submission for the city of kingston · submission for the city of kingston ... department of...

13/7857 1

Submission for the City of Kingston

Preliminary Draft – Major Development Plan (MDP) Wesfarmers Group February 2013

13/7857 2

Introduction

1) This submission is made by Kingston City Council [Council].

2) This submission provides a response to the Preliminary Draft Major Development Plan

(draft MDP) proposal by Wesfarmers Group.

3) This submission brings to the attention of the Commonwealth Minister [the Minister] a

number of matters Council submit must be thoroughly considered under Part 5 Division

4 of the Commonwealth Airports Act 1996 [the Act]. Sections 93 and 94 explicitly

provide the Minister with an ability to request more material and refuse to approve the

draft MDP. For reasons explained in this submission these provisions may be relevant

depending on the considerations by the Airport Lessee Company [the company] of this

submission when recognising its obligations under the Act.

4) From the outset of the submission it is clear that the Commonwealth Government has

introduced substantial changes which influence the legislative (Airports Act), policy

(Aviation White Paper / National Urban Policy/ Significant Impact on the Local or

Regional Community Guide) and operational practises (the establishment of a Planning

Co-ordination Forum with an explicit initial purpose) that is directly relevant to the

actions of the Company and the subsequent considerations before the Minister. The

significant suite of changes, have essentially come into practical effect since the

Ministers consideration of the last Moorabbin Airport Master Plan. Those legislative

changes directly relevant to the manner in which this submission is reviewed are

identified below.

5) A new trigger now requires a draft MDP be prepared if, as identified at Section 89

(1)(na) – a development [is] of a kind that is likely to have a significant impact on the

local or regional community. The fact that the exhibited draft MDP that is the subject of

this submission, seeks to solely link the legal basis for its preparation to the

construction costs of the works, illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding of why the

changes to the Airports Act occurred to ensure ‘significant impact’ outside the Airport

land was rigorously tested. It is evident upon reading Page 3 of the „Significant Impact

on the Local or Regional Community Guide‟ produced by the Commonwealth

13/7857 3

Department of Infrastructure and Transport in January 2012, that reason for requiring

this draft MDP proposal, stems directly from changes created since the publication of

the Government’s White Paper.

6) Further new mandatory requirements of draft MDP’s now include Section 91

(1)(ga)(iii) – which requires the identification of the ‘effect’ of the proposed

development on ‘the local and regional economy and community, including an

analysis of how the proposed developments fit within the local planning schemes for

commercial and retail development in the adjacent area. In addition to the Act

requiring a need to demonstrating the extent to which inconsistency exists with

planning schemes in force under a law of the State in which the airport is located, it

must now under Section 91 4(b) identify if the major development plan is not consistent

with those planning schemes – the justification for the inconsistencies.

7) In introducing this submission the ‘bar’ has been substantially lifted and the legislative

landscape has changed whereby the draft MDP given to the Minister must do more than

subjectively extract segments of the planning scheme, it must highlight and provide

some reasoned basis for the inconsistencies. This submission highlights that the

information which supports the proposal has not met this legal requirement and

therefore, must either be refused outright or the Minister needs to use the powers

provided under Section 93A(2) to request a comprehensive and objective assessment of

the significant inconsistencies.

8) Beyond legislative change, the Aviation White Paper explicitly identifies the

importance of an independent panel of experts appointed by the Minister to objectively

hear from and consider submissions in such matters. Such a process ensures that

decisions the Minister makes under the Airports Act on significant initiatives are

undertaken in a similar vein to other planning jurisdictions across the country providing

natural justice to all stakeholders. In such a process the company must be treated in the

same way as all other parties and be at arm’s length from any involvement in assisting

the Minister with the selection of the experts or determining the required terms of

reference.

9) This submission will demonstrate that if this proposal was a Planning Scheme

Amendment advanced outside Commonwealth Land the information which supports it

13/7857 4

is so substantially misrepresentative or silent in interpreting Commonwealth, State and

Local Policy it would not be authorised for exhibition. This submission makes the

substantiated case that what is proposed on the ground would be so unique in the

entire Melbourne metropolis it is not replicated in any other location.

10) Based on the draft MDP document, Kingston submits that the company is unable to

objectively assist the Minister in considering this matter based on the degree to which

its technical advisors have so subjectively sought to provide advice.

11) The balance of this submission will cover:

Relevant Background to what has led to this draft MDP

Recent legislative changes relevant to the draft MDP

Federal Planning Policy

State Planning Policy

Local Planning Policy

Assessment of Information which supports the draft MDP

Summary

13/7857 5

Relevant Background

12) In reviewing the draft MDP, Council wish to reinforce that the Moorabbin Airport

already provides for significant retail uses which include the Kingston Central

Shopping Centre and the Direct Factory Outlets Facility.

The chronology below demonstrates not only when these earlier retail investments

occurred but also what has been occurring in parallel at a Commonwealth Government

level to make sure proposals such as the draft MDP are more robustly critiqued in

accordance with the intentions of the Aviation White Paper and the actions thereafter.

Date Event Comment

March 2002 Minor Variation to Moorabbin

Airport Master Plan - DFO

Expansion

22 new Tenancies – 5,000m2

retail floor space approximately

added

Council raised concerns and sought

assurances from the company that

measures would be established to

ensure the DFO was limited to

clearance retailing.

The company indicated on 17 July,

2002 to undertake annual surveys to

ensure DFO continued as ‘non-

traditional retailing occur‟. Such

survey work has not been recently

produced for Council to substantiate

whether or not this is still the case

today.

July 2002 Draft Minor Variation No. 1 Having reviewed the work of Essential

Economics in 2002 particularly in

relation to economic impact Council

supported a variation to allow a single

supermarket.

Council made clear at the time its

support was based on the view that a

1,500m2 supermarket ‘does not further

anchor a retail environment similar to

others which exist in the Municipality‟.

A substantial fruit and vegetable

tenancy and butcher is now adjacent to

the supermarket.

Early 2004 Response to exhibition of the Plans to provide more retailing (than

13/7857 6

Date Event Comment

Moorabbin Airport Preliminary

Draft Master Plan 2004

that outlined above) on the Airport land

were strongly opposed:

18th

May, 2004 – City of Kingston

19th

May, 2004 – Westfield Pty Ltd

20th

May, 2004 –Shopping Centre

Council of Australia

31st May, 2004 – State Government of

Victoria as being inconsistent with

Melbourne 2030 recognising the land is

not an Activity Centre.

Council made clear that it did not

support the ability to develop ‘further’

(beyond Aldi) Supermarket(s) on the

Airport Land.

March 2008 Council and the State Minister for

Planning wrote separately to the

Commonwealth Minister seeking

a review of the Moorabbin Airport

Master Plan.

Correspondence to the Commonwealth

Minister reinforced strong concerns

associated with the potential

inconsistencies in the Master Plan with

State and Local Planning Policy.

June 2008 Council wrote to the

Commonwealth Minister in

response to the National Aviation

Policy Statement

The letter reinforced the need to better

balance the interests of State and Local

Planning with the interests of the

Airport Operator.

February

2009

Council wrote to the

Commonwealth Department of

Infrastructure and Transport on

the Aviation Green Paper.

Amongst other initiatives Council

supported the Commonwealth

Governments view that Airport

Planning Advisory Panels were needed

to consider items such as Master Plans

or Major Development Plans.

July 2009 Response to the exhibition of the

Preliminary Draft Moorabbin

Airport Master Plan 2009

The City of Kingston and the State

Government of Victoria made

absolutely clear that the Airport was not

a designated Activity Centre.

Council made a detailed submission

which illustrated how the Preliminary

Draft Master Plan was quite clearly

inconsistent with Regulation 5.02 of the

Airports Regulation 1997.

Council made clear that it did not

support ‘creating’ a new definition

13/7857 7

Date Event Comment

unknown to the Victorian Planning

System to permit Department Store(s)

on the Airport Land.

June 2010 The Commonwealth Minister

wrote to Council indicating that

he had approved the most recent

Master Plan.

The Minister’s letter reinforced:

1. Scope to improve planning and

development in order to

minimise community impact.

2. Establishment of a Planning Co-

ordination Forum (PCF) which

in part was meant to provide for

MAC being assisted to do a

strategic economic analysis to

identify the level of retail and

commercial services on Airport

land when considering viability

of surrounding centres.

As a consequence of doing this

the Minister indicated MACS’s

planning may be revised.

3. MAC would undertake an MDP

process for its Supermarket and

Department Store proposal.

July 2010 Council wrote to Senate Standing

Committee on Rural and Regional

Affairs and Transport in relation

to the Airport Amendments Bill

2010

Significant and very relevant changes to

the Airports Act occurred as a result of

the work of the Committee that are very

relevant to the consideration of the draft

MDP.

March 2011 Council made a submission to the

Commonwealth Department of

Infrastructure and Transport on

the ‘Significant Impact on the

Local or Regional Community’

Guide

The submission reinforced the need for

a process of independent expert review

for activities that have the potential to

create a ‘significant community

impact’.

13) The above background information reinforces:

a) Council made clear a decade ago when it supported the growth of „non-traditional

DFO retailing‟ and proposed ‘minor’ variations to the Airport Master Plan to

provide for a supermarket and consequentially the existing Kingston Central

Shopping Centre (now containing Aldi Supermarket, Tasman Meats [Butcher],

Crisp and Fresh [Fruit and Vegetables], Sams Warehouse, Genki Noodle and Sushi,

13/7857 8

Games World and Cellabrations [Bottle Shop]) that any further retailing would be at

odds with State or Local Planning Policy.

b) In 2004 (additional supermarket(s)) and 2009 (discount department store(s)) were

added to the mix of activities permissible as part of Master Plans despite comment

from the Victorian State Government and Council that the Airport was not an

Activity Centre nor were these things consistent with State or Local Planning

Policy. Nothing has changed since 2009 in relation to the State or Local Planning

Policy Framework that would give rise to a claim that a basis now exists for the

proposal.

c) The retail work envisaged by the Minister as a priority for the PCF has not occurred

but rather a draft MDP has been put forward without sufficient contextual

consideration of off airport impacts as demonstrated throughout the balance of this

submission. For the PCF to be a credible initiative, it is reliant on ensuring that the

catalyst actions the Minister required are properly undertaken as a means of

informing decisions such as the draft MDP.

d) The release of the Aviation White Paper and the consequential legislative changes

(discussed in more detail below) together with new operating procedures has drawn

a ‘line in the sand’ changing the way decisions will now be made.

