proceedings large format retail forum 29 april 2005

P R O C E E D I N G S

L A R G E F O R M A T R E T A I L F O R U M

2 9 A P R I L 2 0 0 5

Western Australian Planning CommissionAlbert Facey House

469 Wellington StreetPerth, Western Australia 6000

Prepared by:Department for Planning and Infrastructure

On behalf of the Western Australian Planning Commission

Proceedings - Large Format Retail Forum 29 April 2005 ii

Contents

1. Program – Large Format Retail Forum ............................................................................. 1

2. Welcome and Introductory Remarks – Corinne MacRae, Forum Chair...................... 2

3. Metropolitan Centres Policy and Large Format Retailing –Mike Allen, Department for Planning and Infrastructure............................................... 3

4. Retail Questionnaire Survey Results – Jeremy Dawkins,Western Australian Planning Commission........................................................................ 9

5. Large Format Retailing as a New Retail Trend – Jeff Klopper, CB Richard Ellis........... 11

6. Large Format Retail Development – Rob Hain, Woolworths Ltd .................................. 14

7. Local Government Town Planning Scheme Provision, Experience andApproach to Large Format Retail Development

- Juliette Gillan, City of Belmont.................................................................................... 17

- Samantha Ferguson, City of Swan ............................................................................. 22

- Tim Price, City of Gosnells ............................................................................................ 26

- Craig McClure and Paul Owen, City of Melville....................................................... 30

- Tony Free, City of Mandurah....................................................................................... 32

8. Court and Planning Tribunal Decisions on Large Format Developments –Paul Hayes, Department for Planning and Infrastructure.............................................. 35

9. Discussion............................................................................................................................. 39

10. Summing Up – Corinne MacRae ...................................................................................... 41

11. Conclusion – Mike Allen ..................................................................................................... 42

Appendix ............................................................................................................................. 43

iii

P R O C E E D I N G S - L A R G E F O R M A T R E T A I L F O R U M

Proceedings - Large Format Retail Forum 29 April 2005

Proceedings - Large Format Retail Forum 29 April 2005 iv


LARGE FORMAT RETAIL FORUM29 April 2005

Alexander Library Lecture Theatre, Francis Street, Perth

PROGRAM

8.30 – 9.00 am Registration

9.00 – 9.10 am Welcome and IntroductionCorinne MacRae (Chair)

9.10 – 9.25 am Metropolitan Centres Policy and Large Format RetailingMike Allen, A/Executive Director, State and Regional Policy Division, Department for Planning and Infrastructure

9.25 – 9.45 am Retail Questionnaire Survey ResultsJeremy Dawkins, Chairman of theWestern Australian Planning Commission

9.45 – 10.00 am Large Format Retailing as a New Retail TrendJeff Klopper, Consultant in Large Format Retail Development

10.00 – 10.15 am Large Format Retail DevelopmentRob Hain, Woolworths Ltd

10.15 – 10.30 am Morning Tea

10.30 – 11.30 am Local Government Town Planning Provision, Experience and Approach to Large Format Retail Development

Juliette Gillan, Manager Planning Services, City of Belmont

Samantha Ferguson, Strategic Planner, City of Swan

Tim Price, Co-ordinator Planning Implementation, City of Gosnells

Tony Free, Director Planning & Sustainability, City of Mandurah

Craig McClure, Director Strategic Urban Planning and Paul Owen, Director Development and Neighbourhood Amenity, City of Melville

11.30 – 11.45 am Court and Planning Tribunal Decisions on Large Format Retail DevelopmentsPaul Hayes, Senior Policy and Legal Officer, Department for Planningand Infrastructure

11.45am – 12.15 pm Discussion Chaired by Corinne MacRae

12.15 – 12.30pm Summing Up and Conclusion by Corinne MacRae

12.30pm Lunch

1



LARGE FORMAT RETAIL FORUM

Welcome and Introductory RemarksCorinne MacRae Forum Chair

Good morning. On behalf of Western Australian Planning Commission I welcome you to today’sforum to discuss large format retail planning.

