5 km distan~; I Ringwood, a district centre, 6 km distant; Glen Waverley, a district centre, 7 km distant; I Forest Hill, 7.5 km distant. Boronia was the main regional shopping centre in the area before ·the establishment of Knox City Centre, which was identified by the City I of Knox as the principal regional centre in its "Retail Strategy Policy Document" of 1981. Council accepts that Boronia has limitations to its possible expansion, and is not as well-situated I as Knox City Centre. The City of Knox, is objecting to Amendment No. 280, does not oppose the expansion of Knox City Centre at some time in the future, I but argues that Boronia requires more time to adjust to the competition from Knox City Centre, that the structural change to a lower-order centre takes a considerable time, and that increased I competition from Knox City Centre would "severely hamper this necessary change to the overall disbenefit of Boronia and its I surrounding community." The City of Knox argue that current retail floor space in Knox in relation to population is already one of the highest in Melbourne, and the Boronia Chamber of Commerce, in objecting to the amendment, I provided figures to show that this ratio is much higher than in Waverley, Springvale and Camberwell. I The Boronia Chamber of Commerce expressed its concern that the proposed development would cause further business failures and hardship to proprietors and employees.

I The City of Ringwood also objected that the extension of Knox City Centre would result'in an oversupply of regional retail floor space in the locality, for some time. The expanded Knox City Centre would I compete directly with Ringwood and Glen Waverley and adversely affect their ability to pr6vide the high level of service expected I of a district centre. Similar objections were expressed by the City of Waverley on behalf of the Glen Waverley district centre, for which the planning of I extensions is well-advanced. Mr. d'Oliveyra submitted a detailed objection on behalf of the Forest Hill Shopping Centre Traders' Association Ltd. The Forest I Hill Shopping Centre was one of the earliest 'planned shopping centres, but is now in need of redevelopment. That redevelopment and expansion is planned and authorised by the Melbourne Metropolitan I Planning Scheme. The concern is that the extension of Knox City Centre would impose excessive trading competition at a time when the Forest Hill centre is most vulnerable, and threaten the viability I of the existing centre, and its costly but necessary up-grading. I ~

I , ; ~ I 16. The Victorian Chambers of Commerce and Industry, and Mr. D.J. Schulz, I objected generally to the adverse impact of the proposed development on other shopping centres" and individual businesses. I The proponent's submission addressed these effects. In relation to Boronia~ it was stated that:

the assessment of sustainable retail floor space at I Knox City has taken the floor space at Boronia into account on an equal basis (refer Section 1.1.3 of this report);

I the Boronia shopping centre will be able to draw upon an expanding population in the area;

I the Boronia shopping centre appears to have adjusted quite well to sharing the market with Knox City Centre. I The Panel has already commented that by the time any extension of Knox City Centre were built, th~ Boronia shopping centre would have had almost 10 years to adjust to the presence of Knox City Centre.