13/7857 9

Recent Legislative Changes – draft MDP response

14) The changes to the Airports Act in December 2010 are significant and those highlighted

to have direct relevance to this draft MDP and the actions of the company include:

a) Despite it not being acknowledged in the draft MDP documentation this submission

makes very clear that the change to the Airports Act at Section 89(1)(na) relating to

when a „development of a kind that is likely to have a significant impact on the local

or regional community‟ is the ‘trigger’ that is relevant.

b) A draft MDP must at Section 91(1)(ga) set out the ‘likely effect of the proposed

developments on „the local and regional economy and community, including an

analysis of how the proposed developments fit within the local planning schemes for

commercial and retail development in the adjacent area‟ (Section 91 (1)(ga)(iii)).

c) A draft MDP must at Section 91(4)(a) highlight „the extent (if any) consistency with

planning scheme in force under a law of the State in which the airport is located‟;

and must at Section 91(4)(b) highlight „if the major development plan is not

consistent with those planning schemes – the justification for the inconsistencies‟.

d) Upon reviewing any submissions received in relation to the draft MDP Section 92

(2C)(2)(b)(iii) requires that the company (as defined by the Act) must prior to

submitting the draft plan to the Minister sign a written certificate „demonstrating

that the company has had due regard to those comments in preparing the draft

plan‟. This section previously required the company to ‘state’ rather than

‘demonstrate’ ‘due regard‟. To demonstrate ‘due regard’ would seemingly require

an objective and robust assessment of all submissions the company may receive.

15) This submission makes the case that the company has not prepared a draft MDP that

considers all relevant parts of the planning scheme or provided justification as required

by Section 91. Should the company now seek to address the ‘gaps’ by commenting on

the numerous inconsistencies highlighted in this submission that are not mentioned in

the draft MDP it would as a minimum require the re-exhibition of the draft MDP to

demonstrate how it contends it has had appropriate ‘due regard’.

13/7857 10

16) On Page 9 of the AECOM Planning Report it states „The Minister must not approve a

Major Development Plan if it is inconsistent with an approved Master Plan. However,

there is no requirement to refuse the Major Development Plan if it is inconsistent with

the relevant local Planning Scheme‟. This statement warrants a response for two

important reasons prior to the analysis in subsequent sections of this submission on the

State and Local Planning Scheme:

a) It provides an insight as to perhaps why the assessment in the draft MDP appears to

‘miss’ so many of the relevant explicit components of the State and Local Planning

Policy Framework and rely so heavily on the previous Master Plan; and

b) It fails to recognise that not only were changes made to Part 5, Division 4 of the

Airports Act 1996, but also critically to the comparable sections of Part 5, Division

3 of the Act that relates to the preparation of Master Plans. In addition to the

comparable changes to those listed above the Minister must in determining a future

Master Plan, have regard to „the effect that carrying out the plan would be likely to

have on the use of land in areas surrounding the airport‟ (Section 81(3)(b).

This requirement is very likely to be the reason why the Minister was quite explicit

in what he felt were the preliminary tasks for the Planning Co-ordination Forum

(PCF) when he required its establishment. It also shows that with changes to the

Airports Act following the Aviation White Paper it cannot be assumed that the form

of the new Master Plan would in any way replicate the ‘land use palette’ provided

in the current one.

17) The balance of the submission highlights the basis as to why the draft MDP proposal is

non-compliant with the requirements of the legislation and fundamentally at odds with

Federal, State or Local Planning Policies.

13/7857 11

Federal Planning Policy

Our Cities our Future – A National urban policy for a productive, sustainable and

liveable future

18) Section 94(4) of the Act is unambiguous and allows the Minister to have regard to any

matters he may consider relevant in determining the draft MDP. Council therefore

strongly suggests that the view of AECOM on Page 61 of its ‘Planning Assessment

Report’ where it says „Although it is not a requirement under the Airport Act 1996 to

assess the development against this policy [Our Cities our Future] we highlight the

following consistencies‟ is misleading at best.

19) Put simply, the Act provides the Minister power at Section 94(4) for a very clear

purpose and one that would certainly give rise to considering the highest order and

recently launched urban planning policy produced by Commonwealth Government.

This policy is designed to direct the approaches taken by State and Local Government

on urban planning (eg the operation of planning schemes).

20) Council therefore, submits that Airport Planning must be at best practice and in total

alignment with the highest order Commonwealth Policy that provides for a ‘productive,

sustainable and liveable future’. A half a page, ‘cut and paste’ exercise on Page 60 of

the AECOM Planning Assessment which completely misses or misrepresents the

explicit principles/objectives in ‘Our Cities, Our Future’ provides a significant

illustration of the inability of the draft MDP to be taken in any serious light.

21) Any objective assessment of the draft MDP against the National Urban Policy would

highlight the following undeniable inconsistencies:

22) Chapter 3

Objective 2 - Integrate land use and infrastructure

There are several ways to maximise yields on land use, improve productive

capacity and leverage investment in infrastructure. One such means is to increase

densities surrounding transport corridors, interchanges and activity centres.

13/7857 12

Connecting centres and facilities with well targeted, reliable, high frequency, low

cost, integrated active and public transport networks can provide greater

accessibility options for urban populations. Placing a priority on non-car

transportation systems and networks, such as public transport and active

transport is an important step in achieving better productivity, sustainability and

liveability objectives.

Providing for a ‘Supermarket’ and ‘Department Store’ in a location surrounded

by a Green Wedge and Industrial area where you cannot increase densities simply

creates a car based facility that actively undermines existing centres. This is

completely at odds with the above national policy objectives.

23) Chapter 4

Objective 4 – Protect and Sustain our Natural and Built Environments

Supporting sustainable development and refurbishment of our built environment:

Our built environment is a large source of energy and water consumption and

waste production.

Throughout the design, construction, operation and demolition of our built

environment, consideration needs to be given to its long-term sustainability in

economic, environmental and social terms.

The draft MDP actually advances a proposal that puts at risk the economic

viability and community structure that supports the Activity Centre network in

Kingston. No contemporary urban planning model would advance the draft MDP

as being sustainable.

Objective 5 – Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Improve Air Quality

The scale of our cities provides opportunities for significant reductions in

greenhouse gas emissions. There is also scope to reduce ambient levels of air

pollutants in urban areas by focussing on the major sources of these pollutants

including motor vehicles, the burning of carbon-based fuels and use of materials

such as plastics and paints.

Cities policy can drive emissions reductions through urban design and better

integrated planning policy.

The draft MDP is at complete odds with this objective by proposing a car based

facility that will actually encourage car based trips over the use of existing well

13/7857 13

located centres eg Dingley Village and Thrift Park. The policy on Page 44 states

„How cities are planned and managed and the associated regulatory environment

will influence the sustainability of a city. Motor vehicles account for a large

proportion of transport-related greenhouse gas emissions in our cities‟ How

AECOM can state the draft MDP demonstrates ‘Sustainable Urban Planning’,

cannot be understood at all.

24) Chapter 5

Objective 9 – Support affordable living choices by

Locating housing close to facilities and services, including jobs and public

transport, in more compact mixed use development.

This objective reinforces the role of housing in what is conventionally understood

to be an Activity Centre. Given the constraints imposed by zoning and aviation it

is impossible to ever create housing adjacent or even proximate to the draft MDP

location.

Objective 10 – Improve accessibility and reduce dependence on private motor

vehicles by:

The planning of Australian cities has been largely based around private motor

vehicles as the primary means of transportation. The increase in car usage has a

number of consequences for our cities, including pollution, greenhouse gas

emissions, traffic congestion, road safety issues and increasingly sedentary

lifestyles.

Improving transport options

- Enabling people to participate equitably in the life of the city, without

needing to drive, must be a priority.

- Reducing travel demand by co-location of jobs, people and facilities.

The draft MDP reinforces inequities as driving is essentially the way the draft

MDP traffic report indicates the vast majority of users will access the proposal.

As identified it is a technical impossibility to co-locate people (houses) with jobs

or facilities on the Airport land or to any abuttal of the draft MDP site.

Creating Places for People – An urban design protocol for Australian cities

25) The recently released ‘State of Australian Cities 2012’ by the Commonwealth

Department of Infrastructure and Transport, also looks closely at the principles of

13/7857 14

Liveability and reinforces at page 265 the „Creating Places for People: an urban design

protocol for Australian Cities’. The protocol has as its aim: to create productive,

sustainable and liveable places through leadership and the integration of design

excellence. This protocol which was not mentioned by AECOM has been developed

over two years with Federal and State Government and industry input. Once again

Council submit it is entirely relevant to the Minister’s consideration under Section

94(4) in reviewing the merits of the draft MDP.

26) The protocol provides very useful tools for analysing projects such as the draft MDP

and its principles which would be routinely used in any comparative assessment of a

like project that fell within the Victorian Planning Provisions. Upon reviewing the

Principles, Outcomes and Attributes sought through the protocol designed to achieve

world-class urban design, it is strongly put that the draft MDP would fail any objective

assessment against the Principles titled Enhancing, Connected, Comfortable, Vibrant,

Safe and Walkable. Without a living (resident) catchment near or any appropriate

blending or a mix of activities this proposal is a demonstration of the worst possible

‘urban design practice’ and not what „Creating Places for People‟ would ever

encourage. The irony with this draft MDP is it has real potential to have a catastrophic

impact on the functioning centre that does meet all the above principles.

13/7857 15


27) Having reviewed the draft MDP, it is apparent that the extent of commentary on the

State Planning Policy Framework is generally contained between pages 30 and 41 of

the AECOM report and summarised in the covering (Part A) document.

28) As highlighted, it is this section of the submission which demonstrates why the draft

MDP, as exhibited, is unable to satisfy the requirements of Section 91(4)(a) and

91(4)(b). The omission in many instances of the relevant Objectives and Strategies

from the SPPF makes a complete analysis impossible.

29) In order to reinforce the concerns held by Council the following has been prepared:

a) The table below highlights the Council’s assessment of the relevant sections of the

State Planning Policy Framework. It shows whether and then how the draft MDP

has sought to respond.

b) Reports by SGS Economics and Planning (refer Appendix 1). These reports were

commissioned by the Council to independently review the draft MDP proposal.

For the purposes of required analysis pursuant to Section 92(2C)(2)(iii) the

submission of the Council is this document and all the work completed by SGS

Economics and Planning.

13/7857 16


(bolding Council’s emphasis)

Appropriately

covered in draft MDP

Council appraisal of the Objective / Strategies of the Policy against the

draft MDP

11.01 (Activity centre network)

Objective

To build up activity centres as a focus for high-quality

development, activity and living for the whole

community by developing a network of activity centres.