I am Corrine MacRae. I am the Deputy Mayor of the Town of Cambridge and member of theWA Planning Commission.

I am chairing today’s forum.

In recent years there have been a number of variety store developments, loosely referred to as“large format” or “bulky goods” retail developments, proposed and developed in WesternAustralia.

This form of development has been promoted as a new trend (concept) of retail development.Some in the development industry consider that it is an entirely development concept andthere is no provision for it in the existing land use planning system.

There has also some uncertainty among planners as to what this form of developmentconstitutes in land use planning sense and where it should be located.

Some of these developments have been established in non-retail zones.

There have also been a number of court and planning tribunal decisions in the Eastern Statesand Western Australia relating to large format retail developments.

The purpose of today’s forum is to bring together State and Local Government Planners toshare experience and discuss large format retail development.

From the deliberations today I hope we will have a better understanding of large format retaildevelopment and come to a common approach to dealing with proposals for large formatretail developments.

Change of Program

Since the program was sent to you some weeks ago there has been a slight change. Therevised program is on the blue sheets. The program now includes a presentation by JeremyDawkins, Chairman of the Western Australian Planning Commission. Mr Dawkins will present theoutcome of questionnaire survey conducted on local government on retail developments.

Proceedings - Large Format Retail Forum 29 April 2005 2


Metropolitan Centres Policy and Large Format Retailing

Mike Allen,Department for PIanning and Infrastructure

Introduction

Retailing is a dynamic and competitive industry. New retail forms emerge often andquickly, so it is very difficult for planning to keep up!

“Large format retailing” has emerged as the latest buzz word that generally coversboth specialist and general retailers in large stores. Some of them are bulky goodsretailers (e.g. furniture) and others offer a large range of mainly small items (e.g.supermarkets and discount department stores). Other types of large format storesselling specialised non-bulky goods have emerged in recent years. The non bulkygoods large format retailers are seeking sites outside commercial centres, and thepolicy implications of that movement is the reason for this forum.

What I am going to do is explain the WAPC’s position with respect to large formatretailing, based on the Metropolitan Centres Policy, 2000. I’ll also try and keep thissimple because I think at the heart of it, it is a simple issue. But first, a little history.

History

The WAPC and its predecessors, since 1976 have sought to control the size andplacement of shopping centres in the Perth Metropolitan Region, through the adoptionof, first, the Retail Shopping Policy and then subsequent centres policies. However,the focus of the policies up to 1991 was always on shops and shopping centres,particularly new centres, rather than retailing in general. The 1991 MetropolitanCentres Policy, released specifically to support Metroplan, was the first that explicitlytalked about the development of “centres” and provided a framework for “theplanning of metropolitan centres, retailing, offices and associated development in thePerth Metropolitan Region”.

Overall, four versions of the shopping and/or centres policies have been adopted, in1977, 1982, 1991 and 2000. You may also remember the substantial drafts of 1997and 1999. The 2000 version of the Metropolitan Centres Policy has been givenstatutory status by being made a Statement of Planning Policy (SPP) No. 4.2.

In recent time there has been considerable discussion about large format retail orbulky goods developments and where they should be located. Principally this isbecause there is confusion over what this use really constitutes.

Planners normally want to be very specific on land use terminologies. We want tounderstand one another and we want others to understand us. We classify land usesinto similar and logical groupings. We define land uses in our town planning schemes.

To make it absolutely sure that planners are either understood, or no onemisunderstands us, or we are not talking at crossed purposes, the WA PlanningCommission has published the Model Scheme Text which provides standardiseddefinitions of town planning terms and standardised land use terms. Thesestandardised definitions are required to be embedded in town planning schemes.So the question is “Why is there confusion in “large format or bulky goods retaildevelopments?”

3



I think the issue lies in the definition of the proposed development. It is important thatthe development applied for accords with what is defined in the town planningscheme.