I The proponent discounts any major effect on Ringwood, Glen Waverley and Forest Hill, stating generally that each centre has its own defined regional trade area (and the Ringwood area has an expanding "I population), that each centre, with the exception of Glen Waverley, has or is proposing, major retail magnets and that the expansions I planned at each centre will enable them to counter competition." The MMBW supported these general views. In addition, the Board had tested the effect of competition through its Impact on Suburban Activity Centres (ISAC) model. The ISAC model," which is still in I a developmental stage, predicts the effect of competition on a " number of parameters. I The model suggested drops in sales at several centres, but these were not considered to be significant impacts. The Board stated that from experience, the impacts of new retail development are spread over a number of centres which regain the 'lost ground' over I time. -I The drops in sales suggested by the model for comparison goods are: For 7 km For B km I Radius Radius Ringwood 9% 11% Glen Waverley 10% 13% I Forest Hill , 8% The developers of the model classified a loss of less than 10% I in turnover as having relatively limited impact and a loss of 10% to 20% in turnover as possibly having "a moderate to noticeable impact in so far as it greatly reduces or removes the profit incentive for individual operators, and so suggests that some possible change of I function would be required." I I I I 17. It is again emphasised that the ISAC model is still in a development I phase. The City of Knox, quoting the Technical Advisory Committee Report on Retailing, emphasised that the planning process has a I responsibility to ensure that "established centres containing significant community assets are not prejudiced by new developments elsewhere." However the Panel has little evidence to I lead it to the conclusion that an extension to Knox City Centre would affect other regional shopping centres to any extent beyond I that of reasonable competition. The ~anel has also previo~sly noted that the greatest impact is likely to be upon the operations currently within the Knox City· I Centre. (b) Community and Neighbourhood Shopping Centres I The proponents maintain that extension ·of Knox City Centre would have no significant compact on community and neighbourhood shopping centres, as these serve a more localised function, which has been I allowed for in the estimation of sustainable retail floor space. The City of Knox is particularly concerned at the possible effect upon the proposed Stud Park centre in Rowville, which has been I planned since 1975 to serve an area of growing popul~tion and which has no retail or community facilities. Council stated that the impact of prospective development at Knox City Centre is already being felt in that it is now proving difficult to attract a major I established retailer to Rowville; and that Amendment No. 280 would lead to an improper distribution of retail facilities inequitable I for the new communities developing in the Rowville area. It is difficult for the Panel to assess this danger, or the impact upon smaller shopping centres, which made no submissions to the I proposed amendment. In fact, the ISAC model predicts greater impacts upon smaller than upon regional shopping centres. For example, the reduction in turnovers are suggested as (Comparison I shopping for 8 km radius from Knox City Centre): Wantirna shopping centre 16% I Mountain Gate shopping centre 16% Scoresby shopping centre 20% Shopping centre cornet of Ferntree I Gully Road and Kathryn Road 22% Thus the ISAC model does not support the proponent's case that I smaller shopping centres would be little affected. Generally, the Panel is of the view that Amendment No. 280 could well inhibit the development of the Rowville shopping c~ntre I although it does not believe that this factor, of itself, warrants the Knox City extensions not proceeding. I I _-I I .: I 18. I STAGING Several submit tors , including the City of Knox, argued that any extensions to Knox City should be staged. A staged expansion of the Centre certainly appeared to be AMP's intention at the time I of Amendment No. 190. What, then, has changed since 1982 t6 lead AMP to totally reject the notion of staging the construction I of the additional 38,000 square metres GLFA proposed? The Panel accepts the evidence of Mr. L.J. O'Connor from the property division of AMP, that in terms of construction economics I it is much easier to plan a total extension all at the same time than to extend in-a piecemeal fashion. Staged construction involves continual disruption to tenants due to constant demolition and re-arrangement of shops and spaces within the centre as additions I are made. Trading performance is also affected.

However, these arguments against staged construction were not I raised in respect of Amendment No. 190. Mr. O'Connor further advised the Panel that it had never been AMP's intention to stage development of the centre in a constructional I sense but to "go for broke."

It could be seen that the additional 7,500 square metres authorised I by Amendment No. 190 was merely a testing of the waters by AMP. Certainly, no steps have been taken to implement that permitted I extension. However, whatever the truth of the matter with respect to Amendment No. 190, the Panel believes that the increase in gross leaseable floor area envisaged by Amendment No. 280 is justifiable without I a requirement for staging for two .reasons: .

(1) Retail shopping patterns have been I undergoing major strvctural changes throughout Australia over the past few years thus necessitating regional and I other shopping centes to expand to incorporate these new store developments to enable· centres to continue to satisfy consumer needs and maintain their hierarchical I role; and

(2) To clearly settle the future Df the Knox I City Centre and enable it to be properly planned and integrated with the remainder of what is likely to become a District I Centre. I STRUCTURAL CHANGES IN RETAILING PATTERNS AMP has been accused of giving no satisfactory reason which is not related to investment return for seeking to carry out the huge I extensions proposed. Of course investment return is of paramount importance to AMP. Whilst community benefit may be the primary requirement of planners, it is usually only a by-product to . I developers who are mainly only interested in investing their capital I I ,' . I 19. in shopping centre projects if any adequate investment return is envisaged - as the City of Knox is discovering with respect to I its stud Park shopping centre. Volume 5 of the consultants' reports presented by AMP titled I "Development Overview" and prepared by George J. Connor and Associates Pty. Ltd. contains an analysis of these recent structural changes in retailing patterns and an assessment of Knox City I expansion needs. The proponent made a strong case that equally as important as calculations of economically sustainable floor are considerations I of an adequate range of retail facilities and adequate floor space for each of these facilities. I It is claimed that retail shopping patterns have been undergoing major stru.ctural changes in the past few years, which has resulted in recent substantial expansion in most of the strategically I located major regional centres in Australian cities. It is stated that: I whereas major department stores were the main traffic generators in the past, discount department stores and supermarkets are now the I main traffic generators; discount department stores, major supermarkets and many specialty shops have increased in floor area I substantially;

new specialty discount stores have developed I (selli~g electrical goods, furniture, toys, home wares etc.);

duplication of major store types are becoming I a common feature of retailing in Australia.

