Mitchell Planning Scheme Amendment C124 and Planning

Planning and Environment Act 1987

Panel Report

Mitchell Planning Scheme Amendment C124 and Planning Permit PLP203/17

109 Northern Highway and 80 Clarke Street, Kilmore

29 April 2019

Planning and Environment Act 1987

Panel Report pursuant to section 25 of the Act

Mitchell Planning Scheme Amendment C124 and Planning Permit PLP203/17

109 Northern Highway and 80 Clarke Street, Kilmore

29 April 2019

David Merrett, Chair Michael Ballock, Member

Mitchell Planning Scheme Amendment C124 and Planning Permit PLP203/17 Panel Report 29 April 2019

Contents Page

1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................1

1.1 The Amendment and land ....................................................................................... 1

1.2 The planning permit ................................................................................................ 2

1.3 Amendment C123 .................................................................................................... 5

1.4 Summary of issues raised in submissions ............................................................... 5

1.5 The Panel’s approach .............................................................................................. 6

2 Planning context .......................................................................................................9

2.1 Planning policy framework ...................................................................................... 9

2.2 Other relevant planning strategies and policies ................................................... 10

2.3 Planning scheme provisions .................................................................................. 12

2.4 Ministerial Directions and Practice Notes ............................................................. 12

2.5 Discussion and conclusion ..................................................................................... 12

3 The Amendment ..................................................................................................... 14

4 The Planning Permit ................................................................................................ 18

4.1 The need for specialty retail shops ....................................................................... 18

4.2 Kilmore Creek environs ......................................................................................... 23

4.3 The location of the toilet amenities ...................................................................... 24

4.4 Traffic and transport ............................................................................................. 28

4.5 Infrastructure contributions .................................................................................. 30

4.6 Vegetation removal ............................................................................................... 30

Appendix A Document list

Appendix B Panel preferred version of the Planning Permit PLP203/17

List of Figures Page

Figure 1 The Amendment land .............................................................................................. 1

Figure 2 The exhibited proposal ............................................................................................ 3

Figure 3 The amended proposal............................................................................................ 4

Figure 4 Kilmore Town Centre Framework Plan ................................................................. 11

Figure 5 Trade areas for proposed supermarket ................................................................ 14

Figure 6 North east elevation of the supermarket building................................................ 25

Figure 7 Amenities building and Kilmore Creek environs ................................................... 27


Glossary and abbreviations

C1Z Commercial 1 Zone

Council Mitchell Shire Council

DDO4 Schedule 4 to the Design and Development Overlay

Dimasi EIA Dimasi Economic Impact Assessment

GBCMA Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority

IN1Z Industrial 1 Zone

KADRRA Kilmore and District Residents and Ratepayers Association

KSP Kilmore Structure Plan 2016

planning permit Planning Permit PLP203/17

the Proponent Lascorp Development Group

TfV Transport for Victoria


Overview

Amendment summary

The Amendment Mitchell Planning Scheme Amendment C124 and Planning Permit PLP203/17

Common name 109 Northern Highway and 80 Clarke Street, Kilmore

Brief description Amendment

Rezone the land from Industrial 1 Zone to Commercial 1 Zone

Planning Permit PLP203/17

Exhibited - Construct a supermarket, medical centre and retail premises, use the land for the sale of packaged liquor, alteration of access to Road Zone Category 1 and removal of vegetation

Amended - Construct a supermarket, medical centre and retail premises, installation and display of signage, use the land for the sale of packaged liquor, alteration of access to Road Zone Category 1 and removal of vegetation

Subject site 109 Northern Highway and 80 Clarke Street, Kilmore

The Proponent Lascorp Development Group

Planning Authority Mitchell Shire Council

Authorisation 7 August 2019

Exhibition 14 September to 22 October 2018

Submissions Number of Submissions: 10 Opposed: 4

1. Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority

2. Christos Karamoshos

3. Lascorp Development Group

4. Goulburn Valley Water

5. Environment Protection Authority

6. Kilmore and District Residents and Ratepayers Association

7. Transport for Victoria and Regional Roads Victoria

8. Mia Kilmore and Mia Corp

9. Country Fire Authority

10. Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning


Panel process

The Panel David Merrett (Chair) and Michael Ballock

Directions Hearing Kilmore Trackside, 24 January 2019

Panel Hearing Kilmore Trackside, 12, 13 and 14 March 2019

Site inspections Unaccompanied, 24 January and 12 March 2019

Appearances Mitchell Shire Council represented by Terry Montebello of Maddocks, who called expert evidence on retail economics from John Henshall of Ethos Urban Economic Assessments

Lascorp Development Group represented by Chris Townshend QC of Counsel, instructed by Amy Golvan of Lascorp Development Group, who called expert evidence from:

- town planning from David Barnes of Hansen Partnership

- retail economics from Justin Ganly from Deepend Consulting

- traffic engineering from Henry Turnbull of the Traffix Group

- landscape architecture from Tim Vernon of CDA Design Group

Kilmore and District Residents and Ratepayers Association represented by Anne Radden Rose

Mia Kilmore and Mia Corp represented by Mark Bartley of HWL Ebsworth Lawyers, who called expert evidence on retail economics from Marianne Stoettrup of Matters More

Citation Mitchell Planning Scheme PSA C124 [2019] PPV

Date of this Report 29 April 2019


Executive summary Mitchell Planning Scheme Amendment C124 (the Amendment) seeks to rezone 109 Northern Highway and 80 Clarke Street, Kilmore from Industrial 1 Zone to Commercial 1 Zone to facilitate the development of the land for a supermarket and specialty shops.

As exhibited, Planning Permit PLP203/17 allows for:

• buildings and works for the construction of a supermarket, medical centre and retail premises

• use of the land for sale of packaged liquor

• alteration of access to Road Zone Category 1

• removal of native vegetation.

Prior to the Hearing amended plans were circulated by the Lascorp Development Group (as the Proponent) to address some issues contained in submissions and Council’s concerns. Amendment C123 was approved after the Hearing. It introduced the recommendations of the Kilmore Structure Plan 2016 into the planning scheme and, importantly, identified the land as potentially suitable for a full line supermarket and specialty shops and applied Schedule 4 to the Design and Development Overlay. Schedule 4 to the Design and Development Overlay applies to the Kilmore town centre and identifies the land as a gateway site.

A matter that was not raised in submissions, but the Panel is inclined to comment on, is the architectural quality of the overall development. As a gateway site, it is appropriate that the northern entry into Sydney Street be demarcated by an appropriate use and design quality.

Key issues raised in submissions included: Mitchell Shire Council

• the rezoning is consistent with the new Amendment C123 provisions and is not premature

• the use and development of the land is consistent with the Amendment C123

• the toilet amenities building should be internalised within the supermarket building and replaced with retail activation

• the three northern-most car spaces should be deleted to realign the pathway and allow for more landscaping

• a pedestrian refuge in the Northern Highway cross over is required Proponent


• the use and development of the land is consistent with the Amendment C123

• the toilet amenities building should be retained in its current location

• the three northern-most car spaces should be retained

• a pedestrian refuge in the Northern Highway cross over is not required Mia Kilmore and Mia Corp

• the deletion of the specialty retail shops to protect the viability of other businesses in the Kilmore town centre. It considered the proposal would not result in a net community benefit.


Kilmore and District Residents and Ratepayers Association

• there were too many specialty shops and it questioned the need for a medical centre. It considered the proposal would be detrimental to the viability of the town centre. But in its submission at the Hearing it stated “we reluctantly concur with the proposed number of small shops etc. as our main priority is to see a third supermarket in Kilmore succeed. If the Panel sees fit to ask for a reduction in small shops or the deletion of the medical centre and the project still goes ahead we will be very pleased.”

Other submitters

• A neighbouring landowner that has a dwelling in the industrial area to the north requested a security fence be erected to restrict public access to the land.

With the approval of Amendment C123, the key issue was not if the land should be developed for commercial purposes (i.e. supermarket) but how it should be developed. The strategic justification for the Amendment is unequivocal and the rezoning of the land was not contested in any great detail. The strategic framework for the land identifies it:

• as a getaway site within the town centre boundary

• as a potential site for a supermarket and specialty shops

• within Schedule 4 to the Design and Development Overlay that applies to the Kilmore town centre

• outside of Precinct 4 (North growth and employment precinct) that applies to the industrial areas.

The Panel that considered Amendment C123 heard retail economic evidence to justify the rezoning and many of the same submitters appeared at the Amendment C124 Hearing.

The outstanding issues related to how the land was developed for a supermarket and specialty shops; albeit relatively confined to the amenities buildings, the Kilmore Creek environs and a pedestrian refuge at the Northern Highway crossover. This was an outcome of discussions that occurred prior to and during the Hearing between Council, the Proponent and other parties. The Panel appreciated this open dialogue which enabled it focus on a relatively small number of development issues. As agreement was reached on many issues, the planning permit was updated accordingly. To avoid confusion, the Panel adopted the Document 15 version of the planning permit subject to the recommendations of this report.

In regard to the outstanding issues, the Panel concludes:

Specialty shops

• The principle of net community benefit is relevant to inter-community impacts and not impacts upon private businesses within the same centre, which can be characterised better as competition. The co-location of specialty shops with the supermarket will produce a net community benefit and provide an improved retail offer to Kilmore residents and retain escape expenditure that currently is spent out of town.

• The future vehicle bypass of Kilmore and improvements to Sydney Street will add vitality to Sydney Street and benefit existing and new businesses.

• The specialty shops will not adversely impact the vitality of the town centre and are therefore appropriate.


Kilmore Creek environs

• Council and the Proponent agreed that a ground planted northern, north eastern and western vertical wall landscaping treatment was appropriate. The Panel supports this.

• The three northern car parking spaces along Kilmore Creek should be retained as this provides for a meandering pedestrian pathway in an area where ample landscaping is to be provided.

• A chain mesh fence along the northern boundary is appropriate as this will provide the adjoining landowner with additional security.

Amenities building

• The relocation of the amenities block is not appropriate as its location next to a new recreational corridor along the Kilmore Creek and its pathway will service both shoppers and recreational users of the creek environs. The Panel considered the location would be marginal for a retail use and its relocation may result in fragmenting or reducing the number of retail tenancies.