Strategies

Develop a network of activity centres that:

Provides different types of housing, including forms

of higher density housing.

Support the role and function of the centre given its

classification, the policies for housing intensification,

and development of the public transport network.

No It is clear that to be recognised as an Activity Centre a key ingredient is a

living population.

There is not an Activity Centre (that isn’t a Specialised Centre) in the entire

network in Metropolitan Melbourne that does not contain or have an adjacent

residential population.

It is impossible for an Airport due to its inherent role being aviation

(confirmed really clearly as its primary purpose in the Aviation White Paper

and State Planning Policy) and the associated stringent legislative regime to

ever be a place that contains a living population or policies for housing

intensification.

11.01-2 (Activity centre planning)

Objective

To encourage the concentration of major retail,

residential, commercial, administrative,

No The draft MDP location is not highly accessible to the community it is

surrounded by a Green Wedge to the north and industrial area on other

interfaces.

The draft MDP directly undermines the State and Local Planning Policy

Framework by working at odds with the objective of being clear in relation

13/7857 17



Appropriately



draft MDP

entertainment and cultural developments into activity

centres which provide a variety of land uses and are

highly accessible to the community.

Strategies

Undertake strategic planning for the use and

development of land in and around the activity

centres.

Give clear direction in relation to preferred locations

for investment.

Encourage a diversity of housing types at higher

densities in and around activity centres.

Reduce the number of private motorised trips by

concentrating activities that generate high numbers of

(non-freight) trips in highly accessible activity centres.

Improve access by walking, cycling and public

transport to services and facilities for local and

regional populations.

to where ‘retail’ investment should be located. This proposal will directly

undermine investment decisions made consistent with the retail hierarchy

operating in the State of Victoria.

The proposal, rather than reducing private motorised vehicle trips is reliant

on private motorised vehicle trips, according to the Traffic Report which

supports it. This report states it is likely that 93% of people will access the

site by car. This goes to reinforce why defined ‘Activity Centres’ have a

living population around them.

Given an Industrial area and freeway reservation sit between the subject land

and it’s largest, and quite arguably only substantive residential catchment at

Dingley Village, no argument could be advanced that the site has good

access to a local or regional population.

Given this clause is about Activity Centre Planning it is inconceivable to

think that if this was a ‘greenfield area’ you would put a Supermarket and

Department Store in the location proposed and somehow suggest it is akin to

any form of Activity Centre. This submission illustrates how planning for

retail in Melbourne’s Growth Areas is actually recommended to work in a

subsequent section.

11.04-2 (Activity Centre Hierarchy) Objective

No In reviewing this section of the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF),

AECOM state (Pg 35) that „Moorabbin Airport shares similar

characteristics to the various Specialised Activity Centres identified in the

13/7857 18



Appropriately



draft MDP

To create a network of activity centres comprising the

Central Activities Districts, Principal Activity Centres,

Major Activity Centres, Specialised Activity Centres

and Neighbourhood Activity Centres.

Strategies

Define the role and function of activity centres,

preferred uses, scale of development and links to the

public transport system based on five classifications of

activity centres comprising Central Activities District,

Principle Activity Centres, Major Activity Centre,

Specialised Activity Centres and Neighbourhood

Activity Centres:

Specialised Activity Centres Ensure Melbourne Airport, major university

campuses and key research and development

precincts, including the specialised precincts of

particular importance to the State’s innovation, are

developed as Specialised Activity Centres.

Reinforce the specialised economic functions of the

Specialised Activity Centres and supporting use and

development consistent with the primary specialist

function of the centre.

Encourage complementary mixed-uses that do not

compete with nearby Central Activities Districts,

SPPF and it plays a key role in the local and metropolitan economy‟.

From the outset it is important to reflect on where the other Specialised

Activity Centres are and what functions generally self-apparent in their titles

they perform. The 10 Specialised Activity Centres are: Austin Biomedical

Alliance, La Trobe Technology Park, Victoria University, Alfred Medical

Research and Education Precinct, Parkville Medical and Bioscience Precinct,

Monash University / Health Precinct, Deakin University, RMIT Technology

Park, Werribee Animal and Food Reserve Precinct and Melbourne Airport.

None of these contain a DFO, Kingston Central Shopping Centre or what is

proposed via the draft MDP.

AECOM do not make an effort to actually comment on the following if they

are of the view that Moorabbin Airport is somehow a ‘Specialised Activity

Centre’:

1. How this draft MDP which provides for a Supermarket and

Department Store amongst other things:

a. in anyway demonstrate it is of „particular importance to the

State‟s innovation‟ to justify somehow advancing an

argument that this aspect (additional retail development) is

necessary to define it as Specialised Activity Centre;

b. in anyway reinforce the ‘specialised economic functions of

the Specialised Activity Centre‟ given one would presume that

Melbourne Airport which does not contain a DFO,

13/7857 19



Appropriately



draft MDP

Principal or Major Activity Centres or inhibit the

centre’s specialised role. Locate Specialised Activity

Centres on the Principal Public Transport Network.

Neighbourhood Shopping Centre or have a draft MDP

proposal for a Supermarket and Department Store is a

„Specialised Activity Centre‟ due to the sole fact that it is the

most significant passenger Airport for Melbourne; and

c. Building on the previous point how the draft MDP by

proposing a Supermarket and Department Store in what

AECOM would like to define as a ‘Specialised Activity

Centre‟ does not compete with nearby ‘Central Activities

Districts, Principal or Major Activity Centres or actually

inhibit the centres apparent specialised role‟.

To advance the proposition that because of the ‘mix’ of uses at Moorabbin

Airport it should be a defined as a ‘Traditional’ or a ‘Specialised’ Activity

Centre demonstrates a lack of understanding of the functions of either form

of these types of centres in the Melbourne Activity Centre Network.

11.04-5 Melbourne’s Urban Growth Objective To set clear limits to Metropolitan Melbourne’s urban

development.

Strategies Contain urban development within the established

urban growth boundary. Any change to the urban

No This State Planning Policy is particularly relevant as the subject land and the

large area to its immediate north is outside the Urban Growth Boundary a

point not recognised at all in the Economic Impact Assessment in

commentary on the areas identified as Primary Trade Areas.

Why an assessment of the draft MDP against this policy is critically relevant

is that the proposal simply does not have a catchment to its north due to a

legislated Urban Growth Boundary.

13/7857 20



Appropriately



draft MDP

growth boundary must only occur to reflect the needs

demonstrated in the designated growth areas.

Irrespective of whether or not AECOM perceive that due to the classification

of the Airport as Commonwealth Land it means it is not in the Green Wedge

or outside the Urban Growth Boundary it is beyond comprehension that the

impact of where the Urban Growth Boundary actually is (beyond the airport

land) does not get discussed in any substantive detail and in many instances

is misrepresented by not being shown on a number of plans that support the

draft MDP. To not comment at all on the correlation between the Urban

Growth Boundary and the catchment of the proposal does not demonstrate a

sufficient level of analysis against the State Planning Policy Framework. 11.04-6 Green Wedges Objective To protect the green wedges of Metropolitan Melbourne

from inappropriate development.

Strategies

Consolidate new residential development within

existing settlements and in locations where planned

services are available and green wedge area values can

be protected.

No AECOM on page 35 have not identified this strategy which once again is

directly relevant to consideration of the draft MDP for the reasons explained

in the previous section.

It is however very clear that Green Wedges are places for Airports based on

the strategy from the SPPF which AECOM did quote from.

15.01-1 Urban Design

Objective

To create urban environments that are safe,

No Any objective analysis of the draft MDP would be unable to draw any link

whatsoever with any contemporary design guideline because in all other

instances where a Supermarket and Department Store are proposed (amongst

other uses) an interface with a residential population is either planned or

13/7857 21



Appropriately



draft MDP

functional and provide good quality environments with a sense of place and cultural identity.

Strategies

Promote good urban design to make the environment

more liveable and attractive.

Ensure new development or redevelopment contributes

to community and cultural life by improving safety,

diversity and choice, the quality of living and working

environments, accessibility and inclusiveness and

environmental sustainability.

existing.

The proposal is directly analogous to the way retail was provided in North

America in the 1980’s and 90’s where a large Department Store or

Supermarket would be established in complete isolation and surrounded by a

sea of car parking. For AECOM to intimate that „in preparing the proposed

development due consideration has been given to the Safer Design

Guidelines of Victoria and Urban Design Charter for Victoria‟ is completely

misrepresenting the fundamentals contained within these documents.

15.02 Sustainable Development

15.02-1 Energy and resource efficiency Objective To encourage land use and development that is

consistent with the efficient use of energy and the

minimisation of greenhouse gas emissions.

Strategies Promote consolidation of urban development and

integration of land use and transport.

No AECOM in its Planning Report did not comment on the inherent and

obvious inconsistency with the State Planning Policy Framework in having a

Supermarket and Department Store disconnected from any residential

catchment. Clearly this gives rise to an inability to meet the explicit State

Planning Policy which promotes the integration of land use and transport for

the explicit objective of trying to minimise greenhouse gas emissions.

When reading the AECOM Ecological Sustainable Design Report it would

be assumed that it would acknowledge that perhaps the most fundamental

flaw in the projects ESD credentials is its location that will encourage

significant car movements to and from a facility unlike the balance of the

Activity Centre network which is surrounded by an actual walkable

13/7857 22



Appropriately



draft MDP

Support low energy forms of transport such as

walking and cycling.

catchment. This does not occur.

17.01-1 – Business

Objective

To encourage development which meet the

communities’ needs for retail, entertainment, office and

other commercial services and provides net

community benefit in relation to accessibility,

efficient infrastructure use and the aggregation and

sustainability of commercial facilities.

Strategies

Locate commercial facilities in existing or planned

activity centres.

Provide new convenience shopping facilities to

provide for the needs of the local population in new

residential areas and within, or immediately

adjacent to, existing commercial centres.

In Part The objectives of the State Planning Policy and the strategies which support

them are explicit and make absolutely clear that:

1. The net community benefit test is clear in its purpose being about

accessibility, efficient infrastructure use and the sustainability of

commercial facilities;

2. Facilities are to be located in existing or planned activity centres; and

3. The strategies of the SPPF at Clause 17.01-1 only entertain the

provision of new convenience shopping facilities in ‘new residential

areas’.