As a result of these structural changes and variations in the I sales potential of different stores, the broad pattern of shopping centre developments .has changed. Strategically lo~ated regional centres have substantially increased in size and in number of I shops in order to provide for their customer needs and to maintain their proper regional role~ This is an Australia wide trend. (See Table 1 Volume 5 page .10.)

I Because of Knox City Centre's extensive trade area, it is claimed that Knox City Centre belongs in this league. The Panel agrees. I Today the balanced merchandising pattern for a successful strategically located major regional shopping centre with growth potential, is a . centre of between 50,000 and 75,000 square metres retail GLFA. I Such a centre would comprise one or two major department stores, at least one full scale discount department store or Super K, two major supermarkets, two or three larger specialty shops and a total of around 150 smaller specialty shops, with parking for 4,000 to I 4,500 cars. (Vol. 5 page 5.) I I 20.

Thus it is claimed that to maintain its proper regional role, Knox City Centre needs to have a balanced merchandising mix of the type described above. It is also claimed that these trends have rendered obsolete projections of required floor space made as recently as 1982.

Specifically for Knox City Centre within the proposed 71,000 square metres GLFA the changes would:

enlarge the existing Target discount department store

supermarket for a new operator Myer department store;

Super K discount department store and supermarket combined

major department store

range of specialty shops

With increased car use providing greater flexibility for shopping it is the type and nature of stores which are the object of shopper visits, not the aggregate floor area, coupled with the overall amenity of the centre which. influences shoppers.

It is pointed 6ut that if the supply of floor space exce~ds supportable demand, the risk is borne by the store operators.

AMP supports these arguments by evidence of interest by major store operators in more floor space at Knox City Centre, and of customer surveys which express a desire for more competitive stores at the shopping centre.

The proposed extensions to the shopping centres at Glen Waverley and Forest Hill are both illustrations of thes~ trends analysed by George Connor.

In fact if the extensions at Forest Hill proceeded (43,900 square metres GLFA) without any extension to Knox City (presently 33,000 square metres GLFA) Forest Hill Shopping Centre would finish up bigger than Knox City. This could have a detrimental effect on the futu~e of Knox City as being the "commercial administrative and re­ creational hub of the municipality." (City of Knox "Retail Strategy Policy Document" page 6.)

Such a view is supported by the opinion of George Connor that:

"It is necessary to provide the opportunity for incorporating. major stores such as a Super K Mart and a second supermarket, while such stores are interested in the site opportunities available in the growing Knox City trade area. If this is not done the opportunity for developing an attractive and ~I " , \ I 21.

successful regional centre on this prime site may be I dissipated by alternative developments inferior by reason of their location, site restrictions, weaker growth prospects and lack of community facilities • ••. If Knox City is not allowed to develop at this I stage to a realistic size necessary to meet the modern requirements of these changing market forces and customer needs, the opportunity for this strategically I located centre to be developed into one of Melbourne's strongest and most attractive regional cehtres could I well be lost." (Vol. 5 pages 2 and 3.) The Panel accepts these views and considers the need to firmly I establish the future of Knox City as a regional centre to be the most compelling reason for recommending the approval of I Amendment No. 280. THE FUTURE OF KNOX CITY AS A DISTRICT CENTRE I The Panel considers there is now little doubt that Knox City will ultimately become a District Centre under the MMPS. By allowing this part of Amendment No. 280 to proceed there will be an unequivocal I settlement of the future of the Centre; it will enable other shopping centres to resolve their function and future in the hierachy of retail facilities possibly sooner than if left to their own volition which I the Panel believes will be in their ultimate best interests; and it will enable the Centre to be properly planned and integrated with I the remainder of what will become a District Centre. {~!;'r:n-an/el"-ro(Js-'opp6rturiityis being presented here to develdP a model~ The assets of Knox City Shopping Centre as the nucleus L6f a District Centre are its strategi~ location, its excellent road access I and few constraints in terms of multiple ownership and pre-existing development. Although conceptual plans for the proposed extensions were described I to the Panel, they do not form part of the Amendment as Clause 22AA of the MMPS Ordinance'requires development plans to be submitted to the I satisfaction of the responsible authority, (in this case the MMBW.) The Panel considers it isi~portant that the extensions to the Knox City Centre are seen as not just the provision of retail facilities I but as a focus of . the whole municipality. Whilst any future ~istrict Centre would encompass more than just the Knox City Centre itself, nevertheless the Centre is the logical hub of such District Centre I and should provide its visual epitome. The visual aspect oj- Knox City Centr.e, the landscaping and propoSEd deck3d car parking are dealt with in a later section of this report. I However, the Panel strongly believes' that the approval of Amendment 280 together with the recent application by AMP for .District Centre status of the area surrounding and including the AMP land ought to I result in a high class, planned and integrated District Centre of which the Kno~ City Centre is the focus. I I I , . I 22.