There is considerable risk in trying too hard to find a definition to describe a proposeddevelopment, or choosing a name for a use that is an attempt to circumvent theestablished definitions. For example, if you apply for and get approval for bulkygoods, large format or showroom development you are permitted to use thedevelopment for the purpose approved and as defined in the town planning scheme.Tony Free will explain that when the City of Mandurah approved the application byMakro Warehouse for the development of a showroom, but it turned out that it wasnot being used as a showroom as defined in the town planning scheme, Councilresorted to issuing a notice compelling the owner only to operate the use as approved.

Policy Prescriptions

So how does Statement of Planning Policy categorise ”large format retailing”? Well,the short answer is, it doesn’t. There is no such description in the SPP and there is nosuch description in the definitions that accompany the Model Scheme text.

Having said that the term “large format retailing” does not appear in the CentresPolicy, it is nevertheless worth trying to recognise ‘large format retailing’. It wouldinclude shops such as Myers, David Jones, Big W, Kmart and the like. These types ofshops have, both by tradition and policy, located in shopping and/or commercialcentres and been the focus of shopping within those centres.

On the other hand, somewhat newer arrivals such as Bunnings Warehouses, HarveyNorman, WA Salvage and others can also be described as large format retailers thathave not by tradition or policy located in shopping and/or commercial centres, or notnecessarily so. This is because they either are or have been considered to be retailersof bulky goods. However, according to the policy, if they are so designated, theywould be a showroom and therefore should be located in regional or district centres –whether they are within a mixed business area or not. You might also be provocativeand point out that the likes of Bunnings and WA Salvage now sell mainly small,rather than bulky items, so should we be calling them shop/retail?

Clearly then, when discussing large format retailing in the context of the MetropolitanCentres Policy it is not a debate about just the floorspace size of the retailestablishment. It must therefore be more related to a combination of the size andrange of merchandise, the building format and the operational requirements of theestablishment.

This brings us neatly to the policy position regarding where shops and showroomsshould locate, and the overall objectives of the policy.

While I am sure these are well known to you, it is important in the context of thisForum to restate what are the objectives of the Metropolitan Centres Policy. They arecontained in Section 3 of the Policy Document, and are to:

• Establish a hierarchy of well located centres in the metropolitan region that will:

o promote the Perth Central Area as the dominant centre and the primary focus for retail, commercial, cultural, entertainment and tourist facilities;



o promote Strategic Regional Centres as the “cities in thesuburbs” and the preferred location for major offices andretailing as well as a mix of entertainment, recreation andcommunity facilities;

o promote Regional Centres as important suburban centresoffering a focus for the community by providing a mix ofretail, office, entertainment, recreation and community facilities;

o promote District Centres to meet the weekly shopping andservice needs of the community including the provision ofoffices and community facilities; and

o promote Neighbourhood Centres, Local Centres and cornershops as performing a vital role in providing the day-to-dayconvenience shopping for the neighbourhood as well as animportant focus for neighbourhood services and communityfacilities;

• encourage centres to be developed as the focus of community andemployment activities comprising a range of appropriatecommercial and community uses;

• ensure that centres are highly accessible, of a high standard ofurban design and developed with due regard to the residential amenityof the locality;

• encourage local governments to develop Local PlanningStrategies to provide detailed planning mechanisms to implement theobjectives of this policy; and

• provide policy measures and guidelines for the planning anddesign of centre developments.

So how does the centres policy treat retailing?

While I don’t want to get overly technical about this, we need to distinguish twogroups of retail uses:

• SPP4.2 (Appendix 4) lists 57 Shop/Retail uses that constitute “shoppingfloorspace”. The amount of shopping floorspace in a centre is the main featurethat defines its hierarchical status under the policy. Typically, a commercialcentre will have shopping floorspace as its predominant use.

• Other Retail uses are mostly bulky goods such as hardware, furniture,nurseries and cars that are typically sold from showrooms and cars sold fromshowrooms and open display areas. These are not identified in SPP4.2.