• Water and electricity infrastructure should be provided to an area adjacent to the north east car spaces that may at a future point be used for a food truck or coffee van.

Traffic and transport

• A pedestrian refuge at the 10 metre wide Northern Highway crossover is appropriate as this will be traversed by a pedestrian pathway that will be used more as the population of Kilmore grows.

• The length of left hand turn lane on Clarke Street should meet VicRoads requirements.

• The final design should determine whether the bus bay on Clarke Street should be indented.

Appendix B contains the Panel preferred version of the planning permit.

Recommendations

Based on the reasons set out in this Report, the Panel recommends that:

The Amendment

1. Mitchell Planning Scheme Amendment C124 be adopted as exhibited.

The Planning Permit

2. Condition 7 be finalised in association with the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning prior to the approval of Planning Permit PLP203/17.

3. Planning Permit PLP203/17 be issued for buildings and works for the construction of a supermarket, medical centre and retail premises, installation and display of signage, use of the land for sale of packaged liquor, alteration of access to a Road Zone Category 1 and removal of native vegetation subject to the permit conditions contained in Appendix B.


Page 1 of 49

1 Introduction

1.1 The Amendment and land

The purpose of the Amendment is to rezone land at 109 Northern Highway and 80 Clarke Street, Kilmore from Industrial 1 Zone (IN1Z) to Commercial 1 Zone (C1Z) to facilitate the development of the land for a supermarket and specialty shops.

The Amendment is a combined planning scheme amendment and planning permit application under section 96A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

The land is located at the north west corner of the Northern Highway and Clarke Street (Figure 1). The Northern Highway through Kilmore is known as Sydney Street. North of Clarke Street it is known as the Northern Highway. The Kilmore town centre, at a length of one kilometre, is a traditional strip shopping centre and the main activity centre for Kilmore. It is the main heavy vehicle route through Kilmore. The Amendment land is located at the northern end of the town centre and is identified as a gateway site in the Kilmore Structure Plan 2018 (KSP).

Figure 1 The Amendment land


Page 2 of 49

The land has an area of 1.8 hectares, with an 86 metre frontage to the Northern Highway and 97 metres to Clarke Street. The land is vacant and previously accommodated a dwelling located centrally on the land. Despite the industrial zoning, the land has never been used for industrial purposes.

The land is bound by the Kilmore Creek to the north and industrial land further north, industrial land to the west, commercial land to the south (as part of the town centre) and rural living land to the east. To the south-west (57 Melbourne Street) is land that is currently being developed for a 59 lot residential subdivision that will result in the construction of a roundabout at Clarke Street at the south west corner of the Amendment land.

A Coles and Aldi supermarket are located to the south of the land. Figure 1 shows the two vehicle accesses onto Clarke from this land. As a result of the development of this land, the Northern Highway and Clarke Street intersection is now signalised.

1.2 The planning permit

Planning Permit PLP203/17 (the planning permit), as exhibited, allows for:

• buildings and works for the construction of a supermarket, medical centre and retail premises

• use of the land for sale of packaged liquor

• alteration of access to Road Zone Category 1

• removal of native vegetation.

Figure 2 contains the exhibited supermarket development. At the Directions Hearing, Lascorp Development Group (the Proponent) advised it intended to amend the plans in response to submissions and further discussions with Mitchell Shire Council (the Council). Figure 3 contains the amended plans. Further refinements occurred prior to the Hearing. The key differences between the exhibited and amended plans are the:

• relocation of the medical centre to the south-east corner of the land

• rearrangement of the carpark with the incorporation of a 2.5 metre wide shared path along Kilmore Creek

• extension of the carpark to the north west along Kilmore Creek but with a reduction in car spaces

• provision of a minimum 20 metre building setback to Kilmore Creek

• relocation of the supermarket west away from Kilmore Creek

• relocation of the toilet block to the east side of the supermarket building

• relocation of the loading dock south to accommodate the new supermarket building

• addition of two accessible car spaces to the corner retail building

• relocation of the retail tenant storage cages to eastern side of supermarket building

• addition of new landscaping along the western boundary and water tanks repositioned

• deletion of retail buildings B and C.

The reduction in specialty shops from 14 to 10, results in a reduction in retail floor space from 1,354 square metres to 1,135 square metres. The floor area of the supermarket (3,600 square metres) and liquor store (200 square metres) remain unchanged. The medical centre has a


Page 3 of 49

slightly increased floor area (300 square metres to 311 square metres). Car parking has been reduced from 263 to 249 spaces.

Figure 2 The exhibited proposal

The planning permit was supported by the following information at exhibition:

• Plans by Clarke Hopkins Clarke

• Planning report by Debra Butcher Consulting dated September 2018

• Vegetation assessments from Paul Kelly and Associates dated 2 June 2017 and 29 January 2018

• Landscape Master Plan by John Patrick Landscape Architects

• Waste Management Report by Biofilta dated February 2018

• Traffic Engineering Assessment by Traffix Group dated February 2018

• Economic Impact Assessment by Dimasi and Co. dated August 2018

• Arboricultural Assessment by Tree Response date February 2018.

A Cultural Heritage Management Plan (Document 10) was completed as the land was within an area of cultural sensitivity and the proposed development was not exempt. It concluded there was no previously recorded or ‘new’ cultural heritage places found in the activity area.

The exhibited version of the planning permit contained 44 conditions. Following the consideration of submissions, this was increased to 49 conditions to include Environment Protection Authority and Goulburn Valley Water conditions. Submitter 2 (Karamoshos) owns


Page 4 of 49

land to the north and requested a chain mesh fence at the northern boundary. This was added as a Condition 1 requirement.

Figure 3 The amended proposal

Council amended the planning permit after the circulation of the amended plans. During the Hearing, the Panel received another version of the planning permit as a result of further discussions between Council and the Proponent. Both of these versions included the introduction of a signage permit trigger in what the permit allows and related conditions (Nos 33 – 36) and a single condition for management plans for construction management, site and environmental management and traffic management issues. The VicRoads condition (No 49) was updated to reflect its current advice.

Condition 1 contained a significant number of requirements to be addressed before plans could be endorsed. This included what effectively formed the remaining key differences between Council and the Proponent:

• Relocating or internalising the toilet amenities to allow for activation of the supermarket building adjacent to Kilmore Creek (Condition 1c).

• Removal of the three northern-most car spaces adjacent to Kilmore Creek to allow for the continuation of the shared path alignment and further landscaping (1i).

• A pedestrian refuge at the Northern Highway crossover (1l).


Page 5 of 49

1.3 Amendment C123

Amendment C123 provides the strategic background to the identification of this land as a gateway site within the northern end of the Kilmore town centre. Amendment C123 introduced the Kilmore Structure Plan (KSP) as a reference document in the planning scheme.

Amendment C123 was approved after the Hearing on 28 March 2019.

The key changes that were introduced by Amendment C123 are to Clause 21.11-3 (Kilmore) which:

• includes the land within the defined boundary of Kilmore Town Centre on the Kilmore Town Centre Framework Plan

• introduces new policy to: - support the establishment of a full line supermarket in the Kilmore town centre - support other large anchor retail tenants immediately adjacent to the Kilmore

town centre provided the following can be demonstrated: - there are no suitable sites available for the desired retail development within

the town centre - there is additional demand for additional retail floor space - the proposal does not detrimentally affect the vitality of Sydney Street and

attract other retail uses that are better suited within the established town centre

- the proposal can integrate within the town centre and is accessible - the proposal provides net community benefit including upgrades to existing or

additional infrastructure.

Schedule 4 to the Design and Development Overlay (DDO4) was applied to all land in the Kilmore town centre and key gateway sites. All land that abuts the Northern Highway/Clarke Street intersection is identified in the gateway precinct. DDO4 contains design requirements for the Kilmore town centre that includes:

• height and setback controls

• distinctive architecture requirements for corner sites

• activation at ground level

• placement of carparking behind buildings

• minimising the number of access points and restricting movement to left in/left out for the gateway precinct onto the Northern Highway.

1.4 Summary of issues raised in submissions

(i) Mitchell Shire Council

The key issues for Council were:


• the use and development of the land is consistent with the Amendment C123.

Issues regarding the toilet amenities, the three northern-most car spaces and a pedestrian refuge in the Northern Highway cross over, as described in Chapter 1.2, remain unresolved.


Page 6 of 49

(ii) The Proponent

The key issues for the Proponent were the same as Council, aside from the toilet amenities, parking and pedestrian refuge requirements, which it considered were not appropriate.

(iii) Relevant agencies

The key issue for the Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority (GBCMA) was the need for a 30 metre setback for all buildings to Kilmore Creek (top of bank). The amended plans provide for a minimum 20 metre setback, which the GBCMA supported by letter dated 26 February 2019 (Council Part A submission, Appendix 8).

The key issues for Transport for Victoria (TfV) and Regional Roads Victoria were the:

• relocation of bicycle facilities to a location with convenient access to bicycle routes and main building entrances

• provision of a pedestrian and cycling connection across Kilmore Creek to link the Kilmore Creek Strategic Cycling Corridor

• final location of the bus stop on Clarke Street is to be to the satisfaction of TfV.

These submissions have been resolved in either the amended plans or conditions on the Document 15 planning permit. It is noted the pedestrian and cycling bridge across Kilmore Creek has been funded by the state government so this has been deleted as a requirement on the planning permit.

(iv) Individual submitters or groups of submitters

The key issue for Mia Kilmore and Mia Corp was to delete the specialty retail shops to protect the viability of other businesses in the Kilmore town centre. While Mr Bartley, on behalf of Mia Kilmore, did not formally withdraw its concern that the development was premature, he agreed there was no objection to the rezoning of the land which allowed for shops without the need for a planning permit. This submission has not been resolved.