The submission and the accompanying work by SGS Economics and

Planning examine the basis for the actual catchment fundamentals in an

objective manner and find that no correlation exists between the proposal

and the intent of the State Planning Policy Objectives or Strategies. The

work undertaken by SGS indicates that the proposal is unable to be

supported against the most basic of well-established retail planning

assessment methodologies. In fact SGS highlight an un-paralleled dis-benefit

to the Dingley Village Community putting at direct risk its Activity Centre.

A substantive critique of the credibility behind the work advanced by

13/7857 23



Appropriately



draft MDP

Essential Economics which AECOM have seemingly relied upon to

conclude that compliance with explicit strategies of the SPPF are met is

provided subsequently in the submission. This is in additional to the work of

SGS Economics and Planning.

17.02-2 Out of centre development for

Metropolitan Melbourne

Objective

To manage out of centre development in Metropolitan

Melbourne.

Strategies Ensure that proposals or expansion of single use retail,

commercial and recreational facilities outside activity

centres are discouraged by giving preference to

locations in or on the border of an activity centre.

Ensure that out-of-centre proposals are only

considered where the proposed use or development is

of net benefit to the community in the region served

by the proposal.

Partially The report prepared by AECOM specifically quotes the two State Planning

Policy Framework Strategies relevant to the assessment of ‘Out of Centre

Development’ and concludes its assessment by implying that a ‘strong case

exists’ that the Airport is an Activity Centre (see distinction above between

Specialised and all other Activity Centres) or is ‘Out of Centre’ and therefore

supportable for reasons provided in the Social and Economic Impact

Assessment provided.

The comments on the credibility of the Economic Impact Assessment are

made subsequently in the submission and particular reference is drawn to the

work Essential Economics undertook for the Growth Areas Authority.

Commentary is also provided subsequently in relation to the Social Impact

Assessment prepared by Environmental Affairs Pty Ltd. This work is

fundamentally flawed for reasons as basic as:

1. Its author did not engage with the potential stakeholders most likely

to be impacted.

2. The report concludes by identifying substantially more ‘perceived’

dis-benefits which were not explored with the impacted parties, than

13/7857 24



Appropriately



draft MDP

benefits, but still remarkably comes to an overall conclusion that a

social benefit is obtained from the project.

18.01-1 Land use and transport planning

Objective

To create a safe and sustainable transport system by

integrating land-use and transport

Strategies

Plan urban development to make jobs and community

services more accessible by:

Coordinating improvements to public transport,

walking and cycling networks with the ongoing

development and redevelopment of the urban area.

Concentrating key trip generators such as higher

density residential development in and around Central

Activities Districts, Principal, Major and Specialised

Activity Centres on the Principal Public Transport

Network.

Requiring integrated transport plans to be prepared

for all new major residential, commercial and industrial

developments.

No AECOM only mention the overall objective and do not mention the balance

of the Integrated Transport State Planning Policy. This may be the reason

why no coherency exists between the clear advice provided by GTA

Consultants, in relation to the irrelevance of the site being located on two

main roads or the Principal Public Transport Network and the AECOM

response.

The AECOM ESD Report identifies on Pg 7 that ‘Due to the location of the

site, transport will remain a major component of the facility‟s operational

green gas emissions‟. It is assumed ‘transport’ refers to car based travel and

this is the reason why State Planning Policies seeks a very clear spatial

interrelationship between high trip generating uses and the residential

populations who use them.

GTA then, in preparing an Integrated Transport Plan, have a number of

‘aspirational’ recommendations to try and reinforce walking, cycling and

public transport access to this site but acknowledge on Page 27 and 28 of its

Integrated Transport Plan Document that „Given the site location, it is

considered likely that “car as driver or passenger” may be higher than for

Kingston overall, and sustainable transport modes may be lower”.

Irrespective of this statement and the low mode share attributed to a ‘possible

13/7857 25



Appropriately



draft MDP

Requiring that substantial increases in activity in

employment corridors are connected to the Principal

Public Transport Network.

Providing routing, bus stop and interchange

arrangements for public transport services in new

development areas.

Providing safe, convenient and direct pedestrian

and cycling access to activity centres, public

transport interchanges and other strategic

redevelopment sites.

future bus stop’ AECOM’s ESD report (despite the above acknowledgment)

states that that „a bus stop is located in front of the site along Boundary

Road, this will significantly reduce the amount of car travel to and from the

site and associated greenhouse gas emissions‟. The subsequent comment in

the ESD report that ‘the site is located along popular cycling routes‟ would

also seem to be completely at odds with GTA’s analysis or Council’s

understanding of characteristics of the area.

A further significant anomaly in the reports which support the draft MDP, is

that no effort is made to argue that if the Airport is in fact an ‘Activity

Centre’ how integration actually exists to connect the ‘disparate’ existing

(DFO / Kingston Central Shopping Centre) and proposed retail activities.

Beyond not having a residential catchment to support the draft MDP

proposal, it is completely anomalous to any ‘Activity Centre’ in urban

Melbourne in that the existing retail uses on airport land, that would

according to Essential Economics, ‘benefit from the proposal (pg 23)’ are

separated by a distance of approximately 1.5 kilometres. To suggest that this

configuration creates an integration of land use and transport is

fundamentally flawed and completely at odds with the objectives, strategies

and reference documents that give rise to Activity Centre Design or

Transport Planning or the National Urban Design Protocol.

18.04-2 Planning for Airports

Objective

Partly It is beyond doubt that the intent of the State Planning Policy Framework as

it relates to what the land in question actually is, an Airport, does not

encourage the use of this land for a Department Store, Supermarket etc.

13/7857 26



Appropriately



draft MDP

To strengthen the role of Victoria’s airports within the

State's economic and transport infrastructure and

protect their ongoing operation.

Strategies

Protect airports from incompatible land-uses.

Ensuring that in the planning of airports, land-use

decisions are integrated, appropriate land-use buffers

are in place and provision is made for associated

businesses that service airports.

Ensuring the planning of airports identifies and

encourages activities that complement the role of the

airport and enables the operator to effectively develop

the airport to be efficient and functional and contributes

to the aviation needs of the State.

Recognise Essendon Airport’s current role in providing

specialised functions related to aviation, freight and

logistics and its potential future role as a significant

employment and residential precinct that builds on

the current functions.

Recognise Moorabbin Airport as an important regional

and State aviation asset by supporting its continued

use as a general aviation airport, ensuring future

These uses are completely contrary to anything that can be extracted from

State Planning Policy relevant to Moorabbin Airport.

Although missed by AECOM in its assessment, what the State Planning

Policy Framework actually does in discussing the various Airports in the

metropolitan area, is it makes clear that Essendon is different to Moorabbin

in that it may have a „potential future role as a significant employment and

residential precinct‟. What it says for Moorabbin is distinctly different

focussing on „supporting its continued use as a general aviation airport,

ensuring future development at the site encourages uses that support and

enhance the State‟s aviation industry and supporting opportunities to extend

activities at the airport that improve access to regional Victoria‟.

AECOM suggest that the State Planning Policy Framework encourages the

draft MDP in order to support the airports viability. To advance this

proposition as the only way of sustaining and strengthening the Airport, it

would be necessary for the Airport Lessee Company (who is using

Commonwealth Land) to illustrate:

1. The costs of its leasehold from the Commonwealth;

2. The accurate and independently verified ongoing capital costs in

relation to the asset management of the airport;

3. The actual financial commitments it is making to the improve the

airport (as the Airport Act identifies as its fundamental reason for

13/7857 27



Appropriately



draft MDP

development at the site encourages uses that support

and enhance the State’s aviation industry and

supporting opportunities to extend activities at the

airport that improve access to regional Victoria

being) and when these capital investments will occur;

4. Clarity on the actual and projected rental income it derives from the

aviation activities at the Airport, the DFO, Kingston Central and the

Chiefly Business Park and all other income generating activities

against its capital commitments.

Above and beyond this and most importantly, it would need to illustrate that

should an income shortfall exist in relation to its actual capital commitments,

this income could not be derived in future years from activities that are not

completely at odds with National, State and Local Planning Policy. It is

recognised that Council has not opposed the industrial/commercial (office)

uses which have been established at the Chiefly Business Park, recognising

the distinct economic benefits these have brought the region.

13/7857 28


30) The assessment by AECOM on the Local Planning Policy Framework is limited to

pages 41 – 44 of its report. In a similar vein to the assessment against the State Planning

Policy Framework, AECOM have seemingly not recognised that a credible and lawful

assessment requires a ‘sum of all parts’ analysis of the project against the entire Local

Planning Policy Framework. The table which follows reinforces again, that the

requirements of Section 91(4)(a) and 91(4)(b) have simply not been met as in many

instances the ‘inconsistencies’ have not even been identified in order to try to provide a

required ‘justification’.

31) Once again for the purposes of required analysis pursuant to Section 92(2C)(2)(iii) of

the Act, the analysis of the Local Planning Policy Framework includes the following

table and all the work completed by SGS Economics and Planning, which also

examined the Local Planning Policy Framework (refer Appendix 1).

13/7857 29



Appropriately

covered in draft MDP Council appraisal of the Objective / Strategies of the Policy against the

draft MDP

Clause 21.02 – Municipal Profile The land which is not required for aviation purposes at

the Moorabbin Airport is becoming increasingly

utilised for a diversity of retail and commercial

activities.

Yes This statement is factual based at the time on the expansion of DFO, creation

of the Kingston Central Shopping Centre and development of Chiefly

Business Park at the Moorabbin Airport.

This statement must not be interpreted as a policy or strategy based on its

location within the Municipal Profile section of LPPF.

Clause 21.05 – Residential Land Use Objective No. 5 To manage the interface between residential

development and adjoining or nearby

sensitive/strategic land uses.

Strategies Ensure the siting and design of new residential

development does not encroach on strategic

infrastructure or create potential conflict with

established uses which have potential to erode

residential amenity including:

The Moorabbin Airport environs which are subject to

aircraft noise

21.05-4 Implementation

No Instead of actually highlighting this explicit correlation (about conflicts

between the airport and housing in most locations) the AECOM report states

on Pg 43 that:

‘The Kingston Residential Land Use Framework Plan within the Kingston

Planning Scheme signals incremental housing change for areas directly to

the east and west of the Moorabbin Airport. This indicates that there will be

increased residential density and future population growth within the

primary catchment of the proposed development (refer to Figure 8).

Why this statement is once again exceptionally misleading if not completely

misrepresentative of local planning policy is outlined in the following points:

1. To the immediate east of the subject site is an Industrial area. In fact

the closest edge of residential development of the suburb of Dingley

which is separated by a Freeway reservation, from the draft MDP

site, is 500 metres.