These two groups of uses were defined in the late 1980s and were intended to reflectthe different locational, site and public amenity requirements of centre and non-centreretailing. The uses listed in Appendix 4 needs to be reviewed to recognisecontemporary trends, as some bulky goods (e.g. household appliances) are included inshopping floorspace.

SPP4.2 floorspace controls in a nutshell:The policy guides/controls shopping floorspace - if a retail use is in the list of 57Shop/Retail uses then it is counted as shopping floorspace; if it is not on the list it isnot subject to the floorspace size guidelines (Appendix 1) and the Hierarchy of

5



Metropolitan Centres (Appendix 2) of the policy. Developments containingnonshoppingfloorspace are also managed by the policy, but no size criteria apply. It’sthat simple!

When it comes to giving direction on the location of uses, the policy (in Clause 4.1.1)states that retail, office, commercial, entertainment and community facilities shouldbe located in centres. In Section 4.1.8 the policy says, “except for designated areas,commercial developments should be located in defined centres in order to promotethe centres and discourage the encroachment of commercial activities into residentialareas”.

Clause 4.1.9 says bulky goods “should be located within Regional and Districtcentres or in designated mixed business areas”. That sounds pretty straightforwardto me.

Clause 4.1.10 says “retail and commercial developments, unless incidental to orservicing industrial developments, should not generally be permitted inindustrial zones”.

Clause 4.1.15 says “mixed business areas accommodating bulky goods outlets,retail-warehouses, hypermarkets, showrooms, service industries and small scalebusiness uses should be located as parts of Regional or District centres, withaccess to major roads and public transport and on land zoned for commercialpurposes”.

All those sections sound pretty straightforward to me, and they all emphasise thatretail developments should be located on land that forms part of centres, unless thereare specific exemptions.

Large Format Retailing – The Issue: Why we are here

A review of literature and Australian articles available on the web reveals that there isretail ‘war’ on at the moment. It is between those in the formal shopping centreindustry, namely owners, developers and major operators within centres (such asColes-Myer and Woolworths) versus those retailers loosely termed bulky goodsretailers and factory outlets which locate outside the formal centres structure,sometimes on zones where retailing per se is not a permitted use – or is adiscretionary use.

How has this happened?

Brief history

Throughout the 1990s (probably before) large format bulky goods retailers havesought sites in non-centre locations (highway commercial, light industrial zones,mixed business zones, etc) where the large sites required are affordable on cheaper,non-centre land. This has been manageable in planning terms largely because theseretailers are mostly specialists selling goods in one or two of the land use typesdefined as Other Retail - that is, they are uses not listed in Appendix 4 of the policyand are not occupying shopping floorspace as defined by the policy. The policyguides the location of these uses, but it does not attempt to control their size.Similarly, they are uses that fall into the 'showroom' definition in local authority townplanning schemes.



Specialist Bulky Goods Retailers

Bulky goods retailing premises located out of centres have arrived through TownPlanning Scheme provisions for showrooms. The reason for this stems fromdefinitions used in local authority Schemes. In most Schemes bulky goods retailingwould be taken to fall under the definition of showroom in the Model Scheme Text.

….premises used for displaying or offering for sale by wholesale or retail, automotiveparts and accessories, camping equipment, electrical light fittings, equestriansupplies, floor coverings, furnishings, furniture, household appliances, party supplies,swimming pools or goods of a bulky nature.

This definition is not dissimilar to that of bulky goods retailing in Clause 4.1.9 of theMetropolitan Centres Policy. Most current Town Planning Schemes have similardefinitions and all include showroom as a use class in the zoning tables. In mostSchemes showrooms are either permitted, or permitted with Council consent in amuch wider range of land use zones than are shops.

The Model Scheme Text defines shop as meaning:

….premises used to sell goods by retail, hire goods, or provides services of apersonal nature (including a hairdresser or a beauty therapist) but does not includea showroom or a fast food outlet.

Most current Town Planning Schemes have similar definitions and all include shop asa use class in the zoning tables.