Initially the key issue for the Kilmore and District and Residents and Ratepayers Association (KADRRA) was there were too many specialty shops and it questioned the need for a medical centre. It considered the proposal would be detrimental to the viability of the town centre. But in its submission at the Hearing it stated “we reluctantly concur with the proposed number of small shops etc. as our main priority is to see a third supermarket in Kilmore succeed. If the Panel sees fit to ask for a reduction in small shops or the deletion of the medical centre and the project still goes ahead we will be very pleased.” KADRRA raised other issues regarding the Kilmore Creek pedestrian crossing, unloading on site and the lack of pedestrian paths within the car park. This submission has been partly resolved.

1.5 The Panel’s approach

There are two key elements to this proposal – the Amendment that seeks to rezone the land and the planning permit that seeks to approve the use and development of the land. As the rezoning enables the consideration of the development and related planning permit, it must be addressed first. This is considered in Chapter 3, separate from the planning context (Chapter 2), as the justification to rezone land for commercial purposes is driven by retail


Page 7 of 49

economics. Chapter 4 addresses individual aspects of the proposed use and development and the related planning permit.

The amended plans have introduced:

• Signage as an item of what the permit allows

• Other changes (such as the relocation of the medical centre, moving the loading bay south to accommodate new location for supermarket building and landscaping and parking changes) that are not challenged by any party.

These matters are not considered further and the Panel has restricted its consideration to those items that have not been resolved. The Panel notes that Conditions 33 and 34 have been added to the permit to address signage. A 9 metre high pylon sign on the Clarke Street frontage is proposed in addition to tenancy signage. The Panel notes Clarke Street is a local street and the consent of VicRoads for the pylon sign is not required.

While not part of any submission, the Panel does note the overall high quality of the design and its use of variety of materials and colours that befits its gateway status.

The submissions and Amendment material refer to the shopping centre interchangeably as the Kilmore town centre or the Kilmore town centre. For the purpose of this report, the Panel refers to it as the Kilmore town centre as this is reference used in DDO4 and the associated framework plan.

The many changes to the exhibited planning permit would have been very difficult to follow in tracked changes. For the purposes of this report, the Panel therefore adopts the 13 March 2019 version of the planning permit (Document 15) subject to its recommendations as contained in the Chapter 4. The Panel preferred version of the planning permit, which implements the recommendations of this report, is contained in Appendix B.

The Panel recommends:

Adopt Planning Permit PLP 203/17 (Document 15 - 13 March 2019) subject to the specific recommendations contained in this report.

Planning Permit PLP203/17 be issued for buildings and works for the construction of a supermarket, medical centre and retail premises, installation and display of signage, use of the land for sale of packaged liquor, alteration of access to a Road Zone Category 1 and removal of native vegetation subject to the permit conditions contained in Appendix B.

The Panel has assessed the Amendment against the principles of net community benefit and sustainable development, as set out in Clause 71.02-3 (Integrated decision making) of the Planning Scheme.

The Panel considered all written submissions made in response to the exhibition of the Amendment, observations from site visits, and submissions, evidence and other material presented to it during the Hearing. It has reviewed a large volume of material, and has had to be selective in referring to the more relevant or determinative material in the Report. All submissions and materials have been considered by the Panel in reaching its conclusions, regardless of whether they are specifically mentioned in the Report.


Page 8 of 49

This Report deals with the issues under the following headings:

• Planning context

• The Amendment

• The Planning Permit.


Page 9 of 49

2 Planning context

2.1 Planning policy framework

Council submitted that the Amendment is supported by various clauses in the Planning Policy Framework, which the Panel has summarised below.

Victorian planning objectives

The Amendment will assist in implementing State policy objectives set out in section 4 of the Act by providing for the fair and orderly use and development of the land as an integrated supermarket-based commercial development that is consistent with recent and sound strategic planning for the area.

Clause 11 (Settlement)

The Amendment supports Clause 11 by:

• ensuring retail and community facilities and services are concentrated in central locations (11.01-1S - Settlement)

• ensuring that sufficient land is available to meet forecast demand (11.02-1S - Supply of urban land)

• supporting the continued growth and diversification of activity centres to give communities access to a wide range of goods and services, provide local employment and support local economies (11.03-1S - Activity centres)

• seeking to manage growth in peri-urban areas to protect and enhance their identified valued attributes (11.03-3S - Peri-urban areas).

Clause 12 (Environmental and landscape values)

• The Amendment supports Clause 12 by “ensuring development is sensitively designed and sited to maintain and enhance environmental assets, significant views and landscapes along river corridors and waterways and adjacent to lakes and wetlands” (12.03-1S - River corridors, waterways, lakes and wetlands).

Clause 13 (Environmental risks and amenity)

• The Amendment supports Clause 13 by “seeking to ensure that potentially contaminated land is suitable for its intended future use and development, and that contaminated land is used safely” (13.04-1S - Contaminated and potentially contaminated land).

Clause 15 (Built environment and heritage)

• The Amendment supports Clause 15 by ensuring that permit approvals align with the recommendations of any relevant Cultural Heritage Management Plan approved under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (15.03-2S - Aboriginal cultural heritage).

Clause 17 (Economic development)

• The Amendment supports Clause 17 by seeking to encourage development that meets the community’s needs for retail, entertainment, office and other commercial services. It does this by locating commercial facilities in existing or planned activity centres (Clause 17.02-1S - Business).

Clause 18 (Transport) The Amendment supports Clause 18 by:


Page 10 of 49

• planning for bus services to meet the need for local travel (18.02-2S - Public transport)

• seeking to ensure an adequate supply of car parking that is appropriately designed and located (18.02-4S - Car parking).

Clause 21 (the Municipal Strategic Statement)

The Amendment supports the MSS by:

• encouraging the consolidation of retail and commercial activity within town centres (21.02-2 Activity centres)

• protecting and restoring native vegetation corridors along waterways (21.05-2 Water)

• improving the quality of development through improved design, siting and landscaping (21.06-1 Urban environments)

• facilitating new development and employment opportunities in business (21.08-1 Economic development)

• facilitating a new full line supermarket to meet existing and future demand within the Kilmore town centre, as shown on the Kilmore Town Centre Framework Plan (21.11-3 Kilmore).

Figure 4 contains the Kilmore Town Centre Framework Plan from Clause 21.11-3 (Kilmore). It shows the land is within the Kilmore town centre, is a gateway site and is a “potential supermarket and associated specialty retail site.”

2.2 Other relevant planning strategies and policies

(i) Hume Regional Growth Plan

The Hume Regional Growth Plan provides broad direction for land use and development across the Hume region.

Council submitted that the Amendment supports the Hume Regional Growth Plan because the proposed development is consistent with the identification of Kilmore as a key sub-regional settlement and designated as a growth centre in Plan Melbourne.

(ii) Kilmore Structure Plan

The KSP provides guidance for the development of the land.

The KSP provides for significant population growth within the settlement boundary. In 2015 the population was 8,245. This is expected to grow to 12,699 (54 per cent increase) by 2036. The KSP provides growth opportunities for an eventual population of 20,000 people.

Council submitted that the Amendment supports the KSP because:

• it proposes a supermarket-based centre with high quality urban design on a key gateway site where it is expressly anticipated

• the land is within the Kilmore town centre shown on the Kilmore Town Centre Framework Plan (Figure 4).


Page 11 of 49

Figure 4 Kilmore Town Centre Framework Plan


Page 12 of 49

2.3 Planning scheme provisions

A common zone and overlay purpose is to implement the Municipal Planning Strategy and the Planning Policy Framework.

(i) Zones

The land is in the IN1Z. The purpose of the Zone is:

To implement the Municipal Planning Strategy and the Planning Policy Framework.

To provide for manufacturing industry, the storage and distribution of goods and associated uses in a manner which does not affect the safety and amenity of local communities.

The Amendment rezones the land to the C1Z. The purposes of the C1Z are:

To implement the Municipal Planning Strategy and the Planning Policy Framework.

To create vibrant mixed use commercial centres for retail, office, business, entertainment and community uses.

To provide for residential uses at densities complementary to the role and scale of the commercial centre.

(ii) Overlays

The DDO4 applies to the land and the Kilmore town centre.

2.4 Ministerial Directions and Practice Notes

Ministerial Directions

The Explanatory Report discusses how the Amendment meets the relevant requirements of Ministerial Direction 11 (Strategic Assessment of Amendments) and Planning Practice Note 46: Strategic Assessment Guidelines, August 2018 (PPN46). That discussion is not repeated here.

Council advised the land had no history of an industrial use and that it had been used for residential purposes for many decades. It considered Ministerial Direction 1 (Potentially Contaminated Land) does not apply to the land as it had no history of industrial use.

Planning Practice Note 30 (Potentially Contaminated Land) indicates the land would have a low risk of contamination.

2.5 Discussion and conclusion

The strategic framework that supports the rezoning of the land was dealt with by Amendment C123 and has effectively been settled with its approval after the Amendment C124 Hearing.

There were other submissions that considered aspects of how the land is to be developed, not whether it should be developed as part of the town centre. Mr Karamoshos, who owns the land north of Kilmore Creek and did not attend the Hearing, was concerned with traffic and design issues. Similarly, KADRRA raised issues with the specialty shops and their impact on the town centre, pedestrian and vehicle access and building setback to Kilmore Creek. These issues are addressed in Chapter 4.


Page 13 of 49

Mr Bartley, on behalf of Mia Kilmore, maintained his position stated at the Amendment C123 Panel Hearing that he did not object to the land’s inclusion in the Kilmore town centre. However, the written submission noted one of the key issues was that the development of the supermarket was premature. During the Hearing Mr Bartley partly resiled from this position. The Panel agrees with the evidence of Mr Barnes that if the land is rezoned to the C1Z then the use of the land as a supermarket would not require a planning permit. As the policy framework is succinct in respect of this land, for the Panel to consider whether the supermarket is premature it must consider whether the rezoning is appropriate. It cannot consider whether a permit for the use of the land should be delayed as a permit would not be required if the land was rezoned.

With the approval of Amendment C123, the policy framework that supports the KSP has now been finalised. As with Amendment C124, Dimasi and Co prepared an Economic Impact Assessment (Dimasi EIA) that established the need to provide more commercial land in Kilmore to meet the demands of a growing population. The Panel that considered Amendment C123 supported this assessment.