2. Council’s stated population projections for the suburb of Dingley

13/7857 30



Appropriately


draft MDP

These strategies will be implemented by:

Using local policy to recognise the differential potential

of residential areas to accommodate housing change, to

promote appropriate differential residential densities

and preferred design outcomes, as follows:

To promote minimal housing change in areas

affected by aircraft noise, single dwelling covenants

and neighbourhood agreements (Minimal Housing

Change Areas, Clause 22.11).

between 2011 to 2031, would see an increase of 600 odd people. This

is miniscule when compared with the population growth in and

around nominated Activity Centres in Kingston and by no means

creates a catchment for another supermarket.

3. It is not until you have travelled approximately 2.2 kilometres from

the subject land to the west that you meet the closest residential area.

It is also not stated that for this population the vast majority of houses

are substantially closer to the Southland, Cheltenham and Thrift Park

Activity Centres than the draft MDP site.

4. The planning scheme actually says for Incremental Change areas that

„The type of housing change anticipated in these areas will take the

form of extensions to existing houses, new single dwellings or the

equivalent of new two dwelling developments on average sized lots.

The existing single dwelling character of these areas is to be

retained‟.

5. The report does not even acknowledge that what is immediately

North / South / West and East of the Airport land will not even

establish a residential catchment as it is a green wedge or industrial

area.

The above demonstrates the clear inability of AECOM to understand or

objectively assess the draft MDP against the Local Planning Policy

Framework in an area which is absolutely critical to illustrating whether a

13/7857 31



Appropriately


draft MDP

residential community actually exists to support the project proceeding.

Clause 21.06 – Retail and Commercial Land Use 21.06-1 Overview Additional ‘out of centre’ development will be

discouraged. The implications of any retail activities

at the Moorabbin Airport need to be closely

monitored.

There is a need for new supermarket investment,

particularly in the central and southern sections of the

municipality, to provide existing communities with

greater choice and encourage higher utilisation of

activity centres.

Further Strategic Work

Review the opportunities to further strengthen the role

of Thrift Park and Dingley as Neighbourhood

Activity Centres.

Partly Although AECOM identify part of the overview section of Clause 21.06-1

they do not make the effort to connect the relationship between the

‘overview statements’ and the content of the Local Planning Policy

Framework and supporting documents. When Council undertook its Retail

and Commercial Development Strategy, which AECOM selectively quote

from, it identified that ‘gaps’ in supermarket investment in the central and

southern sections of the City, were at the time in the vicinity of the draft

MDP site at the Dingley Village and Thrift Park Neighbourhood Activity

Centres. It is for this reason at the time the Planning Scheme, picked up in

the ‘Further Work’ section the need to further strengthen these specific

centres.

The Retail and Commercial Development Strategy in fact, actually says the

following where it comments on Moorabbin Airport:

The development of a full-line supermarket on the corner of Centre

Dandenong and Boundary Roads is also being considered. While it has been

indicated that the Chifley Business Park workforce will provide significant

support for such a supermarket, this is questionable given the shopping

behaviour of typical households. It is more likely that the primary market for

a supermarket in this location would be households within Dingley Village

immediately to the east, and to a lesser degree, households immediately west

of Moorabbin Airport.

13/7857 32



Appropriately


draft MDP

The impact of a new full-line supermarket at Moorabbin Airport on the

Dingley Village Shopping Centre may be lessened by any endeavour of

Woolworths to upgrade the existing Safeway supermarket in Dingley.

And in making specific recommendations about the Moorabbin Airport the

Strategy says:

Council work proactively with Woolworths to explore upgrade opportunities

for the Dingley Safeway in an attempt to protect the vital role of the

supermarket as an anchor for the Dingley Village Neighbourhood Centre.

Council modify its MSS to recognise the increased role non-aviation

activities, in particular retail and commercial development, have and will

continue to play at the Moorabbin Airport.

In response to the above recommendations it is certainly clear what the

Retail and Commercial Development Strategy felt was most important and it

was not seeking to facilitate a new Department Store and Supermarket at the

Airport.

It is also evident that the Retail and Commercial Development Strategy did

not suggest that beyond the DFO and Kingston Central Shopping Centre,

that the Retail Land Use Framework Plan should be changed to show a new

Activity Centre bordered by Industrial and Green Wedge Land. Even if this

were a recommendation, implementing it would defy planning logic for

reasons identified earlier.

13/7857 33



Appropriately


draft MDP

Further SGS make clear the impact irrespective of the investment occurring

in Dingley.

21.06-3 Objective 1 To protect and strengthen the hierarchy of activity

centres within Kingston.

Strategies

Strategies to achieve this objective include:

Consolidate new retail land use within the

boundaries of existing activity centres.

Promote mixed use precincts around key activity

centres which encourage a broader range of cultural,

social, commercial and higher density housing

opportunities to complement retail functions of activity

centres and enhance their economic vitality.

Consolidate the activity centre hierarchy and

promote the development and expansion of retail

and related facilities appropriate to the role and

position of centres within the overall hierarchy, as

identified below [refer 21.06-3)

No AECOM, in its assessment of Planning Policy, almost incomprehensively

forget to mention what the first and quite arguably most important Local

Planning Policy Objective is, when it comes to Retail and Commercial Land

Use in the City. The entire policy context for the Activity Centre Hierarchy

that has informed millions of dollars of recent investment is not mentioned

other than to confuse and misrepresent the findings of Charter Keck Cramer

work.

In an established municipality like Kingston, where population growth is

predicted to increase marginally and only of a statistically significant nature

well beyond any reasoned trade area the draft MDP would draw from,

strategies to protect and strengthen the hierarchy of Activity Centres, are

critical to the cities overall urban planning. These strategies in the case of

Dingley Village, assist to support a number of existing small businesses and

variety of community services specifically planned to purposefully locate in

or next to the Dingley Village Neighbourhood Activity Centre.

To further reinforce the ‘legitimacy of the retail hierarchy’ it is useful to

reflect on the comments of the Planning Panel who considered Planning

Scheme Amendment C95, which provides for the as yet not commenced

redevelopment of the Dingley Shopping Centre:

Council and the Proponent both recognised that if a new full line

13/7857 34



Appropriately


draft MDP

supermarket at the Moorabbin Airport proceeded it would most likely have

an adverse effect on the Centre, but that if the redevelopment of the Centre

proceeds, a supermarket development at the airport is less likely to proceed.

Mr Jack‟s report said that if it proceeded it would most likely have an

adverse effect on the Centre, but that if the redevelopment of the Centre

proceeds, a supermarket development in this location at the airport is less

likely to proceed.

We share this view and in any case support development specifically

contemplated and supported by the Planning Scheme. The Panel is of the

view that the Centre is better located to serve the retail needs of the trade

area than a centre located on the Moorabbin Airport land.

We agree with this submission that it is important that this amendment and

planning permit application proceed to reinforce the Centre‟s retail position

and the retail hierarchy in the City of Kinston supported by clause 21.06.

The above extract further reinforces two things:

Why a retail hierarchy exists to inform planning and investment

decision making; and

An expert Panel is clear that Dingley „is better located to serve the

retail needs of the trade area than a centre located on the Moorabbin

Airport land‟.

SGS Economics and Planning have importantly examined the significant

impact on the Dingley Village irrespective of whether its redevelopment

13/7857 35



Appropriately


draft MDP

occurs in the short or medium term and are very clear about where what

forms of investment should be planned.

21.10 – Non Urban Areas 22.04 – South East Non-Urban Area Policy 22.05- Moorabbin Airport Environs

No It is not clear what point AECOM is seeking to make with its comments in

relation to the Non Urban Area policy content in the Kingston Planning

Scheme.

The underlying and obvious message the various policies reinforce is that the

Airports right to be an ‘airport’ is to be protected and what comes from that

is that no catchment will ever exist around it of sufficient size to support the

type of uses proposed by the draft MDP.

13/7857 36

Information supporting the draft MDP

Economic Impact Assessment - Essential Economics Pty Ltd

32) In relation to the economic impact work which supports the draft MDP Council submits

its credibility requires significant critique and objective assessment. This view is based

on the earlier work Essential Economics has undertaken for Moorabbin Airport when

the first supermarket was proposed as part of the existing Kingston Central Shopping

Centre in 2002 and very recent work it completed for the Victorian Growth Areas

Authority.

33) In 2002, when an Aldi Store (small supermarket) was considered Essential Economics

in arguing the basis for this modification to the Airport Master Plan said (refer to

Appendix 2):

Small independent supermarkets usually have only a small fresh food component

such as limited green grocery items and/or deli counter, and typically only capture

a minor share of grocery shopping in relatively small catchment (say, 10% market

share of available food spending compared with 30% or more for a full-line

supermarket). Residents in the catchment will still shop at full-line stores for their

major weekly grocery trips especially for fresh food products (meat, fruit and

vegetables, and deli items).

Approximately 10 years on, no significant change has occurred to the catchment

anywhere near the draft MDP site, but the significant difference is that the Kingston

Central Shopping Centre on the airport now contains an Aldi Supermarket which

provides an anchor to a very large butcher store and deli (Tasman Meats) and a very

large fruit and vegetable store (Crisp and Fresh) as well as a liquor store

(Cellarbrations). Beyond the comparison 10 years ago about the likely 30% penetration

of a full line supermarket which is completely at odds with what Essentially

Economics now claim, it must be questioned how any substantive new catchment,

more than 1.5 kilometres to the west of the draft MDP site, can be identified following

13/7857 37

the development of Kingston Central Shopping Centre and the redevelopment of the

Thrift Park Shopping Centre.