Alternatively, large format retailers selling a wide variety of different goods,including department stores, discount department stores and supermarkets are theanchor tenants on 'big box' shopping centres. They are listed in Appendix 4 of thepolicy and the floorspace they occupy is included in shopping floorspace. UnderSPP4.2 these types of retailers are to be located in centres, with a range of specialistretailers in small stores.

Recent Trends

There is an increasing trend for non-bulky goods retailers to seek to locate outsidecommercial and retail zones outside centres to take advantage of the cheaper landavailable in industrial zones. These include:

• Large format specialist stores such as fabrics, music, clothing, computers,shoes, sporting goods, toys, frozen foods….many of the specialists listed inAppendix 4 of the Centres Policy. They will be allowed under “showroom”definitions of TPSchemes as long as they don't sell food and otherconvenience goods.

• Large format general stores which are actually department or variety stores.These stores have claimed to be selling mainly bulky goods, with incidentalsales of small Shop/Retail items - and have received planning approvals onthis basis.

• Brand direct and factory outlet centres have emerged in non-centre locationsto centralise sales of end-of-season clearance goods and factory seconds -which have traditionally been sold at the factory door, and were incidental tothe predominant industrial use.

7



Many of these are Shop/Retail outlets as defined by SPP 4.2. They are not bulkygoods.

It seems we also need clarification about the retailing of bulky goods as opposed tothe bulk retailing of general merchandise or foodstuffs. Bulky goods are just what theword says - they are bulky. They are not the sorts of things you can carry under yourarm!

The range of merchandise and retailing styles between major ‘in centre’ retailers andsome major ‘out of centre’ retailers is becoming increasingly blurred and difficult todifferentiate. Major stakeholders and operators in the shopping centre industry, andthe major retailers tied to it, are asking questions. It is argued that the non-centreretailers have an unfair advantage over retailers selling the same types of goods fromshopping centres in retail/commercial zones. Rents reflect the higher price of land andthe higher standards of parking and amenities both required and provided in shoppingcentres. It is unfair that retailers who have signed leases in centres should suddenly beconfronted by new competitors paying lower rents.

The argument by the shopping centre industry and major retailers is that whendifferent sectors are competing for the same market, operators in each sector shouldbe competing on a level playing field. I have no doubt we will hear about this fromfollowing speakers. The inference is that either the uses that have traditionally locatedin shopping centres should be less regulated or out of centre retailers more regulated.Indeed, associated with this, is whether the shopping centre industry should be lessregulated, but we won’t be answering that question today.

The DPI’s position in terms of its advice to the WAPC in the operation of the CentresPolicy is that it has supported, and will continue to support, bulky goods retailing as ause. However, the Department does not support non-bulky goods retailers - which wewould classify as shops - moving into non-commercial zones such as light and serviceindustrial or showroom zones. Further, they occupy shopping floorspace and it couldbe argued that they ought to be subject to the rigorous assessment - such as impactassessment - provided for in the policy. Perhaps this can be addressed as part of thereview of the Centres Policy, which is needed to accommodate the mixed use activitycentres envisaged by Network City?

At the same time, such stores are widely accepted by the public. Ideally, planningshould find an equitable way of accommodating both factions. But first we have tounderstand more about the problem, so let’s hear from the other speakers.



Retail Questionnaire Survey Results

Jeremy DawkinsWestern Australian Planning Commission

Jeremy Dawkins tabled the results (see Appendix) of the WAPC web survey on changes inretailing structures and changes in planning for retailing location and spoke on the results.

Minister for Planning and Infrastructure has been driving a program of community engagementin planning – “Network City”.

What the options are for Perth’s future. Clear challenges in the environmental area, eg. Waterenergy, global warming.

World competition of cities. Competitiveness, liveability. Perth will need to compete in theseareas.

Cannington and Osborne Park are “activity centres”. University campuses are “activitycentres”, as is QE2. Beyond the importance of Centres in “Network City” is the benefit forconsumers, by bringing together a lot of activity. Consumers are prepared to pay for thecentres with their higher land values and higher rents, which are reflected in the price of goodsand services. Activity Centres are highly diverse.