The outcome of this is that the policy framework for the growth of the town centre is unequivocal. It identifies the land:

• as a getaway site within the town centre boundary

• as a potential site for a supermarket and specialty shops

• within the DDO4 that applies to the Kilmore town centre

• outside of Precinct 4 (North growth and employment precinct) that applies to the industrial areas.

Clause 21.11-3 supports a full line supermarket in the Kilmore town centre and distinguishes this use from other large retail anchor tenants that are required to address a number of requirements (demand, integration with town centre and net community benefit) if a site cannot be found within the town centre.

The Panel concludes that the Amendment:

• is supported by, and implements, the relevant sections of the PPF, and is consistent with the relevant Ministerial Directions and Practice Notes

• is well founded and strategically justified

• should proceed subject to addressing the design-based issues raised in submissions as discussed in Chapter 4 that addresses the planning permit.


Page 14 of 49

3 The Amendment

(i) The issue

The issue whether there is economic justification to support the rezoning of the land for commercial purposes.

(ii) Relevant policies, strategies and studies

The KSP projected that the population of Kilmore would grow from 8,274 in 2015 to 12,701 by 2036. In addition, the KSP sets out a long-term settlement boundary to accommodate a population over 20,000.

The Dimasi EIA was submitted with the proposal in August 2018. This included an assessment of the need and demand for a supermarket-based development and examined the economic impacts of the proposed development. It defined a primary trade area as well as secondary north, west and south trade areas (Figure 5) which combined formed what was identified as the main trade area for the proposed supermarket.

Figure 5 Trade areas for proposed supermarket


Page 15 of 49

The Dimasi EIA estimated the population of the main trade area was 23,926 in 2016 and growing to 28,346 by 2026. The socio-demographic profile was similar to the benchmark for non-metropolitan Victoria but with higher than average per capita incomes and homeowners. Retail spending in 2016/17 on a per capita basis was estimated at $13,842 and total retail spending was projected to increase from $334.4 million in 2017 to $422.2 million in 2026. For the same period, expenditure on take home food groceries and packages liquor was projected to increase from $155.9 million to $198.3 million.

The most significant retail facilities beyond the main trade area are at Wallan, 15 kilometres to the south which included Coles, Woolworths and Aldi. Within the main trade area, the Dimasi EIA estimated there was a supportable supermarket floorspace of 12,370 square metres, which is 5,170 square metres greater than the current supply (based on a population of 24,160). It concluded that as a “strongly growing peri-urban centre” the demand for additional supermarket floorspace would continue to increase over time.

The Dimasi EIA calculated that the proposed supermarket centre would achieve $33.7 million in total sales in 2020/2021 or 9.4 per cent of the market share of the total retail spending of the main trade area population. A total of $28.1 million of this would come from the primary trade area. The Dimasi EIA concluded that a new supermarket may impact on competitive facilities in the region and particularly the existing retail facilities where the estimated impact was in the order of $12.4 million (9.7 per cent).

The Dimasi EIA concluded:

Given the level of escape spending from Kilmore, the addition of a third supermarket at Kilmore will, first and foremost, help meet some of the needs of those trade area residents whose expenditure is escaping to those locations because they contain a Woolworths supermarket. Therefore, the total impact from the development will be distributed across the existing Kilmore retailers, primarily the supermarkets, as well as a number of major supermarket centres in a number of other locations. For this reason, the estimated impact on Kilmore retailers is $12.4 million or 9.7% on average.

(iii) Evidence and submissions

Council submitted that the KSP and the changes to Clause 21.11-3 introduced by Amendment C123 earmarked the land for a supermarket with speciality shops. The Amendment facilitated this outcome by rezoning the land to C1Z.

Council called Mr Henshall of Ethos Urban to provide economic evidence. Mr Henshall used his own data/calculations to confirm the total per capital retail spending for the main trade area was $13,600 compared to Dimasi’s $13,840. He added that there was a similar variation for the period 2017 to 2026.

Mr Henshall stated that the continuing population growth in Kilmore and the main trade area together with the potential to reduce escape expenditure supported the development of a new supermarket and speciality shops. Mr Henshall calculated the undersupply of supermarket floorspace to be 4,920 square metres for the Kilmore primary trade area and secondary trade area west. Comparatively, the Dimasi EIA calculated this shortfall at 4,800 square metres.

In his peer review of the Dimasi EIA, Mr Henshall concluded:


Page 16 of 49

Overall, the EIA has been prepared on a conventional basis that is widely used and adopted by retail economists. This conventional approach is based on identifying a trade area for a proposed retail development and assessing the need for such development and on that basis the overall approach in the Dimasi & Co report is widely adopted and applied by retail economists.

The review calculated that a considerable proportion (up to 50 per cent) of retail spending is lost to the main trade area. The proposed supermarket and speciality shops would assist in retaining a proportion of this escape expenditure. However, the peer review identified the need for further explanation about potential adverse impacts on traders within and outside the main trade area and whether the existing impact on traders in Kilmore was too low. The Panel directed the Proponent to address the issues raised by the peer review in its evidence.

On behalf of the Proponent, Mr Townshend submitted that the direction provided by the KSP is clear. The KSP identified that Kilmore is underprovided with food and grocery retail facilities and with only one full line supermarket the town centre role was effectively one of a neighbourhood centre, instead of a regional hub. He concluded that the land was an obvious location for the development of the full line supermarket.

The Proponent called expert evidence on economics from Mr Ganly of Deep End Services. Mr Ganly considered the trade catchment area for the land would be similar to that identified in the Dimasi EIA, but with the exclusion of Heathcote to the north. He observed that the profile of the catchment area was consistent with other peri-urban areas throughout Australia.

Mr Ganly calculated that spending on food groceries and liquor in the catchment area was $195.8 million in 2018 and $131.1 million of this came from the primary trade area. He estimated that spending on these items would increase by $57.9 million from 2018 to 2026 which would support “1-2 new full-line supermarkets”. His evidence was that in a peri-urban market like Kilmore much of this expenditure should be captured by local retailers.

Mr Ganly provided a comparative table with a list of peer Victorian regional markets. His evidence was that Kilmore was substantially undersupplied with supermarkets when compared to similar Victorian towns. He added that if the supermarket was approved that Kilmore would still have a very low rate of 0.33 square metres per capita when measured against the 2021 population. He observed:

Such a provision rate would be very much at the low end of rates observed elsewhere in Victoria and would occur within a market with one of the higher population growth rates of the relevant set of towns.

Mr Ganly submitted that the land would capture sales for other retailers located in Kilmore from other towns in the catchment area and beyond, particularly in Wallan. He estimated that with population growth, the impact on non-supermarket retailers would be the equivalent of one years’ sales growth while the impacts would be 3 to 4 times higher on Coles and Aldi. He agreed with the Dimasi EIA that, on balance, the impact on towns within and beyond the catchment would not be unreasonable.

Mia Kilmore’s submission to the exhibited Amendment was that the development was premature in the absence of sufficient population growth to sustain an additional supermarket. Mr Bartley, on behalf of Mia Kilmore and Mia Corp, added that the impact on the town centre had not been adequately assessed.


Page 17 of 49

Mia Kilmore and Mia Corp called expert evidence on economics from Ms Stoettrup of Matters More. The conclave of economic experts’ memo to the Panel confirmed that Ms Stoettrup did not consider the catchment or need for a full line supermarket or whether the development of the supermarket was premature.

At the Hearing, Mr Bartley acknowledged that there was sufficient demand for a new supermarket and that Mia Kilmore did not contest the evidence of Mr Henshall or Mr Ganly or the conclusions of the Dimasi EIA. However, while he did acknowledge the demand for a supermarket, he argued that the key issue was the impact on the existing town centre. This issue is dealt with in the following Chapter 4.1.

(iv) Discussion

The capacity to support an additional full line supermarket in Kilmore was not contested by any of the parties. There was a substantial body of economic evidence to support an additional supermarket presented to the Panel at the Hearing. This evidence concluded that there was unmet demand for supermarket floor space in Kilmore and that the shortfall was more than enough to justify a full line supermarket.

The Dimasi EIA demonstrated both the capacity and need for an additional supermarket. This view was confirmed by the evidence of Mr Henshall and Mr Ganly.

The Panel acknowledges that Kilmore has a substantial proportion of escape expenditure for a peri-urban town and that an additional supermarket will go some way to redressing that situation. The Panel agrees that the supermarket will impact on spending in Kilmore, particularly in Coles and Aldi as well as other locations.

The Panel accepts that conclusion reached by the Dimasi EIA that the economic impact of this development would be acceptable.

In regard to the loss of industrial land, the KSP estimated there was in excess of 25 years of zoned industrial land. The Panel notes that the land has a stronger relationship with the Kilmore town centre than the industrial land it was formerly contained; the majority of which is located north of Kilmore Creek.

(v) Conclusions

The Panel concludes that the rezoning of the land is appropriate as:

• the KSP has identified the land within the Kilmore town centre and Amendment C123 has applied the DDO4 (Kilmore town centre and key gateway sites) to the land

• Kilmore could currently support around 12,370 square metres of supermarket floorspace, which is 5,170 square metres greater than the current supply (based on a population of 24,160)

• this supermarket floorspace should be located in the Kilmore town centre where the land is generally within the C1Z

• there is no other appropriate land for a full line supermarket within the Kilmore town centre

• the loss of industrial land will not result in a lack of supply and the land has more a functional relationship with the Kilmore town centre

• the rezoning of the land to the C1Z is appropriate.


Page 18 of 49

4 The Planning Permit

This chapter addresses:

• the need for specialty shops

• Kilmore Creek environs

• the location of the amenities

• traffic and transport issues.

4.1 The need for specialty retail shops

(i) The issues

The issues are whether:

• the development will have an unacceptable adverse impact on the viability of the town centre

• the development will result in a net community benefit.


The key objectives and strategies of the KSP that relate to Sydney Street and the Kilmore Activity Centre are grouped under the following broad headings:

• To protect and reinforce the Sydney Street town centre as the primary destination and focus of Kilmore through intensification of a mix of retail, commercial and activity-generating land uses within a pedestrian-oriented environment.