The Panel is also sceptical of the constant reference in the AMP I submission to the provi$ion of additional toilets, rest rooms and disabled access as "community facilities." The Panel believes that such things are more accurately described (as in Vol. 3 page 56) as I support facilities. The issue of additional community facilities is one wh'ich will need to be carefully addressed when planning the integration of the Centre as part of the District Centre.

I The Panel does not believe it would be appropriate to indicate how long it should be before Knox City becomes a 'District Centre. That will depend on many things. However, it does not accept the argument advanced I bY,several submittors that Amendment No. 280 is a back door attempt to create a District Centre and is a denial of opportunity to persons to criticize or comment on the creation of Knox City as a District Centre.

I The creation of a District Centre at Knox City will be an operation in its own right with full public opportunity to comment. At present, Knox City has only been identified as a Future District Centre by the MMBW I in its "Metropolitan Strategy Implementation" document. However, in that document the Board states: I "By indicating its intentions at this stage, the Board anticipates that these centres will form a focus for the growth of new commercial and community facilities. Once an appropriate population base and an adequate range of I facilities have been provided, designation as a district centre can occur." (page 61.) . I It is therefore intended that identified future district centres should form a focus for new development, which is exactly what is happening in this case.

I The Panel cannot therefore accept the contentions of the Cities of Waverley and Ringwood that the proposal contradicts the State Government's retail policy strategy which emphasises District Centresa~ the focus of retail I activities.

I TRANSPORT AND TRAFFIC IMPLICATIONS Volume 4 of the AMP Society's submission was prepared by D.T. Grogan and Associates, Consulting Engineers. This report provided a detailed I examination of the existing traffic network and conditions, the characteristics of shopping centre car parking demand, the proposals for road network modifications and the effect of expansion of the shopping centre on the I trCiffic network. Public Transport

I It was accepted that in regard to public transport Knox City shopping centre is served by six bus routes extending to Ringwood and Croydon in the north, the Basin and Upper Ferntree Gully to the east, Dandenong to the south and I Glen Waverley to the west. Although tram and train services do not extend to the Lenox City shopping centre the Ranel believes that the bus system has the ability to provide a reasonable level of public transport service I to the catchment area of the centre. While the absence of tram and train I I • ,I, \ " • - . I 23.

services might be argued as a basis for withholding the designation I of District Centre from Knox City Shopping Centre this is not a matter for the Panel to consider in this amendment. Similarly, the fact that other Centres have these services available is not in the Panel's view a matter which by itself, -is sufficient to prevent the expansion I of the existing retail floor space. I Function of Arterial Roads Knox City Shopping Centre is well located with respect to vehicular access for both private vehicles and buses, being situated at the intersection of two primary arterial roads. (D.F. Grogari Vol. 4 I page 1.)

In its submission to the Panel the City of Knox confirm the AMP I consultant's report: "The existing Centre is afforded ext,remely good road I access which is imperative to the proper function of the Centre as all access must be gained by road - transport ••• " (A. Atkins, City of Knox page 10.)