34) Essential Economic was also commissioned by the Victorian Growth Areas Authority

which is responsible for the planning of Melbourne’s locations where population

growth is likely to be the most significant, to provide advice on Growth Corridor Plans

with a particular focus on the fundamental conditions required to justify new retail

facilities. This work in entirety is provided as Appendix 3. In reviewing this work the

following substantive points made by Essential Economics are directly relevant to the

merits of the draft MDP (underlying below is Council’s emphasis):

a) For newly planned areas the Growth Area Authority has a target of 80-90% of all

households within 1km of a neighbourhood level shopping centre. (Pg 13)

b) Identifiable population catchments of at least 8,000 persons, and preferably up to

10,000 residents, should be adopted as the basis for planning the location of

supermarket-based [centres]. Analysis shows that this population target can be

achieved in most neighbourhood units (ie square mile blocks) as long as residential

yields are at least 15 dwellings per hectare (net developable area). (Pg 15)

c) Where population outcomes are less than 8,000 residents, opportunities for smaller

supermarket-based centres (eg supported by mid-sized supermarkets of

approximately 1,500m2) should be pursued where these are viable and where they

are necessary to ensure good access to neighbourhood shopping services. (Pg 15)

d) In order to ensure a network of accessible centres, residential densities will need to

be maximised to achieve the minimum population catchment that is required to

support a supermarket as an anchor tenant. (Pg 30)

e) Melbourne‟s middle suburbs have a much denser pattern of activity centre

provision overall, with almost all of these centres supported by one of the main

supermarket brands (Coles or Woolworths) or an Aldi Store. (Pg 53)

f) The distance between centres in these middle ring suburbs averages only 1km to

2km, with relatively few regions exhibiting a more sparse distribution of centres,

except where industrial or other non-residential land is located. (Pg 57)

g) In this regard a critical benchmark is that a full-line supermarket typically requires

a population catchment of approximately 8,000-10,000 persons in an easily-

definable catchment to be supportable. Smaller population catchments can sustain

13/7857 38

other supermarket models (eg mid-sized Supa IGA stores of 1,500m2), but these

smaller stores generally fill holes in the supermarket network rather than providing

a focus for neighbourhood shopping. (Pg 65)

h) The overall conclusion is that supermarket catchments of approximately 8,000

residents may struggle to sustain a full-line supermarket, whilst a catchment of

10,000 persons would be able to support a store achieving typical trading

benchmarks. (Pg 66)

i) Assuming the supermarket network is located on a square mile grid of arterial

roads, analysis can be undertaken to determine the extent to which this pattern of

urban development might accommodate a population of more than 8,000 residents.

It is relevant to examine the current pattern of housing development in Melbourne

to assess the extent to which population catchments of this size are already

achieved in established suburbs, having regard to housing density. (Pg 66)

j) The figures for the middle ring suburbs (ie middle Melbourne) [jobs per hectare]

provide a good reference point in comparison with those for the outer suburbs,

particularly as these middle regions perform well on measures such as employment

self-sufficiency and employment diversity. (Pg 128)

35) The above extracts from a significant piece of work designed to inform the future

planning of Melbourne’s growth areas by the same consultant, who has completed the

Economic Impact Assessment for a Supermarket and Department Store, drew some

significant and very obvious inconsistencies. These include:

a) A correlation between a supermarket having 80-90% of its households within 1 km.

– Not nearly met in the draft MDP.

b) 8,000 and preferable 10,000 residents should be the basis for planning for a new

supermarket. Where population is less eg 8,000 a smaller supermarket based centre

(anchored by a 15,000m2 supermarket may be ok) – How, with Dingley Village

having a population of approximately 10,000 residents and the western

primary catchment having Thrift Park (full line Supermarket and 20+

13/7857 39

speciality stores) and Kingston Central (Aldi and significant fruit and

vegetable and butcher specialities) could a basis exist for a new supermarket?

c) Essential Economics very understandably (because policy requires it) outlined a

correlation in picking a location to provide a supermarket with a particularly desired

population density. Provided as Appendix 4, is an enlarged version of Figures 4.2

and 4.3 from the Essential Economics work for the Growth Area Authority with the

existing retail hierarchy around the draft MDP site superimposed. This Appendix

illustrates the areas surrounding the draft MDP site fall directly within the lowest

dwelling per hectare rates and population in square mile grids for the entire

metropolitan area. Therefore how does this provide any basis whatsoever for the

draft MDP? It would seemingly be the last place the Victorian Growth Area

Authority would be planning for a Supermarket or Department Store.

Although Council has sought to manipulate the figures the manner in which it has

done so cannot be fully relied upon fully. It would benefit an objective assessment

of the draft MDP if the Airport Lessee Company asked Essential Economics to

reproduce these plans for the municipal area of Kingston so they are produced at

sufficient scale. Enhancements to Figure 4.2 would include identifying colours in

the legend to show 2,000 to 4,000 persons, 1,000 to 2,000 persons and below 1,000

persons. Likewise for figure 4.3 it would be useful in the legend to show between 5

to 10 dwellings per hectare, 1 to 5 dwellings per hectare and between 0-1 dwelling

per hectare. It would also be very useful on both plans to show the Urban Growth

Boundary, Industrial zoned land and golf courses / recreational areas.

d) If employment is an argument to advance the draft MDP irrespective of a number of

other activities that yield a higher employment density than what is proposed,

Essential Economics state that middle regions respond well in relation to

employment self-sufficiency.

e) Further Essential Economics do not indicate it is the role of the Growth Area

Authority to intervene to make sure Coles or Woolworths have an equal distribution

of stores. As identified below this is largely irrelevant in relation to the location

where the draft MDP is actually proposed.

13/7857 40

36) Based on the above very relevant contextual analysis from the same company who has

determined that the draft MDP does not generate an Economic Impact, the following

comments about its report submitted with the draft MDP are provided in addition to the

analysis undertaken by SGS Economics and Planning provided at Appendix 1:

37) Essential Economics suggest that a market gap exists in Department Store provision for

‘residents living in proximity to Moorabbin Airport’ and they use figure 2.1 of the draft

MDP report they prepared to seek to illustrate it. This figure is blatantly inaccurate and

misrepresentative on two fronts:

a) Much of the catchment to the west is located within 4.5 – 7 kilometres of Southland

which contains 5 Department / Discount Departments Stores and should therefore

be shown as blue given its immediate access.

b) This figure is about the correlation between residents and Department Stores and as

such indicates the substantial green wedge / industrial / golf course areas which

surround much of the airport and completely visually distorts this figure. The plan

provided by Council at Appendix 5 is perhaps more useful in showing where people

live and the relationship between housing and actual Activity Centres.

38) In identifying a Trade Area Essential Economics do not provide any transparent basis

for how it has identified its trade areas. This is critical to it being able to explain why in

this instance, a supermarket is supported by fundamentals completely at odds with its

recently published growth area work or earlier work at the Airport. Without doing this

no logic applies to counter:

Why, with five departments stores (including K-mart) and three super-markets

(including Coles) at Southland, Thrift Park which provides a full line

supermarket and approximately 20 specialty stores, Kingston Central which

provides an Aldi, a large butcher, a large greengrocer and bottle shop and the

Mentone Activity Centre which provides a Coles (amongst many other retailers)

any substantive residential catchment to the west of the Airport actually exists?

13/7857 41

39) It is inadequate to state that a further consideration in the definition of a trade area is a

Community Attitudinal Survey (by telephone) of 350 residents living in proximity to the

Moorabbin Airport‟ and not make available, as part of the draft MDP:

a) When the survey was undertaken

b) The full catchment area of the survey and the demographic profile of its participants

c) What questions were asked and how were they phrased.

d) The full results of the survey.

Essential Economics would be well aware that providing the above survey information

is, as a minimum, required to provide any basis whatsoever for its derived catchment.

The Airport Lessee Company was asked for this survey and responses to the above

questions to assist Council in preparing its submission and indicated it was unable to

release the survey. More comment on the credibility of this survey is made below when

discussing the Social Impact Assessment.

40) It is not understood how Figure 2.3 of the Essential Economics work can be correct as it

shows a large concentration of building approvals in the Green Wedge between

Kingston Road and Centre Dandenong Road. A basic analysis of aerial photography

during this time period shows this to be mapped incorrectly. It is likely that most, if not

all these dots, are attributable to The Heath residential development which is less than

half the distance to the Southland Principal Activity Centre than what it is to the draft

MDP site. Once again showing the Urban Growth Boundary and areas that do not

contain residentially zoned land would be most useful in interpreting this figure.

41) Page 16 highlights locations such as Springvale, Cheltenham, Mentone, Edithvale and

Bonbeach to reinforce large infill residential developments. To argue that any of these

locations are not well serviced by supermarket provision in locations which are

substantially more accessible than the draft MDP site is most misleading. Further if

these are the ‘largest’ sites Essential Economics could identify it is clear that no

significant residential development occurring anywhere near the draft MDP would add

to its non-existent current residential catchment.

13/7857 42

42) Page 22 suggests that in the Main Trade Area an over-representation of Woolworths

Supermarkets exist over Coles. Although an irrelevant consideration when considering

planning policy this is also heavily exaggerated and in fact largely incorrect when

considering the following facts:

a) The Main Trade Area is seemingly only as large as it is not because of the

undersupply of Supermarkets but because of the perceived lack of access of the

southern catchment to a Department Store.

b) Discounting the presumed growth in the Main Trade Area based on a Department

Store and actually looking at the Primary Trade Area as some basis for analysis of

supermarket provision, the following is apparent:

Dingley has a population of approximately 10,000 people and could therefore

only support one supermarket according to Essential Economics work for the

Victorian Growth Areas Authority; and

the provision of a Coles Supermarket at Southland and Coles Supermarket at

Mentone mean that the western side Primary Trade Area have immediate access

to either major supermarket operator. In-fact much of the residential part of this

catchment is substantially further away from the draft MDP location than it is to

the other existing Coles stores.

Based on the above the conclusions drawn through Section 3.4 of the Essential

Economics work that relate to a competition and a dominance of Woolworths, seem

largely unfounded when looking at the actual catchment the supermarket would

serve.

43) In identifying the Main Trade Area Council notes that the Springvale Homemaker

Centre located less than half the distance to the southern extremes of the Secondary

North Trade Area is not identified. This centre is in fact equal distance if not closer for

much of the actual residential catchment of Secondary North Trade Area than the

location of the proposed Department Store on the draft MDP site. It is unclear why,

with brands such as: Adairs, Anaconda, Babyco, Beacon Lighting, Berkowitz, Curtain

Wonderland, Domayne, Early Settler, Focus on Furniture, Furniture Galore, Harvey

Norman, House, hs Home, Ikea, JB Hi Fi, Nick Scalli, The Outdoor Furniture

Specialists, Plush, Provincial, Regal Sleep, Snooze and Sofas2go that Essential

13/7857 43

Economics miss any sort of analysis of what is perhaps the largest centre of its kind in

the entire county in identifying justifiable catchment areas for a K-Mart. As a minimum

it is difficult to conclude as Essential Economics seem to, that a DDS provides a

shopping option that is not available in the existing catchment.

Environmental Affairs – Social Impact Assessment

44) A document has been prepared by Environmental Affairs which is understood to be

designed to assess the social impacts of the proposed draft MDP. It is this document

that is seemingly relied upon to justify that the project is compliant with the State and

Local Planning Policy Framework (as well as the AECOM and Essential Economics

work) and if compliance cannot be demonstrated illustrate why this is justified. It is

also such documents that would supposedly demonstrate why the project brings a net

community benefit.