• To balance the need to protect the heritage built form and character of the Sydney Street town centre whilst encouraging development, activation and revitalisation of Sydney Street.

• To establish a retail hierarchy the recognises the primacy of the Sydney Street town centre, whilst also enabling provision of local, convenience centres within future growth precincts that will contribute toward creation of 'complete neighbourhoods'.

The Kilmore Town Centre Precinct outlines the following preferred character for the town centre:

• The Kilmore Town Centre Precinct will be the town's Principal Activity Centre.

• The town centre will consolidate its role as the retail, community service and entertainment core of Kilmore. The town centre will undergo a progressive revitalisation in accordance with the recommendations of the Kilmore Structure Plan and the main street revitalisation project.

• Removal of heavy vehicles from the town core will offer the opportunity to progressively enhance provision for pedestrian activity and landscaping which will improve the amenity of the town centre.

• Retention of the heritage buildings and other places will be important into the future but contemporary forms of architecture will be encouraged to contribute toward the overall character and vitality of the town centre.

• Strong and well-considered gateway approaches into the Town Centre will denote the entrance from the south, north, and east. New development will provide active street frontages and also activate the Kilmore Creek corridor to provide passive surveillance.


Page 19 of 49

The Dimasi EIA stated that the existing retail facilities in Kilmore and elsewhere would “achieve real growth (in addition to inflationary increases) in sales volumes, despite the new development.” With respect to the retail strip along Sydney Street the EIA noted:

Currently, many parts of the existing Sydney Street strip are clearly not functioning particularly well. There are a number of vacancies dispersed throughout the strip, and some buildings have been poorly maintained, while the range of available stores is quite limited. Overall, the Kilmore Town Centre does not make a strong positive statement to prospective customers. The development of a full range supermarket at the subject site in Kilmore would greatly improve the overall convenience offer of the town centre. The increased patronage levels generated by a second full line supermarket within the Kilmore Town Centre would create an opportunity for many of the existing retail stores and services provided within the town centre to also increase their business.

The Dimasi EIA reached the following conclusion:

Against these benefits, some impacts are projected on existing retail facilities in the surrounding area, though focussed primarily on the various chain supermarkets. The potential trading impacts arising from the proposed new supermarket would be dispersed across a range of retail centres, and those impacts would not threaten the ongoing viability of any existing retail centre or retail shop. Therefore, it can be concluded that a net community benefit will result from the proposed development, particularly as the development will provide increased shopping choice and convenience for residents while also creating job opportunities for the local community.

The Henshall peer review of the Dimasi EIA, undertaken on behalf of Council, concluded:

The conclusion in this peer review is that the proposed Kilmore supermarket development would be expected to contribute in a positive manner to retailing in Kilmore and the surrounding trade area and would deliver a net community benefit.


Council submitted that there would be no adverse consequences on the Kilmore town centre from the additional, non-supermarket floorspace. Council added that benefits should flow from the development including “increased offerings, better prices through competition and local business opportunities.”

Council stated that the proposed medical centre and retail premises would support the supermarket and provide opportunities for retailers to establish in the town centre which it was performing well with a low vacancy rate. Council informed the Panel that a “significant proportion” of the Kilmore town centre was affected by a precinct Heritage Overlay (HO99) which has the effect of limiting re-development or land aggregation opportunities.

Mr Henshall’s evidence was that the “small number” of retail premises proposed as part of the development would not adversely impact on existing businesses. He added that a full line supermarket and a number of small shops would assist in capturing a proportion of the escape expenditure in Kilmore.

Mr Henshall surveyed occupied retail floor space in the Kilmore town centre and identified a total of 16,000 square metres which was not significantly different from the Dimasi EIA total of 15,000 square metres. He observed there were 78 shopfront premises in the town centre, of which 63 were in retail use, 15 were offices or other commercial uses. Four of the 78 shopfronts were vacant, three were being renovated and one was uninhabitable. Mr Henshall concluded that the vacancy rate was 5.1 per cent which was relatively low.


Page 20 of 49

Mr Townshend submitted that the principle of net community benefit was only relevant “to existing investment serving other communities” and is not a relevant consideration where concerns have been raised within the same centre, as is the case with the Mia Kilmore submission. Put simply, Mr Townshend described this as competition, which he said is a positive impact. Mr Townshend provided excerpts from the Report of the Retail Development Policy Review Panel from 1996 and various panel report and VCAT cases to substantiate his argument1.

In the Proponent’s submission, net community benefit can be summarised as follows:

• the facilitation of convenience retail facilities to new communities at an early time is encouraged

• existing investment serving other communities should not be jeopardised by new investment.

Mr Ganly considered there would be a clear and positive net community benefit from the development. He observed that the Kilmore town centre was operating with a “healthy vacancy rate of just over 6 per cent”. He stated that vacancy rates for towns like Kilmore range between four and ten per cent which he described as “good health”.

Mr Ganly forecast that the impact of the supermarket and speciality shop development on the land on all Kilmore businesses would equate to one year of retail market sales growth, which he considered would not threaten the vitality of the Kilmore town centre.

Mr Bartley submitted that the one-off impacts underestimated the impact on existing retailers. Mr Bartley added that a number of vacancies already exist in the Kilmore town centre and the development of a second supermarket and additional tenancies will exacerbate this situation. He added the proposed development focused on the future needs of the local population rather than the present needs which were insufficient to justify the specialty shops.

Mr Bartley submitted that the Dimasi EIA identified an impact of 10 percent on surrounding retail facilities and this level of impact was supported by the experts called by Council and the Proponent. He added that the macro analysis relied on by the Council and the Proponent was deficient in identifying impacts within an existing town centre. The supermarket and speciality shops would reduce trips to the town centre, resulting in a loss of vitality. Mia Kilmore argued this was the point made in Kentucky Fried Chicken Pty Ltd v Gantidis [1979] HCA 20.

Ms Stoettrup provided a detailed table of new retail and office development in Kilmore which she described as new development targeting the fringe of Kilmore “at either end.” In other words, new development was occurring on the north and south fringes of the town centre, but not in its core. Ms Stoettrup identified nine vacant properties and compared this survey to one she undertook in August 2014. Ms Stoettrup concluded:

There have not been any major changes in the retail composition along Sydney Street between Foote Street and Clarke Street from 2014 and 2019. However, compared with

1 Proposed Stage 2 Expansion of Epping Plaza Shopping Centre – Report of Advisory Committee September 1997

Big W Development Permit Application 97/109 – Planning Appeal No 1997/21496 Yarra Ranges Planning Scheme Amendment C95 – Permit Application YR2009/1606 Panel Report December 2010 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C96 and Permit Application No 1628/2004 Ropeworks Site Redevelopment Panel Report November 2006


Page 21 of 49

the retail audit undertaken in 2014, there has been a subtle decline and an overall shift of investment and activity towards the northern end of Sydney Street.

Ms Stoettrup considered that competition from the additional speciality stores could result in competing businesses which may result in the closure of existing stores in the town centre or existing businesses could relocate to the new premises on the supermarket land. She added that evidence for this was the closure of the Foodworks store and the poor trading of Finch’s Friendly Grocer following the opening of the Aldi store.

KADRRA submitted that the number of small shops including the medical centre seemed excessive. Its concern was the development would have a detrimental impact on the smaller shops in the Kilmore town centre.

(iv) Discussion

The main issue raised in both submissions and evidence is the impact of the new development on the existing town centre. On the one hand, the Panel has evidence of Mr Henshall and Mr Ganly that acknowledges an impact and quantifies it to what Mr Ganly describes as “a maximum of just one year of sales growth.” On the other hand, the qualitative evidence of Ms Stoettrup cites the impact of the introduction of the Aldi Store and the potential for the new development to compete with existing businesses or attract them to the new location with either scenario resulting in more vacant premises in Sydney Street.

The inherent assumptions of Ms Stoettrup’s evidence is that business in the new supermarket complex will out-compete those in Sydney Street. In addition, she assumes that the land occupied by a business relocating to the supermarket land will not be replaced by something else. Under both scenarios proposed by Ms Stoettrup, the vitality of the town centre will be impacted by more vacant shops.

The Panel accepts that that the analysis provided in the Dimasi EIA, which both Mr Henshall and Mr Ganly adopt, is a conventional, macro approach. This approach is best summarised by Mr Henshall’s peer review of the Dimasi EIA where he states:

Overall, the EIA has been prepared on a conventional basis that is widely used and adopted by retail economists. This conventional approach is based on identifying a trade area for a proposed retail development and assessing the need for such development on the basis of assumptions on market share and turnover.

The Dimasi EIA establishes that Kilmore has a high level of escape expenditure for a peri-urban town and as a consequence the impact on the established businesses will be acceptable. Nevertheless, a more substantial impact will be felt by Coles and Aldi, the direct competitors of the new Woolworths supermarket.

The Panel accepts the evidence of Mr Henshall and Mr Ganly that the relatively low vacancy rate in the Kilmore town centre is indicative of a healthy centre. In addition, the Panel accepts the quantified impact of the new development which, in the absence of any substantive analysis to the contrary, is acceptable.

The new additional retail facilities may have a convenience competitive advantage over other similar established businesses in the town centre. However, put simply, this is retail competition. There are many elements to competition which can include price, convenience and loyalty. If a business chooses to relocate to the new development, that does not preclude


Page 22 of 49

another business establishing in that location. The Panel is mindful that the growing Kilmore population has higher levels of per capita and household income levels than the benchmark for non-metropolitan Victoria as well as a higher proportion of home owners. From this perspective, there would appear to be opportunities for a variety of businesses to establish in the town centre should a premise become available.

The Panel agrees with the Proponent’s submission and accepts that net community benefit is a relevant consideration between communities and not within the same centre where private business may be impacted. This is the basis of the Gantidis decision and the other reports and cases cited in this report. The Dimasi EIA and the evidence of Mr Henshall and Mr Ganly conclude the retail impact may be in the order of one year of sales growth and will be felt more keenly by the current supermarkets. The approach taken by Ms Stoettrup to focus on potential vacancies within the same centre was not helpful in considering net community benefit. Within the same centre there will always be a turnover of floorspace as tenants come and go and new floorspace is provided. The Panel accepts that there may be some impact upon existing businesses, but this is a result of competition within the same centre. The community will not necessarily be at a disadvantage. On the contrary, the Panel considers there will be a positive benefit through supermarket price competition, new contemporary floorspace and an aggregation of commercial uses in an area where the policy framework expects to occur. In the Panel’s view, the impacts, as they have been identified, are not unreasonable. As a consequence, overall the development of a full line supermarket and speciality shops will provide a net community benefit.