I . The proposals contained in the report of D.T. Grogan and Associates (AMP Vol. 4) to overcome increases in traffic volumes on these I materials include; " widening of Stud Road North of Burwood Highway to enable three through lanes and a separate right I turn into the site. widening of the Stud Road exit from the Shopping I Centre to provide an extended left turn lan~. widening at the Stud Road/Burwood Highway intersection to increase traffic carrying capacity of the intersection." I (D.T. Grogan Vol. 4 page 3)

In addition works are proposed to deviate High Street R~ad around I the Burwood Road/Stud Road intersection. Although no firm funding commitment has been received by the City of Knox from the Road Construction Authority, design documentation for construction has been completed and·scheduled for implementation during the period I 1985 - 1987. I The City of Knox submission'states that inter alia; " most of the proposals to overcome the conflict likely at access points to the site with through-traffic can I be adequately overcome with appropriate design measures. The concern of, Council, shared by the Road Construction Authority, is primarily in respect I of the number 6f access points onto Burwood Highway from the Centre." I (A. Atkins City of Knox page 10.) I I :. . \ ' • .1, \ .. '. , I 24. The Panel forms no view on this issue except that, as will be described later, it believes there is a strong need for the proposal I of AMP to be integrated with surrounding activities such as the Summit development, especially its access road. t.Itl-3;t.h!~--:-:re_gaTd~t:Ae-PaFlert~ \[~.rong-TecommeI']99k.i:9n~is,,-that the MMBW -provide an effectivE;! El::r~ordlnanhg nj~Er>rn:ontert with the City of Knox and other I statnt-oI'Y aLithorrtTes-:: '\w.,;--'- - _/ - ~---...--- ... In every other respect bhe Panel is satisfied that the road traffic I conditions have been adequately addressed and resolved in the submission by D.T. Grogan (Vol. 4) on behalf of AMP. I Car Parking Reguirements The report by D.T. Grogan (V61. 4) clearly establishes the rationale for reducing the car parking ratio to 6.6 spaces per 100 square metres I of gross leaseable floor space. The current requirement under the MMPS is for a minimum of 6.5 spaces per 100 square metres up to an area of 33,000 square metres and a minimum of B spaces per 100 square I metres in excess of 33,000 square metres. . In summary the submission identified the existing demand based in part on peak demand. The peak demand is Saturday morning with highest I demands at Christmas, Mothers Day and special promotional sales.

"Statutory Authorities and Shopping Centre Owners and I Managers acknowledge these peak situations and consider it inappropriate to design car parking areas and traffic access facilities to cater for the absolute I peak situations" (D.T. Grogan Vol. 4 page 11)

I There was no challenge to this statement by the ~ubmittors and the Panel accepts this argument.

The submission by D.T. Grogan proceeded to analyse ~he structure of I car parking demand including; the influence of cars moving along access aisles; the effect of increased floor space in existing centres at Doncaster Shopping Tower and Marion Shopping Tower (South I Australia); and the likely effect of the Summit development, and the expected distribution of traffic at the proposed points of access. I The conclusions of this analysis were that: " the expanded Shopping Centre is anticipated to generate a total parking demand for between 4587 and 4690 spaces I or between 6.5 and 6.6 spaces per 100 square metres of retail G.L.F.A." (D.T. Grogan Vol~ 4 page 28.)

I The Panel accepts and endorses these conclusions in so far as they affect the requirements for car parking. I I I I - ---~~ ~' \)" . ,I, ,,' Y ' ... I 25. I LANDSCAPE AND URBAN DESIGN Plans submitted with the proposal have been prepared by Buchan Laird and Bawden Pty. Ltd. Architects and Planners (Volume 1 AMP.) These I plans are schematic and show; Map 1 Site Plan Proposed

I Map 2 Massing Study I Map 3 Levell Plan (Lower Ground) Map 4 Level 2 Plan (Upper Ground) I The proposal is to construct new buildings in the north eastern and north western sectors of the site and provide decked car parking over existing parking space to the west and south east with. new ground I level parking in the north., The existing buildings and their surroundings have established a I reputation for their visual and architectural quality. "The existing Knox City Shopping Centre would perhaps be one of the best designed free-standing centres in Melbourne in terms of visual impact and considerable I attention has been paid to reducing the impact of the scale of the existing development by substantial landscaping around the perimeter of the development I and also throughout the development itself." (A. Atkins City of Knox page 11.)