45) Having reviewed the Social Impact Assessment a number of clear methodological

issues exist, that renders it quite inappropriate to rely on as something which is credible

or in any-way sufficiently comprehensive for its intended purpose. These issues are

identified in the following paragraphs.

46) Although the impact assessment recognises the Significant Impact on Local and

Regional Community Guide, the author of the report seems unable to identify how it has

been able to understand any of the impacts and is heavily reliant heavily on a survey

which is not provided.

47) Normal practice would be that the person who has prepared the document titled ‘Social

Impact Assessment’ would in-fact meet with the people who may be impacted or have a

view on the impact (eg Local Government, local shop owners, retail investors, Victoria

Police, Community groups etc) to make any meaningful conclusions/recommendations.

To the best of Council’s knowledge having reviewed the report, it was seemingly a

‘desk top’ task undertaken at ‘arms-length’ from any stakeholder. How you can

properly assess ‘impact’ without talking to those potentially ‘impacted’ parties is very

difficult to understand.

13/7857 44

48) To suggest as the document does that „the State Planning Policy Framework does not

include any explicit social planning objectives but does include an overarching

strategic policy framework aimed at meeting broad-based community needs‟ is just

wrong. Explicit and relevant objectives in relation to this project in the SPPF are not

limited to the following example:

Clause 15.01-4

Ensure the design of buildings, public spaces and the mix of activities

contribute to safety;

Support initiatives that provide safer walking and cycling routes and improved

safety for people using public transport and perceptions of safety.

A specific guideline then stipulates:

Planning must consider as relevant:

Safer Design Guidelines for Victoria (Crime Prevention Victoria and Department of

Sustainability and Environment, 2005).

The fact that the above assessment does not even draw a link between what the Safer

Design Guidelines in relation to Element 1 of the Guidelines deem directly relevant in

terms of Urban Structure, illustrates that its objectivity and substance cannot be relied

upon.

49) The report comments on Pg 18 that „Consideration should also be to improve the range

of higher order retail facilities accessible to local communities without adversely

impacting existing local centres…‟. How this comment could possibly be made is

highly questioned considering the following:

a) To summarise what came from the bits of the survey actually made available at Pt

4.2 of the Social Impact Assessment, the following is seemingly obvious:

The range of existing shops and access to retail outlets currently rated very

highly. In fact only 5.4% of the 257 people surveyed felt there was not enough

retail.

13/7857 45

Having more retail facilities was not important to respondents. In terms of areas

for improvement identified in Table 4 out of all the things that the respondents

felt needed improving the most, ‘More retail facilities’ rated the lowest.

50) A further unexplained issue in the survey is that for some reason only 257 answered a

question on ‘Things disliked in the local area’ (Table 3) but out of the sample of 350

people every single participant answered a question around „Employment opportunities

needed locally’ (Table 5). It is very difficult to explain this response rate when it would

be naturally assumed that any statistically relevant sample would include all age cohorts

(above children) many of whom would seemingly be less interested in employment

opportunities (eg 60+) but one would assume everyone could offer an opinion on things

they disliked. This is just one of the reasons why making the survey available for

objective assessment is important to understand the way the data available is presented.

51) Beyond raising just a few of the reasons that would suggest what is provided is not a

‘Social Impact Assessment’, it is useful to consider the basis behind the conclusions

which have been drawn. In terms of its three conclusions in relation to the Social

Benefit of the project, the following comments are made based on what is concluded

(conclusions shown in italics):

a) Additional and more accessible retail facilities for various segments of local

employees and nearby communities - The attitudinal survey results identified this of

low importance to the community. Essentially what is therefore being asserted is a

social benefit comes from providing something that is seemingly of low importance

to the surveyed community. Perhaps if a question were asked about the risk of

losing well located existing retail facilities as a consequence of the draft MDP

proceeding a more assertive community response may have been provided that may

have been more useful in properly undertaking a Social Impact Assessment?

b) The generation of additional jobs being short term jobs during the construction

period and a range of full and part-time jobs once the retail development

commences operation – Irrespective of what gets built on the subject land

construction jobs will occur and it is beyond any doubt that the employment density

could be substantially higher than what is proposed. One only need look at the

number of people employed next door in the Simplot Office Building on Chiefly

13/7857 46

Park which consumes substantially less land than the draft MDP, to conclude a

much higher employment density could be derived. This benefit is therefore a

neutral consideration at best.

c) Potential improvements in public transport services – The Traffic Engineer engaged

to assist with the draft MDP indicates that the centre will struggle to ever be

anything other than a car based centre.

52) The Social Impact Assessment then concludes that the „possible perceptions [none of

which it explored with the stakeholders] or concerns about aspects of the approval and

operation of the proposed development‟ included (conclusions shown in italics):

a) the perceived lack of alignment between the proposed retail development and State

and Local Planning Policy – This submission makes clear that the concerns are not

‘perceived’ and substantiated inconsistencies exist with the State and Local

Planning Policy Framework.

b) flow-on effects of any economic impacts on local shopping centres such as job

losses in the local community or less attractive or accessible jobs offered by the

proposed retail development – These are not perceptions but real outcomes that

would, as a minimum, require some degree of analysis to put forward a report with

any credibility. The independent assessment by SGS says the Dingley Activity

Centre is at extreme risk if the proposal proceeds.

c) community concerns about increasing the presence of large numbers of people

(shoppers and employees) in Precinct D close to aviation activity areas on the

Airport – This was not explored in the report.

d) concern about the establishment of additional liquor outlets within the Airport

boundaries – Some comment in relation to the provision of existing liquor facilities

in the catchment (including the one already on the airport land) and the need for an

additional facility may have been useful in at least examining the community

impact. A drive around the edge of the airport would illustrate a significant

proliferation of liquor outlets (on and adjacent to airport land) that may give rise to

the proposition that with facilities also in nearby Activity Centres the community

impact of a further accessible facility may warrant some more detailed assessment.

It is not usually the role of the land use planners in this instance AECOM to

comment on this potential impact.

13/7857 47

e) possible social effects of additional ground traffic generated by the proposed retail

development such as a reduction in safety or adverse effects on residential amenity

– Perhaps commentary on the specifics of ‘Safer Design Guidelines’ and not just an

acknowledgement may have been an objective way of considering this perceived

concern. As an aside, it is not clear why the consultant concluded that an adverse

effect on residential amenity was relevant unless the author was unaware that no

residential areas surrounded or are even close to the subject land.

GTA Consultants - Traffic Impact Assessment

53) The Infrastructure Department of Council have briefly reviewed the work completed by

GTA consultants and have raised the following matters:

a) The report undertaken in relation to traffic impact is generally comprehensive with

some technical interpretations that Council disagrees with however the key issues is

that it recommends access treatments at two places which are comparable to one the

Council has been recently informed is being investigated by the Victorian State

Coroner as a possible contributing factor to a fatality. The creation of two (2)

hazardous unsignalised access points, both which would be very similar in design to

the site which is the subject of a current Coronial Inquest is a basis for not

supporting the draft MDP.

b) In addition to the above concern has also been raised in relation to:

Limited if any provision for cycling facilities along Boundary Road or Centre

Dandenong Road in contradiction to Council’s Cycling and Walking Strategy

and VicRoads’ Principal Bicycle Network; and

The unacceptable level of pedestrian amenity presented by the proposal.

13/7857 48

Summary

54) The Minister notified Council on the 25th

June, 2010 that the most recent Moorabbin

Airport Master Plan had been approved and at the time the Minister indicated the

Moorabbin Airport Corporation (MAC) committed to prepare a draft MDP. The

Minister indicated ‘this is a major concession by MAC and will allow Kingston City

Council, the Victorian Government, the public and operators of business close to

Moorabbin Airport the opportunity to view and comment on more detailed plans should

this development proceed‟. At the time this may have been the case but since this

statement, substantive legislative changes have occurred to the Airports Act on 18

December 2010, new National Urban Policy was released on 18 May, 2011 and

operational changes have occurred through the creation of the Planning Co-ordination

Forum and the release in 2012 of the ‘Significant Impact on the Local or Regional

Community’ Guide by the Commonwealth, which no longer make this a concession but

something that requires detailed and objective assessment.

55) Substantive reference is made to the existing Master Plan through the draft MDP

document. Council wish to strongly submit that the relevance of the existing Master

Plan when now objectively assessed against the comments of the State Government in

2009 (recognising nothing has legally changed to the State Planning Policy) and the

City of Kingston that were not incorporated at the time, are now entirely relevant and

based on the new Commonwealth legislation, policy and operational changes will now

get greater recognition in the next draft Master Plan process. Therefore, a clear basis for

substantively modifying the existing Master Plan when it is next reviewed actually

exists and relying on what has been, ignores the significant changes which have

occurred since the Master Plan was approved.

56) With respect to the draft MDP it is not the ‘cost of works’ but because this proposal is a

„development of a kind that is likely to have a significant impact on the local or

regional community‟ that is the reason why this matter is being considered and Council

presumes likely to be the subject of other submissions. This submission is purposefully

explicit about what Division 4 of the Airports Act (most of which is mentioned is new

13/7857 49

and post the Master Plan approval) now requires the company to do. Having reviewed

the legislation against what the company has provided the following conclusions are

drawn:

a) The requirement under Section 91(1)(ga) is explicit in that the draft MDP must

highlight the likely effect of the draft MDP in relation to its „fit within the local

planning scheme for commercial and retail development in the adjacent area‟. The

analysis provided against the local planning scheme was ‘selective’ and

‘insufficient’ to satisfy this requirement.

b) The Act now requires at 91(4)(a) and 91(4)(b) that the draft MDP must highlight

both consistencies and inconsistencies and provide justification where

inconsistencies occur. With only a ‘selective’ analysis this requirement has not been

met.

c) The Act has also subtly changed at 92(2C)(2)(iii) now requiring the company to

‘demonstrate‟ rather than ‘state’ it has had „due regard‟ to comments it has received

in response to the draft MDP. Council expects that based on this submission (which

for the purposes of this section of the Act include all the accompanying work

completed by SGS Economics and Planning) the company in demonstrating ‘due

regard’ would in executing its responsibilities, either inform Wesfarmers of its

intent to:

Abandon the draft MDP proposal; or

Instruct the Minister that it is appropriate to re-exhibit a draft MDP which

addresses in totality the obligations it has under the Act.