There are other factors that will see the businesses along Sydney Street transition and benefit over time. Currently Sydney Street is the only heavy vehicle route Kilmore from south to north as part of the Northern Highway. The western bypass of Kilmore has been approved which will take 24 per cent of traffic away from Sydney Street, including nearly all heavy vehicles. The KSP identifies urban design and landscaping improvements which will make this strip shopping centre much more pedestrian and customer friendly. All economic experts agreed this would have a positive impact on the vitality and viability of businesses in Sydney Street.

(v) Conclusions

The Panel concludes:

• the principle of net community benefit is relevant to inter-community impacts and not impacts upon private businesses within the same centre, which can be characterised better as competition

• the co-location of specialty shops with the supermarket will produce a net community benefit

• the future vehicle bypass of Kilmore and improvements to Sydney Street will add vitality to Sydney Street and benefit existing and new businesses

• the specialty shops will not adversely impact the vitality of the town centre and are therefore appropriate.


Page 23 of 49

4.2 Kilmore Creek environs

(i) The issues

The issues for the Kilmore Creek environs are whether:

• the northern wall should have an irrigated green wall or be planted in situ

• car spaces should be deleted to improve the alignment of the pedestrian path and provide more landscaping

• there should be a boundary fence along the creek.

(ii) Evidence and submissions

Council initially supported a vertical irrigated green northern wall but during the Hearing agreed the same outcome could more reliably be achieved with plantings in the ground with irrigation. The Proponent supported this position. It called expert evidence on landscape architecture from Mr Vernon of CDA Design Group. Mr Vernon accepted the in-ground alternative would provide a more certain landscaping outcome.

Both Council and the Proponent supported a black coated chain mesh fence be erected on the northern boundary in response to Submitter 2 (Karamoshos) who owns land north of the creek.

Council considered the three northern-most car spaces on the creek side of the car park should be deleted to allow for the realignment of the pedestrian path and more landscaping. The development provides more spaces than the statutory requirement. The Proponent did not support the deletion of the spaces.

(iii) Discussion

Wall landscape treatment

The Panel agrees it would not be practical to rely on a watering system to irrigate the walls in a location that has problematic access and will be exposed to the hot northern sun for the majority of the day. The Panel considers the same outcome could be achieved with an in-ground irrigated landscape treatment to the wall.

Condition 10c provides an appropriate form of words on this issue.

Car parking

The improvements to the Kilmore Creek environs will provide for an elevated walkway and landscaping next to the car park, with buildings located at least 20 metres from the creek. The outcome will be a marked improvement on the current situation. The Panel notes the Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority supports the 20 metre building setback to the Kilmore Creek. Car parking and access lanes will be provided within this setback. The meandering nature of the pedestrian path should add interest to users. The Panel does not support the deletion of the three car spaces as it would result in a straightening of the pathway and there is ample landscaping provided in the environs of the creek.


Page 24 of 49

Boundary fence

The Panels understands the security concerns of the adjoining landowner to the north and, in principle, supports the need for a fence. This, however, should be located in an area that minimises the impacts on the natural flow of the creek, has the support of the GBCMA and does not become a litter trap. The Panel supports a permit condition that reflects this. Condition 1f of Planning Permit PLP203/17 (Document 15 - 13 March 2019) proposes the preamble “subject to the approval of the public land manager”. As the GBCMA is the floodplain manager it is approval that this reference be used.

(iv) Conclusions and recommendations


• a ground planted northern vertical wall landscaping treatment is appropriate

• the three car parking spaces along Kilmore Creek should not be deleted

• a chain mesh fence along the northern boundary is appropriate.


Amend Planning Permit PLP203/17 (Document 15 - 13 March 2019) by: a) amending Condition 1f to:

• Subject to the approval of the floodplain manager provision of black coated chain mesh fencing to a maximum height of 1.8 metres along the northern boundary adjacent to privately-owned properties to prevent public access.

b) deleting Condition 1i.

4.3 The location of the toilet amenities

(i) The issue

The issue is whether the toilet and amenities building should be relocated away from the eastern side of the supermarket building.


The KSP addresses the activation of Kilmore Creek in the following manner:

• Figure 42 addresses the potential of the land that requires a high quality urban design outcome with interface to Sydney Street/Northern highway and the Kilmore Creek.

• Table 7 seeks to ensure new development promote activation of Kilmore Creek through encouraging retail uses that front Patrick Street and Kilmore Creek environs.

• DDO4 seeks to facilitate the role of Kilmore Creek as a recreation corridor that provides pedestrian and cycle access to the town centre.

• Clause 21.11-3 seeks to encourage development opportunities which embrace Kilmore Creek as a recreation area.


Page 25 of 49


Mr Montebello considered “the revised layout does not appropriately present to Kilmore Creek, with a blank wall interface as shown in the 3rd perspective at Sheet 3 of the Materiality Study within the Town Planning document.” Figure 6 contains this perspective.

Figure 6 North east elevation of the supermarket building

Mr Montebello continued:

Further the north-easterly orientation, where solar access is at its optimal, provides a real opportunity upon which to realise a café type retail space, e.g. a food and drink premises that can actively engage with and have an outlook to the creek.

The proposed permit condition 1c requires the internalisation of the amenities building within the supermarket building.

Mr Townshend opposed the relocation of the amenities block for the following reasons:

• The location is ideal for the important public amenities.

• The location is less important or attractive for commercial use.

• The interface with the creek should not be overstated as the building faces a car park and the boardwalk is raised to car park level.

• It is demonstrable that relocating these important facilities would have other detrimental urban design and retail impacts.

As an alternative, if the Panel supported activation of this area, Mr Townshend submitted that a pad site be identified adjacent to the boardwalk in the north east corner of the land. Mr Townshend submitted “this location would have the advantage of proximity to and visibility from the Northern Highway, footbridge and its footpath. It would also directly engage with the creek edge. In the short term a site such as this would also be suitable for pop-up/food truck activities. However, its identification within the approval would ensure that the site was serviced and could be developed when market conditions allow.”

The Proponent called expert evidence on planning from Mr Barnes of Hansen Partnership. Mr Barnes did not support the relocation of the amenities block as there was no need to and considered the need for retail frontages to Kilmore Creek was more relevant to land in Sydney Street south of the land.

Amenities


Page 26 of 49

(iv) Discussion

The exhibited plans show the amenities building located next to the loading bay with access of the main external pathway in front of the supermarket. Figure 7 shows the location of the amenities building on the amended plans.

The relocation of the medical centre to the corner of Clarke Street and the Northern Highway this has freed up this location next to Kilmore Creek and the carpark. It is likely this land will present the northern-most opportunity to improve the environs of Kilmore Creek. Further west, the creek is bordered by industrial land and any further improvements may be limited aside from a pedestrian/cycle path. The Panel supports the long term aim of creating a pedestrian/cycle link along Kilmore Creek. Given the disparate uses along its length and its location in many instances in private title this will only be achieved incrementally where opportunities present along the creek.

The amenities block is located on the east side of the supermarket building behind a retail tenancy (No 8) and will not be viewed from the majority of the car park. Architecturally, it has a different roof form than the supermarket building and has materials and muted tones that seem to suit its location next to the carpark and creek environs. From a design perspective, the Panel does not have any concern.

The specialty retail tenancies sleeve the main supermarket building to activate its main southern façade and wrap around the south east corner of the building. This is the dominant focus of the building to Clarke Street and the Northern Highway. The Panel considers the architecture and design responds well to these opportunities.

Council wants the amenities to be internalised within the supermarket building. The Panel notes this would potentially reduce the floor print of the supermarket and/or most likely result in a reshuffling of the specialty retail areas and disrupt the flow of these tenancies. The Panel does not think this should occur as it may have other consequences for the sleeving of the building and its focus to the southern car park.

The references to activating the Kilmore Creek environs within the KSP is an important strategy, particularly for land on the east side of Sydney Street where refocussing of new development has started but remains some way from completing this important design outcome. The creek environs on the land will only ever be truly integrated and linked with other opportunities created south of Clarke Street when the rural living land east of the supermarket (containing the creek) is developed. This will be an important connection and Council should have an active role in ensuring this opportunity is not lost.

The amenities building is designed to be accessed internally and externally. The Panel supports this as it provides a duel role for shoppers at the facility and for those using the improved Kilmore Creek environs. The Panel considers the current location is superior to the exhibited plans or Council’s desire to internalise it within the main building. The Panel considers the works to improve the creek environs are of prime importance in achieving Council’s aims and the need for a retail activation of the eastern facade, possibly in the form of a café, would be economically uncertain in this location. Retail No 8, located immediately to the south of the amenities, has a focus to the east and could be used as a café or similar use.


Page 27 of 49

The option of creating a serviced pad for a food truck in the car park area as an alternative does have some merit. Its proposed location in the north east corner close to the Northern Highway is not ideal and the Panel would be reluctant to mandate this at this stage. The provision of services/infrastructure would be easier now than trying to retrofit it. The Panel therefore supports the provision of water and electricity to this area that could at a future point be used for a food truck, or similar use.

Figure 7 Amenities building and Kilmore Creek environs

(v) Conclusions


• the relocation of the amenities block is not appropriate

• water and electricity infrastructure should be provided to an area adjacent to the north east car spaces.

Amenities


Page 28 of 49

(vi) Recommendation


Amend Planning Permit PLP203/17 (Document 15 - 13 March 2019) by: a) deleting Condition 1c b) inserting the following new condition:

• The provision of water and electricity infrastructure adjacent to the north east car spaces.

4.4 Traffic and transport

(i) The issues

The issues are whether:

• the Northern Highway crossover should contain a pedestrian refuge

• specific reference should be made to the length of the left hand turning lane in Clarke Street

• whether the bus bay on Clarke Street should be indented

• the VicRoads condition should be updated.