There is an incentive for retailers to locate on the cheaper land outside the centres. It is, onone level, a simple matter of definition, but another level is metropolitan urban economy andhow it makes Perth globally competitive.

He asked for an indication of awareness of the survey and an indication of those whoanswered it. (Approximately 14 of those present). 75% of Councils made a response to thewebsite survey. 24 initial responses. He invited those who had not yet responded, to do so.

He gave an overview of what the 24 Councils are telling us.

Trading areas overlap council boundaries.

Question 1:

16 Councils have the same definition of “shop” as in the Model Scheme Text13 have the same definition for “showroom” as in the Model Scheme Text15 have the same definition for “warehouse” as in the Model Scheme Text

1/3 of the Town Planning Schemes have different definitions from the the Model Scheme Text.

Jeremy Dawkins expanded on the results of some parts of the survey as follows:

Questions 2 and 3:

Shops are “discretionary use” in many zones. All of those had different types of retailing whichare either “permitted” or “discretionary” in those zones.

9 Councils have recently amended their Town Planning Schemes in relation to planning areas.13 are considering amendments and 11 are considering new policy.

9



Question 10:

Showrooms which are really shops are located outside shopping centres. The same number ofpeople think this is a major issue as those who think it is a minor issue.

Question 15:

Almost every Council said more information and research is a priority or a high priority.

Question 18:

Most Councils consider that new forms of “big box” centres and new forms of factory orwarehouse outlets will have major impact on major (shopping) centres.

Local definitions differing from the MST:

Some Councils defined many more types of retailing than others.

Appeals and other pressure regarding retail location

He drew attention to the comments at paragraph 1021.

Enforcement action regarding retail location:

Great majority of Councils have not taken any enforcement action, although some have.

Impacts of retail location across boundaries:

In some regional centres, boundaries overlap.

He sought feedback on the survey and encouraged attendees to support the forum byresponding to the survey and completing it on the internet.

Conclusion: Complexities of retail centres calls for a more strategic approach to the definitionsand the complexity. The core of the issue is the local planning strategy. This recognises that inevery local area the retail strategy and the retail future is unique to that area, and that is bestexpressed through a local planning strategy.

Local solutions are needed to the retail structure based on what impact it has and whatchanges are needed to achieve that.



11



Large Format Retailing as a New Retail TrendJeff Klopper, CB Richard Ellis Consultant in Large Format Retail Development

(Powerpoint presentation)

13





Large Format Retail DevelopmentRob Hain, Woolworths Ltd(Powerpoint presentation)

15



17



Local Government Town Planning Provision, Experience andApproach to Large Format Retail Development

Juliette Gillan, Manager Planning Services, City of Belmont (Powerpoint presentation)

19



21






Samantha Ferguson, City of Swan (Powerpoint presentation)

23



25






Tim Price, Co-ordinator Planning Implementation, City of Gosnells (Powerpoint presentation)

27



29






Craig McClure, Director Strategic Urban Planning, City of Melville (Powerpoint presentation)

31




Tony Free,City of Mandurah

Tony Free thanked the WAPC for the invitation. He commented on Tim Price’s presentation. Timraised some very pertinent points. There are a lot of questions that remain unanswered.

He gave a summary of the “Makro warehouse” situation in Mandurah and raised someoutcomes and points which the forum may like to consider.

There is a significant proportion of the population that want to have this sort of store. Asplanners, we need to accommodate that in some way.

Shopping habits have changed significantly over the last 30 years. Changes will occur morerapidly in the future.

He questioned whether town planning schemes have changed over the last 30 years.

Planning definitions have not kept pace with changes.

Other States – Victoria in particular - have done significant definitions and classifications as well.The outcomes of the work done in Victoria on this issue would be a valuable source ofinformation.

