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
State Planning Policy
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
State Planning Policy
(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
State Planning Policy
(bolding Council’s emphasis)
Appropriately
covered in draft MDP
Council appraisal of the Objective / Strategies of the Policy against the
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
State Planning Policy
(bolding Council’s emphasis)
Appropriately
covered in draft MDP
Council appraisal of the Objective / Strategies of the Policy against the
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
State Planning Policy
(bolding Council’s emphasis)
Appropriately
covered in draft MDP
Council appraisal of the Objective / Strategies of the Policy against the
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
State Planning Policy
(bolding Council’s emphasis)
Appropriately
covered in draft MDP
Council appraisal of the Objective / Strategies of the Policy against the
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
State Planning Policy
(bolding Council’s emphasis)
Appropriately
covered in draft MDP
Council appraisal of the Objective / Strategies of the Policy against the
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
State Planning Policy
(bolding Council’s emphasis)
Appropriately
covered in draft MDP
Council appraisal of the Objective / Strategies of the Policy against the
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
State Planning Policy
(bolding Council’s emphasis)
Appropriately
covered in draft MDP
Council appraisal of the Objective / Strategies of the Policy against the
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
State Planning Policy
(bolding Council’s emphasis)
Appropriately
covered in draft MDP
Council appraisal of the Objective / Strategies of the Policy against the
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
State Planning Policy
(bolding Council’s emphasis)
Appropriately
covered in draft MDP
Council appraisal of the Objective / Strategies of the Policy against the
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
State Planning Policy
(bolding Council’s emphasis)
Appropriately
covered in draft MDP
Council appraisal of the Objective / Strategies of the Policy against the
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
State Planning Policy
(bolding Council’s emphasis)
Appropriately
covered in draft MDP
Council appraisal of the Objective / Strategies of the Policy against the
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
Local Planning Policy
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
Local Planning Policy
(bolding Council’s emphasis)
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
Local Planning Policy
(bolding Council’s emphasis)
Appropriately
covered in draft MDP Council appraisal of the Objective / Strategies of the Policy against the
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
Local Planning Policy
(bolding Council’s emphasis)
Appropriately
covered in draft MDP Council appraisal of the Objective / Strategies of the Policy against the
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
Local Planning Policy
(bolding Council’s emphasis)
Appropriately
covered in draft MDP Council appraisal of the Objective / Strategies of the Policy against the
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
Local Planning Policy
(bolding Council’s emphasis)
Appropriately
covered in draft MDP Council appraisal of the Objective / Strategies of the Policy against the
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
Local Planning Policy
(bolding Council’s emphasis)
Appropriately
covered in draft MDP Council appraisal of the Objective / Strategies of the Policy against the
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
Local Planning Policy
(bolding Council’s emphasis)
Appropriately
covered in draft MDP Council appraisal of the Objective / Strategies of the Policy against the
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