(ii) Evidence and submissions

Council considered a pedestrian refuge was required in the Northern Highway crossover, given its considerable width (10 metres) that allows for heavy vehicle manoeuvres and its traversing of the new 2.5 metre wide north south pedestrian path.

The Proponent called expert evidence on traffic engineering from Mr Turnbull of Traffic Group. Mr Turnbull considered the pedestrian refuge was not required and could potentially reduce the length of the deceleration left turn lane into the land, would require a reassessment of the heavy vehicle swept paths and noted the path is not likely to be heavily pedestrianised. Mr Townshend did not support the pedestrian refuge but added that if the Panel was supportive of it, Condition 1l should contained the following preamble:

Subject to the design being approved by VicRoads, details of a pedestrian refuge separating inbound and out bound land across the 10 metre wide crossover to the Northern Highway.

Condition 1n addresses the Clarke Street left turn lane into the Northern Highway. Mr Bartley considered the length of the turning lane should meet VicRoads requirements and be specifically referenced in the permit condition. Mr Townshend requested that references to “design requirements” be more specific and refer to “road design requirements.”

Mr Bartley considered Condition 3c should be amended to require an indented bus bay and not have it located within the traffic lane of Clarke Street. Mr Turnbull did not support the need to indent the bus bay but did suggest it could be relocated further west along Clarke Street.

Condition 49 contains the VicRoads condition. It refers to the functional layout plans prepared by the Traffix Group (21 February 2019). These plans overlay a superseded version of the development. These should show the amended plans.


Page 29 of 49

(iii) Discussion

The Panel considers that a pedestrian refuge is required for what is a very wide crossover to a public highway. It may not be a heavily pedestrianised environment in the short term, but it will access the new pedestrian bridge over Kilmore Creek and result in greater pedestrian access as Kilmore continues to grow. The Panel agrees with the suggestion of Mr Townshend that it should be designed to VicRoads requirements.

The Panel agrees that Condition 1n could be more specific about the length of the left hand turn lane in Clarke Street provided it meets VicRoads requirements.

The current bus bay location is within a traffic lane which the Panel considers is not ideal, particularly as Clarke Street will be used increasingly as development continues to occur in Kilmore West. The Panel notes that there may not be sufficient room to allow for its full indenting and prefers to allow this matter to be resolved between Council and the Proponent.

The Panel supports the need to update Condition 49 to require the amended plans on the functional layout plans.

(iv) Conclusions and recommendations


• a pedestrian refuge at the Northern Highway crossover is appropriate

• the length of left hand turn lane on Clarke Street should meet VicRoads requirements

• final design should determine whether the busy bay on Clarke Street should be indented.


Amend Planning Permit PLP203/17 (Document 15 - 13 March 2019) by: a) Amending Condition 1l to

• Subject to the design being approved by VicRoads, details of a pedestrian refuge separating inbound and outbound lanes across the 10 metre wide crossover to the Northern Highway that meets VicRoads requirements.

b) Amending Condition 1n to

• On Clarke Street;

(i) provision of 3.5 metre wide through traffic lanes and 3.3 metre wide turning lane and the subsequent removal or relocation of the power pole to the satisfaction of the relevant authorities, if that relocation of the power pole is reasonably necessary due to safety or road design requirements

(ii) a left hand turning lane into the Northern Highway to meet VicRoads requirements.

c) Amending Condition 49 to insert the following new part a)i

• The current layout of the development.


Page 30 of 49

4.5 Infrastructure contributions

(i) The issue

The issue is whether it is appropriate for Condition 3 to require infrastructure contributions for the intersection treatment of Clarke Street and Murray Street, streetscape improvement in Clarke Street and the bus stop in Clarke Street.

(ii) Submissions, discussion and conclusion

The Panel understands Council and the Proponent are having further discussions on the detail of Condition 3. An agreement will eventually need to be reached for the development to proceed. The Kilmore Infrastructure Framework nominates the upgrading of Clarke and Murray Streets as of high importance.

KADRRA considered the road upgrade infrastructure contributions were appropriate.

The Panel considers there is sufficient direction provided in Condition 3 for infrastructure contributions.

4.6 Vegetation removal

(i) The issue

The issue is to ensure the correct number of trees to be removed and its related off set is contained in Condition 7.

(ii) Evidence, submissions and conclusion

It was previously thought there were seven trees that needed to be removed and offset. Mr Vernon reviewed Mr Kelly’s flora assessment and concluded only three trees needed to be off set. This outcome has yet to be addressed by DELWP and therefore a general biodiversity equivalence unit and strategic biodiversity score have yet to be determined based on the loss of three trees.

The Panel accepts the need for this matter to be finalised before the permit is approved.

(iii) Recommendation


Condition 7 be finalised in association with the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, prior to the approval of Planning Permit PLP203/17.


Page 31 of 49

Appendix A Document list

No Date Description Provided by

1 12/03/2019 Council Part B Submission T. Montebello

2 12/03/2019 Economic expert witness statement - Mr John Henshall

T. Montebello

3 12/03/2019 Kilmore site photos T. Montebello

4 12/03/2019 Traffic Impact Assessment 109 Northern Highway and 80 Clarke Street, Kilmore

T. Montebello

5 12/03/2019 Opening submissions of Lascorp Development Group C. Townshend

6 12/03/2019 Economic Expert Witness Statement – Justin Ganly C. Townshend

7 13/03/2019 Planning Expert Witness Statement – David Barnes C. Townshend

8 13/03/2019 Submission by Christos Karamoshos Panel

9 13/03/2019 Email from VicRoads 37 February 2019 C. Townshend

10 13/03/2019 Cultural Heritage Management Plan 28 January 2019 C. Townshend

11 13/03/2019 Landscape Expert Witness Statement – Tim Vernon C. Townshend

12 13/03/2019 Stratevault diagram T. Vernon

13 13/03/2019 Photograph of tree diamond T. Vernon

14 13/03/2019 Traffic Expert Witness Statement – Henry Turnbull C. Townshend

15 14/03/2019 Draft Planning permit PLP203/17 Council

16 14/03/2019 Submission on behalf of Kilmore and District Residents & Ratepayers Association Inc

A. Radden Rose

17 14/03/2019 Economic expert witness statement Ms Marianne Stoettrup

M. Bartley

18 14/03/2019 Submission on behalf of Mia Kilmore Pty Ltd and Mia Corp Pty Ltd

M. Bartley

19 14/03/2019 Kentucky Fried Chicken Pty Ltd v Gantidis [1979] HCA 20

M. Bartley

20 14/03/2019 Panel Report – Melton Planning Scheme Amendment C91 and C112

M. Bartley

21 14/03/2019 Maverston Property Pty Ltd v Greater Bendigo CC [2013] VCAT 1244 (18 July 2013)

M. Bartley

22a 14/03/2019 Closing submission on behalf of Lascorp C Townshend

22b 14/03/2019 Report of the Retail Development Policy Review Panel, 1996

C Townshend


Page 32 of 49

No Date Description Provided by

22c 14/03/2019 Proposed stage 2 expansion of Epping Plaza Shopping Centre Report of the Advisory Committee, 1997

C Townshend

22d 14/03/2019 Development permit application 97/019 – Planning Appeal No 1997/21496

C Townshend

22e 14/03/2019 Yarra Ranges Planning Scheme Amendment C95 Panel Report 2010

C Townshend

22f 14/03/2019 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme C96 Panel Report 2006

C Townshend


Page 33 of 49

Appendix B Panel preferred version of the Planning Permit PLP203/17


Date issued: Date permit comes into operation: (or if no date is specified, the permit

comes into operation on the same day as

the amendment to which the permit

applies comes into operation)

Signature for the responsible authority:

Page 34 of 49

PLANNING PERMIT

GRANTED UNDER SECTION 96I OF THE

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT ACT 1987

Permit No.: PLP203/17 Planning scheme: Mitchell Planning Scheme Responsible authority: Mitchell Shire Council

ADDRESS OF THE LAND: 80 CLARKE STREET AND 109 NORTHERN HIGHWAY, KILMORE (LOT 1 PS 348076Y VOL 10306 FOL 923, LOT 2 PS 348076Y VOL 10306 FOL 924, LOT 1 PS 332594P VOL 10247 FOL017, LOT 1 TP 616275M VOL 02105 FOLIO 994)

THE PERMIT ALLOWS: BUILDINGS AND WORKS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SUPERMARKET, MEDICAL CENTRE AND RETAIL PREMISES, INSTALLATION AND DISPLAY OF SIGNAGE, USE OF THE LAND FOR SALE OF PACKAGED LIQUOR, ALTERATION OF ACCESS TO ROAD ZONE CATEGORY 1 AND REMOVAL OF NATIVE VEGETATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ENDORSED PLANS

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO THIS PERMIT:

1) Prior to commencement of development, amended plans and documents to the

satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale (1:50,1:100 or 1:200) with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the revised application plans dated 14 February 2019 and as provided to Council on 19 February 2019-but further modified to show: a) Vehicle access to the site from Clarke Street in the South-West corner of the site

is to be realigned to ensure operational compliance with the ultimate Clarke Street / Murray Street alignment as identified in the Kilmore Structure Plan.

b) A fully detailed and surveyed plan of the creek, top of bank, proposed landscaping, proposed buildings and proposed public domain works, including pedestrian access.

c) The loading bay areas for each use/shop shown on the layout or floor plans and to include details of the maximum size of vehicle to service the particular use.

d) Detailed landscaping plan in accordance with condition 10.