He said that there is a need to be careful as to where the major focus is to be. We should befocussing on urban design issues, with the hope of having vibrant and liveable areas. There arebig challenges for local government planners, and shopping centre owners. At the localgovernment level, we will need the support of WAPC if we are to implement the mainstreamelements into shopping centre areas. Shopping centre areas are fairly resistant to it. Issue ofthe definitions of use and their classification in his view are of a secondary important, howevergreater clarity is required than we have at the moment.

He doesn’t believe it is simple, that there are shops and then there are warehouses. It seems tohim that there are supermarkets – they are a one use class and perhaps with their owndefinitions. Then there are discount department stores, such as Big W and Makro, which needto be classified differently and have a different definition. Then there are showrooms in all theirforms, e.g. Harvey Norman.

Locate these showroom areas outside of retail areas. They may need a clear definition of theirown.

Then there is the issue of the Bunnings stores and he is not sure where WA Salvage fits. Bunningshas been defined as a warehouse store. 1/3 is a hardware store, then they seem to selleverything else, then there is their garden centre and perhaps we need to think about howthat is to be classified.

Quite a bit of work needs to be done on the use and classifications. This needs to be done ata State level to give local governments guidance. Economic development is quite importantand as planners we need to recognise that.



33




Paul Owen, Director Development & Neighbourhood Amenity, City of Melville (Powerpoint presentation)

35



Court and Planning Tribunal Decisions on Large Format Retail DevelopmentsPaul Hayes, Senior Policy and Legal Officer, Department for Planning and Infrastructure

(Powerpoint presentation)

37



39



Discussion

Rodger Kohn, DPI made the observation that we are here to try to resolve definitions andappropriate use of property zones.

It seemed to him that, taking the example of the Myaree retail area, comparing a fishing tackleshop with Bed Shed, the issues are frequency of visit and parking requirement. He commentedthat Bed Shed is selling bulky goods with a limited number of parking bays. A fishing tackleshop requires a number of car bays.

He raised the issue of frequency of shopping trips to the particular use. He said that the fishingtackle shop is the same size as Bed Shed but would attract far less of the population on aregular basis than the Bed Shed shop.

He suggested that perhaps frequency of purchase of the particular types of goods should be afactor (e.g. turnover of customer base).

Wayne Zimmerman, DPI made reference to areas such as Osborne Park. He said that thesewere generally industrial areas which, over time, have been reclassified. Now we have thelarge format retail use which we are now trying to deal with.

He said that the planning system needs to take into consideration and implement this changeof structure. Cheaper staff costs have an impact on the regional centres. How do youaccommodate that in the planning system? Needs to be closely examined. Bigger stores willdevelop a framework to move out of the regional centres. There will be serious changes totransport structure and access.

Jeff Klopper, CB Richard Ellis commented that on the Myaree project, when the developmentwas a 50 year lease back, there was a 30% retail on that site with 30% of car parking. Bulkygoods stores were the remainder. Then Makro Warehouse was signed up. Council initiallystipulated 30% car parking per tenancy then reduced this to zero.

He made reference to the difference in cost of both outgoings and construction costs for thedifferent types or retailers.

He said there is a trend towards retail costs and land costs increasing.

Elizabeth Taylor, Shire President of Kalamunda & Member of Statutory Planning Committeeat WAPC raised the question of competition policies in relation to town planning schemes. Shesaid that a lot of the smaller retailers will move out of the larger shopping centres, andcommented that she sees a number of shops “boarded up” in shopping centres. The Chairsummed this up as “economic impact of planning considerations”.

Vince McMullen, DPI commented that the integration of industrial areas remains veryimportant and said that there are transport issues. He commented that it is hard to establish anindustrial area from scratch.

Jeremy Dawkins, Chairman Western Australian Planning Commission queried whether theissue is simple or complex. He said that it is simple in the sense that the task for the WAPC is toprovide the necessary tools for local government to do good planning locally. Getting thedefinitions and the MST right is important but it is not actually the end of the matter. He saidthat he thought the results of the survey make that fairly clear.