Council wishes to reinforce that its view on having „due regard‟ substantially

exceeds the level of analysis the company has made available to the community in

its exhibited draft MDP and it must make transparent any additional information it

relies upon post this point from its existing or additional engaged experts it seeks to

rely upon.

57) Beyond the obligations now clearly placed on the company in preparing and reviewing

submissions to the draft MDP, on the basis that the company formed the view (which it

should not), that the draft MDP satisfies the requirements of the Act and warrants

consideration, appropriate safeguards are now in place to ensure the Minister has regard

13/7857 50

to the significant legislative, policy and operational changes that have occurred at a

Commonwealth Level. These include:

a) Council would expect that the Minister would use the powers provided under

Section 93A(2) to ask the company to properly satisfy the requirements of the

Airports Act under Section 91 and 92 to avoid an incomplete draft MDP being

provided for consideration.

Council intends to provide a direct copy of this submission to the Minister so that

he is immediately aware of the potential need to act in this regard if the company

fails to do so. This is to ensure that the ‘clock stops’ given the provisions of Section

94(6)(a) as it is clearly inappropriate for the Minister to not have the full period in

which to consider very legitimate merit related matters based on the changes that

have occurred.

b) In regard to the previous point Council strongly believe that this draft MDP is a

clear illustration of why the Governments 2009 White Paper recognises the need to

do essentially what happens in Victoria and establish a panel of ‘independent’

experts (who have no relationship to Wesfarmers or the company) available to

consider submissions and provide advice to the Minister. Forwarding this

submission directly to the Minister (as well as the company) also ensures that an

Airports Advisory Panel can be constituted with sufficient notice provided to

interested parties should the company, against the clear advice of this submission,

deem the exhibited draft MDP has met the requirements of the Airports Act in its

current exhibited form.

On the basis of providing for a process whereby natural justice can be provided to

all parties through an Airports Advisory Panel, the Minister would then be

sufficiently and impartially informed in order to exercise his responsibilities under

Section 94(2).

58) Beyond the changes in legislation that are now relevant post the last Airport Master

Plan approval, a substantive change has occurred at a National Level with the release of

the ‘Our Cities Our Future’ policy. For the draft MDP’s key supporting documents to

13/7857 51

state ‘Although it is not a requirement under the Airport Act 1996 to assess the

development against this policy, we highlight the following consistencies‟ and then in

half a page to copy parts of the policy shows a disregard for a matter of obvious

relevance to the Minister. To conceive that the Commonwealth Minister would not as

part of the powers provided under the Act at Section 94(4) not take into very serious

account its National Urban Policy, and simply in one of the few places it is actually the

Planning Authority, disregard its recently adopted National Policy, is beyond

comprehension. Perhaps if the draft MDP was in anyway consistent with the National

Urban Policy it may have received a greater focus.

59) In relation to State Planning Policy the draft MDP is selective in its evaluation. Nothing

of substance to the State Planning Policy Framework has changed since the substantive

submissions of the State and Local Government to the last MDP. What has changed is

the Commonwealth Law that now makes the State Planning Policy entirely relevant.

Council wishes to reinforce:

a) The Airport is not an Activity Centre. All traditional Activity Centres in Melbourne

in the established hierarchy have a residential catchment that surrounds them and is

planned to grow within them. These are the locations where retail needs are

explicitly met by State Planning Policy for very clear reasons.

b) If the Airport wishes to be an additional ‘Specialised Activity Centre’ to add to the

list of the ten which include the Austin Biomedical Alliance, La Trobe Technology

Park, Victoria University, Alfred Medical Research and Education Precinct,

Parkville Medical and Bioscience Precinct, Monash University / Health Precinct,

Deakin University, RMIT Technology Park, Werribee Animal and Food Reserve

Precinct and Melbourne Airport, it should state why against all these identified

centres any similarity exists, in purpose, by providing a:

A Direct Factory Outlets / Kingston Central Shopping Centre; or as proposed a

K-Mart Department Store, Coles Supermarket, First Choice Liquor Store etc

In recent Social and Economic work completed at Melbourne Airport, the identified

Specialised Activity Centre in the above list, the following was stated „Melbourne

Airport is a large metropolitan employment hub, currently employing about 13,700

13/7857 52

people‟. It is apparent that even with 4 times the amount of employment the

Melbourne Airports ‘Specialised’ classification does not seemed linked in any-way

to its land uses which are largely non-existent.

c) The only thing that seems explicit about the role of the Airport from the State

Planning Policy Framework is its location outside the Urban Growth Boundary and

its purpose for Aviation. In this regard a clear distinction is even drawn between

Essendon and Moorabbin in relation to land-use.

d) The draft MDP is fundamentally at odds with explicit objectives and strategies

contained within clauses 11 (Settlement), 15 (Built Environment and Heritage), 17

(Economic Development) and 18 (Transport) as highlighted through this

submission which includes the work of SGS Economics and Planning.

60) The assessment of the draft MDP against the Local Planning Policy Framework is once

again ‘selective’ and unable to fulfil even the requirements of the Airports Act by

providing an evaluation against what it says. This is evidenced by:

a) An almost total disregard for the role of the existing retail hierarchy.

b) A completely distorted correlation being drawn between the locations where

genuine housing growth is planned and the actual retail catchment the project is

likely to serve.

c) An inability to differentiate between a statement ‘acknowledging’ a circumstance

(eg the implications of any retail activities at the Moorabbin Airport need to be

closely monitored) when compared to it being ‘explicit’ about what actual policy

seeks to achieve (eg consolidate new retail land use within the boundaries of

existing activity centres).

61) In order to reinforce the inappropriateness of the draft MDP, proceeding Council felt it

appropriate to commission its own independent assessment on the impacts of the

proposal. The work of SGS Economics and Planning supports the substantive

submission of the Council that the draft MDP cannot be supported. It importantly goes

beyond simply assessing the lack of catchment and direct impact of the proposal to

make clear that the ‘supposed’ employment / economic drivers derived through the

13/7857 53

project relative to other activities the land could be put too are significantly over

emphasized.

62) As the Local Planning Authority, Kingston considers it plays a significant role in

assisting the Commonwealth Minister by highlighting issues of significant

methodological inconsistency between what is proposed on the Airport Land and how

strategic planning in the State of Victoria is done. This submissions demonstrates this

by carefully examining the arguments advanced by those documents critical to the

justification of the draft MDP prepared by AECOM, Essential Economics and

Environmental Affairs which highlight:

a) The Planning Assessment Report prepared by AECOM does not meet the

requirements of the Airports Act given its selective assessment of the proposal

against the National, State and Local Planning Policy Framework.

b) The Economic Impact Assessment report by Essential Economics is inconsistent

with advice it provided a decade ago after the last supermarket which was approved

on the Moorabbin Airport Land. Even more concerning is that its detailed

methodology for how it has advised the Victorian Growth Area Authority on

planning for Supermarkets and Department Stores for the highest growth areas of

Melbourne, is fundamentally inconsistent with its advice in provides in the draft

MDP in an area of Melbourne with the lowest levels of population growth. Any

reasoned analysis of the Growth Area methodology as is illustrated in this

submission would lead to the conclusion that this proposal would never proceed

even in the significant urban growth areas of Melbourne.

c) The Social Impact Assessment report by Environmental Affairs misrepresents the

data it had available to it, and in forming what are best described as ‘loose’

conclusions, it did not even speak with the stakeholders it identified, may have a

‘perception’ of adverse impact. Many of these stakeholders have likely made

submissions to the draft MDP.

d) The report undertaken in relation to Traffic Impact is generally comprehensive

however Council note it recommends an access treatment that is comparable to one

the Council has recently been informed, the Victorian State Coroner is investigating

as a possible contributing factor to a fatality.

13/7857 54

63) This development anchored by a Supermarket and Department Store has the following

actual surrounds:

a) A Green Wedge Zone and urban growth boundary to the immediate north and well

beyond;

b) A business park, airport runways, the existing Kingston Central Shopping Centre

and DFO located to its west before needing to travel in-excess of 2 kilometres to the

nearest house;

c) Industrial land and a freeway reservation are located to its west between any

residential population; and

d) Industrial land to its south.

Council is unable to find any other location in the entire existing Melbourne

Metropolitan area and clearly based on Essential Economics Growth Areas work, any

area where Melbourne will grow, whereby such a dis-connect exists between residential

areas and the retail uses proposed.

64) If this does not demonstrate the unprecedented nature of what is proposed even when

looking at Essential Economics arguments about a working not resident population at

the airport of around 3,300 people and 20,000 odd people they claim work close by that

may according to them form 20% or so of the catchment (noting many of whom are

geographical much closer to other retail facilities) not even the largest industrial

areas in Melbourne have Supermarkets or Department stores in the middle of

them.

Melbourne Airport with a workforce four times that of Moorabbin clearly also does not

have the extent of retail facilities that already exist at Moorabbin Airport let alone those

proposed by the draft MDP.

65) Council has purposefully sought to ensure that all matters relevant to orderly and proper

planning at a National, State and Local Level are identified in this submission. The

Minister has clear powers under Section 94 and we particularly note subsection (4) to

consider all the identified matters raised that the Council submit are directly relevant to

the draft MDP as exhibited.

13/7857 55

66) It is therefore respectfully requested that the draft MDP proposal either be abandoned

or re-exhibited in accordance with the requirements of the Airports Act and then for the

sound reasons reinforced in this submission, be subject to rigorous independent critique

undertaken at arms-length from the proponent or Airport Lessee Company as

recommended in the Commonwealth Governments White Paper.

Submission for and on behalf of

Kingston City Council

13/7857 56

List of Appendices

Appendix Number Appendix Title

1 Reports completed by SGS Economics and Planning Pty Ltd

1) Moorabbin Airport Planning Report Peer Review

2) Moorabbin Airport Economic Impact Assessment Report

2 Correspondence from Essential Economics – 28 May, 2002

3 Report completed by Essential Economics Pty Ltd

Growth Corridor Plans – Activity Centre and Employment

Planning, November 2011

4 Enlarged versions of Figures 4.2 and 4.3 from the Economic

Impact Assessment prepared with the Draft MDP by Essential

Economics Pty Ltd, November 2011

5 Land Use Map Existing / Proposed Retail Centres prepared by the

City of Kingston

The above appendices form part of the substantive submission and are therefore relevant

for the purposes of Section 92(2C)(2)(iii) of the Airports Act 1996

submission for the city of kingston · submission for the city of kingston ... department of...

Documents