I The drawings and plans accompanying the AMP's submission are sufficient to give an indication of the building intent but have not been I resolved in detail. ITfie;:l::Janell::;::oeIieIJE!s'Ci t "is'important that the new structures integrat~' c-with the-existing architectural fCJI'nf--and' wooid expect this to be, clearly~resol\1ed~before-the development plan is approved by the MMBW. I ~. . . The existing landscape condition surrounding the site is strongly planted in native veg~tation and this ~ertainly creates an attractive I setting and "e~try" experience for shoppers visiting the site. I The impact of the new decked car parking needs careful design attention " ••• it is of concern to Council that the visual amenity currently provided will be substantially reduced by the introduction of an upper deck car park adjacent to ••. I Stud Road." (A. Atkins City of Knox page 12.) I The Panel shares the view of the City of Knox that this and other design issues must be satisfactorily addressed. Again, however, the Panel believes that these are issues best resolved under the co-ordinating I sponsorship of the MMBW in concert with the City of Knox. I I .. ,I~ ," • I'· f; I 26. Specific matters which the Panel believes should be agreed in regard I to landscape treatment are: (i) a satisfactory screening of the decked car parking from Burwood and Stud Roads and most especially I the view line at the intersection of these two roads. I (ii) a suitable definition of the entry roads leading to car parks and the shopping centre (e.g. avenue planting) I (iii) a suitable design and implementation of trees to provide shade on the upper deck of the car park. I The Panel recognizes that in point (iii) that this can reduce space available for car parks but forms the view that where the number of spaces lost are minimal, the MMBW should find a negotiated solution I that satisfies the intent of the amendment. The integration of the AMP's schematic proposals with surrounding land uses is a matter of conceDn to the City of Knox. The Panel I shares the view that 'this is an issue that needs the application of thoughtful and creative urban design. (tt~~i-s~a~matter~whi'Cti=agairy (SnPIJRlo:::-be-c-carr-ied out under the co-ordinating hand of the MMBW -in I It?ison~withthe-City of Kno~. I Matters which the Panel believes should be resolved include: (i) the design of an effective internal circulation system for vehicles and pedestrians on the AMP I Knox'Shopping Centre site. (ii) the integration of circulation systems (vehicular and pedestrian) between the AMP site and the I Summit site. (iii) integration and links (vehicular, pedestrian and visual) between adjoining residential and I community facilities. Setting aside the question of retail economics, shopper demand, I population forecasts and the like, a major reason for the Panel supporting the AMP's submission is that the site and the surrounding land have collectively foreshadowed the development of a principal I focal point in the City of Knox. There was little or no opposition to the prospect of Knox City ultimately performing the function ,of a I District Centre from the submittors. The Panel ~embers are well aware of major shopping centres throughout Australia where the shopping experience is essentially on~ of confusion, discomfort and aggravation. The cause of this is too .often I a product of ad hoc planning and a series of individual initiatives poorly co-ordinated. II:L Kn6x-::-City~ there is a real opportunity to take 1~ne-private initiatives of companies like AMP and Summit and co-ordinate I t!1emwith the proposals of statutory and local authorities and see them ifl.'lplemented in a manner that meets the' real needs of the community. I I ','1 " • i ,l " ...... " , f- . ~ I 27.

While AMP is concerned to establish a viable commercial centre there I are other needs which this location can satisfy and ~ere partly foreshadowed by the City of Knox • .1 The Panel does not wish to see the AMP's plans unncessarily delayed or frustrated but i t ri§.;:~t'~Qr.lgly of·-::tne--vrew:"toat--tJle-opp-ortuntty ~tgp-aA=tr:'f't;t;:!wate-d~'communi t Y focus within the City -o'f"Knoxshould , I ~""'al:;ti vely" pursued by the parties under the cd-ordinating 'han:d lef'""'theMMBW:: ~.,,- The detailed design issues described in the preceding text should be I expeditiously addressed. They are not matters for the Panel to prejudge, rather they require sensitive examination by urban designers, planners and engineers working in combination with the I planning authorities and commercial economists. I CONCLUSION Having considered all submissions the Panel recommends that Item 2 of the Amendment No. 280 to th~ Melbourne Metropolitan Planning I Scheme be adopted as exhibited. I I I I I I I I 22nd January 1985 I I I I