He quoted the examples of Myaree and Belmont and said that there is no blanket solution“one size fits all” approach, and said he was of the view that it is WAPC responsibility to providethe tools for local government to apply locally in a local way.

He concluded by reiterating his request for feedback on the survey.

Nickolee Ansell, Town of Victoria Park referred to Jeremy Dawkins’ comments and said thatdiscussion at a local government level need a bit more analysis. Asked whether the DPI couldprovide a bit more guidance on this, in terms of limiting discretion.

Ian MacRae, City of Armadale referred to Paul Hayes’ presentation. Ian MacRae was of theview that it is largely an enforcement issue. He said that this forum has helped us to focus onthis. He raised the issue of the relationship between retail floor area and householdexpenditure and the extent to which the WAPC’s policies are a response to that relationship.He speculated on whether the down market shops are changing that relationship.

41



Summing Up

Corinne MacRae

The Chair, Corinne MacRae, summed up the views of the meeting as follows:

• Mike Allen advised DPI’s position and said that the WAPC does not support non-bulky goods retail moving into non-commercial zones or light industrial showroom zones.

• Jeremy Dawkins talked about the results of the survey and implementation through local planning strategies.

• Jeff Klopper gave a good overview of WA’s place in Australia in terms of retail growth. He praised the WA planning system. He indicated that there is a lack of consistency. Zoning use not clear and interpreted differently across different councils. Highlighted a broad range of retailers in a single centre.

• Rob Hain does not believe that large format retailing is a new trend. He believes that the real trend is in the change of location of large format retailers away from shopping centres. He sees large format as the same as bulky goods retailing. Lack of consistency about the definitions of those uses. Woolworths is happy to compete on a “level playing field”. Arguedstrongly that bulky goods retail can be detrimental to the function of the shopping centres. Councils are using different approaches. They have concerns about quasi-retailing set up. Does not define large format retailing as a shop.

• Tim Price asked how Network City will impact.

• Tony Free talked about Makro Warehouse in a showroom industrial area in the future. The focus of their planning was liveable neighbourhoods.

• Craig McClure gave a good case for the City of Myaree area.

• Paul Hayes said that “a shop is a shop is a shop”. He asked whether the current laws and policy are satisfactory as they stand now. Is the issue one of enforcement? Is the treatment of the MST appropriate? Is there some sort of grey area with respect to the definition of those particular uses?

The Chair thanked all the speakers and asked Mike Allen to conclude the forum.



Conclusion

Mike Allen

Mike Allen spoke about the next steps for the WAPC and DPI. He referred to Jeremy Dawkins’comments about Network City and the new concept of activity centres. He said that it wasapparent to DPI when putting Network City together that it would require a thorough review ofthe centres policy.

He commented that what we have heard here this morning confirms that this is an importantand urgent requirement. The importance attached to the policy setting is quite evident and isvery relevant to local government and to the shopping centre owners and operators.

The DPI will have to do a review of some of the definitions. There is a fairly high degree ofconsistency but there are some notable discrepancies and it is incumbent upon the DPI at theState level to act on this and will try to include definitions for the new uses that have beenidentified. Large format retailing is one such definition that does not appear to be included.

He referred to Ian MacRae’s point that in the centres policy we still have centres based aroundshopping floor space as one of the essential criteria used in determining the hierarchy ofcentres, and said that the DPI needs to look at shopping floor space compared with shoppingcentre areas.

He referred to Tim Price’s question regarding the spatial extent of centres and said that this is auseful piece of work that the DPI can do.

The gains flowing from Network City will be many and varied. They will involve a lot of policymaking and also require a number of administrative structures that will involve localgovernment and community, and perhaps involve new ways of working with WALGA,especially when working in local areas on activity centres, activity corridors and transportcorridors. Community engagement and work with local government will be central to thedevelopment of the new policy settings.

Mike Allen concluded by thanking everyone for their attendance.

43



APPENDIX

proceedings large format retail forum 29 april 2005

Documents