Page 35 of 49

e) Subject to the approval of the floodplain manager provision of black coated chain-mesh fencing to a maximum height of 1.8 metres along the northern boundary adjacent to privately-owned properties to prevent public access.

f) Provision of fencing of muted tone of maximum 1.8 metres along the full length of the western boundary.

g) The number of staff bicycles and the size of the staff bicycle storage increased in accordance with the Australian Standard AS2890.3.

h) Increase the width of the pedestrian walkway from Clarke Street to the retail frontage on the east side of the main access point to Clarke Street to 1.2 metres.

i) The footpath external to the land continued on the opposite side of the western crossover along Clarke Street to the western property boundary.

j) Subject to the design being approved by VicRoads, details of a pedestrian refuge separating inbound and outbound lanes across the 10 metre wide crossover to the Northern Highway.

k) A notation on the plan requiring a pedestrian connection from the path adjacent to Kilmore Creek to the retail frontage by deletion of a car parking space or the turning bay when the pathway along the Kilmore Creek is further extended to the west.

l) On Clarke Street: i) provision of 3.5 metre wide through traffic lanes and a 3.3 metre wide turning

lane and the subsequent removal or relocation of the power pole to the satisfaction of the relevant authorities, if that relocation of the power poles is reasonably necessary due to safety or road design requirements.

ii) a left hand turning lane into the Northern Highway to meet VicRoads requirements.

m) The westernmost Clarke Street crossover designed by widening the splay to accommodate the swept path requirement of an exiting loading vehicle clear of the westbound through traffic lane. (Encroachment into the painted median is appropriate).

n) Design detail consisting of landscaping and paving between the medical centre building and the eastern and southern boundaries to the Northern Highway and to Clarke Street, with doors into the medical centre and the retail premises provided from both external footpaths.

o) The width of all pedestrian paths clearly dimensioned; p) A plan notation that no landscaping 900mm or greater in height is to be planted

within the sight triangles (2 metres along the frontage road from the edge of the exit lane and 2.5 metres along the exit lane from the frontage) of all crossover locations to accord with Design Standard 1 of Clause 52.06-9 of the Scheme;

q) Natural ground level clearly shown across all elevations to both buildings with details of height and depth of fill clearly labelled;

r) Maximum building heights, as taken from natural ground level, of both buildings to be dimensioned across all elevations.

s) An amended materiality schedule to include details of the boardwalk construction, bicycle parking and all surface and paving treatments.

t) An amended development schedule table to update the floorspace areas, bicycle and car parking numbers.







Page 36 of 49

u) Demonstration of the adequacy of the waste storage room and provision of a waste storage location for the medical centre and retail premises;

v) Details of car park lighting; w) Height, location and materials details of all retaining walls; x) Property boundaries clearly labelled; y) Any recommendations arising from the Management Plans required by Conditions

24, 29 and 46-48 of this permit, including relating to traffic calming measures, pedestrian movement, waste receptacle provision, etc required within the car park.

2) The layout of the use and the development as shown on the endorsed plans must not

be altered or modified unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority.

Infrastructure Contribution Requirements

3) Prior to commencement of development, unless otherwise agreed in writing, the owner

must enter into an agreement with the Responsible Authority made pursuant to Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and the agreement must be registered on the title/s to the land under Section 181 of the Act. The agreement must provide for the following matters: a) infrastructure contributions in the form of a cash contribution sufficient to provide an

intersection treatment at the intersection of Clarke Street and Murray Street which ensures an operationally compliant access is achieved to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

b) infrastructure contributions in the form of streetscape and infrastructure improvement works along the southern Clarke Street site frontage including street tree planting and power pole removal or relocation, street tree planting on the eastern Northern Highway frontage and streetscape improvements for Sydney Street.

c) infrastructure contributions for the provision of a bus stop in Clarke Street along the South frontage of the site.

The owner must pay the reasonable costs for the preparation, execution and registration of the Section 173 Agreement.

Prior to commencement of development, a copy of the Titles Office registration number (dealing number) for the Section 173 Agreement must be provided to Council as proof of registration.

Vegetation Removal

4) The extent of vegetation to be removed as shown on the endorsed plans and documents

must not be altered or modified unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority.







Page 37 of 49

5) Prior to commencement of development, the permit holder must advise all persons

undertaking the vegetation removal/works on land of all relevant conditions of this permit.

6) Before work starts, a plan to the satisfaction of the responsible authority identifying all

native vegetation to be retained and describing the measures to be used to protect the identified vegetation during construction, must be prepared and submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will form part of this permit. All works constructed or carried out must be in accordance with the endorsed plan.

7) In order to offset the removal of 3 trees approved for removal as part of this permit, the

applicant must provide a native vegetation offset that meets the following requirements and is in accordance with the Permitted clearing of native vegetation - Biodiversity assessment guidelines and the Native vegetation gain scoring manual. The offset must: a) Contribute gain of XXXX general biodiversity equivalence units, and; b) Be located within the municipal boundaries of Mitchell Shire unless otherwise

agreed in writing, and; c) Have a minimum strategic biodiversity score of at least XXXXX.

8) Before any vegetation is removed, evidence that an offset has been secured must be

provided to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. This offset must meet the offset requirements set out in this permit and be in accordance with the requirements of Permitted Clearing of Native Vegetation – Biodiversity assessment guidelines and the Native Vegetation Gain Scoring Manual. Offset evidence can be either: a) A security agreement, to the required standard, for the offset site or sites, including

a 10 year offset management plan, or b) A credit register extract from the Native Vegetation Credit Register.

9) Every year for ten years, after the responsible authority has approved the offset

management plan, the applicant must provide notification to the responsible authority of the management actions undertaken towards the implementation of the offset management plan. An offset condition statement, including photographs, must be included in this notification.

Landscaping

10) Prior to commencement of development, a detailed landscape plan to the satisfaction of

the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The landscape plan must be prepared by a person suitably qualified or experienced in landscape design and must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must







Page 38 of 49

be provided. The landscape plan must be generally in accordance with the Landscape Plan, as prepared by CDA Design Group Pty Ltd, dated February 2019, Project No. 19002 (TP01-TP03) but modified to show to the satisfaction of the responsible authority: a) the layout changes and all other modifications arising from condition 1; b) additional planting where practicable on the site including the vehicle entries and

adjacent to site perimeters, particularly along the western boundary (south of the substation) and along the full length of the southern boundary with careful consideration to species’ type and plant densities;

c) the proposed climbing plant to the north, north east and western walls of the supermarket building;

d) groundcover planting to be at a minimum rate of 4-6 plants per square metre; e) the location of all landscaping works to be provided on the land having regard to

the practicalities of access for ongoing maintenance; f) reference to tree protection measures to be undertaken in accordance with

condition 6 for vegetation to be retained immediately north of the pedestrian boardwalk;

g) the locations of any trees to be retained or removed from the land (including details of species and size);

h) a detailed schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and groundcovers, including botanical names, common names, pot sizes, sizes at maturity, density of planting and quantities of each plant;

i) details of the proposed surface finishes of all paved areas; j) details of the irrigation system to be used on land following completion of the

landscaping works; and k) details of the ongoing maintenance schedule.

11) Before the buildings are occupied, all landscaping works as shown on the endorsed plan

must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. When the landscaping works have been completed, written confirmation must be provided to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority that landscaping of the land has been undertaken in accordance with the endorsed landscaping plans.

12) All landscaping works as shown on the endorsed plans must be maintained, including

that any dead, diseased or damaged plants are to be replaced, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

General requirements

13) Alarms associated with the commercial premises must be directly connected to a security

service and must not produce noise beyond the premises.

14) The use and development must be managed so that the amenity of the area is not

detrimentally affected though the:







Page 39 of 49

a) transport of materials, goods or commodities to or from the land; b) appearance of any buildings, works or materials; c) emission of noise, artificial light, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, vapour, steam,

soot, ash, dust, waste water, waste products, grit or oil; d) the presence of vermin; e) placement of excessive signage across the façade of any building to obscure

visibility and reduce activation; and f) in any other way.

to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

15) Any materials or goods must be stored internal to the building or screened from public

view to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

16) All buildings must be maintained in good order and appearance to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

17) All loading and unloading must be carried out within the designated loading areas to the

satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

18) The loading areas must be maintained in good order and appearance to the satisfaction

of the Responsible Authority.

19) External lighting must be designed, baffled and located so as to prevent any adverse

effect from light spill on adjoining land to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

20) Noise emanating from the development, including plant and other equipment, must

comply with the State Environment Protection Policy N-1 to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

21) All mechanical plant and ventilation equipment must be adequately screened from public view to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

22) No external sound amplification equipment or loudspeakers are to be used for the purpose of announcement, broadcast, playing of music or similar purpose except for emergency safety messages or use of drive thru equipment, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority.

Waste

23) Before the shops are occupied or the use of the centre starts, a Waste Management

Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved







Page 40 of 49

by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and form part of the planning permit. All waste management for the supermarket, medical centre and retail premises must be undertaken in accordance with the endorsed Waste Management Plan. The Waste Management Plan must include: a) Details of how and where waste will be stored and collected for each premises; b) How customer waste will be managed throughout the car parking and associated

areas, e.g. through the provision of bins; c) Identify the frequency for the removal of such refuse and recycling including

collection times; d) Demonstrated compliance with conditions 24 and 25.

24) Provision must be made on the land for the storage and collection of waste and

recyclables. This area must be graded and drained and screened from public view to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

25) All waste material not required for further onsite processing must be regularly removed

from the land. All vehicles removing waste must have fully secured and contained loads so that no wastes are spilled or dust or odour is created to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Access Requirements

26) Before any occupation of the development, the permit holder must construct each vehicle

crossing to the development to an industrial standard in accordance with Mitchell Shire Council’s Standard Drawings to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority.

27) The internal common driveway/carpark area must be constructed to an appropriate all-weather finish with drainage provided to adequately drain the areas to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Transport Management

28) Before any occupation of the development, a Car Parking and Loading Management

Plan addressing movement within the car park, the provision of pedestrian or raised crossings, delineation of parking bays as necessary, loading and unloading of goods and materials (including delivery times and any shared use of the supermarket’s loading zone) and any other relevant matters, prepared by an appropriately qualified traffic consultant must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the Car Parking and Loading Management Plan will be endorsed and form part of this permit.







Page 41 of 49

29) The Car Parking and Loading Management Plan must be implemented at all times to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. No alterations may be made without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

Drainage Requirements

30) Before any occupation of the development, the permit holder must construct at no cost

to Council, drainage works between the proposed development and the Council nominated point of discharge to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

31) The discharge of water from each of the proposed lots must be controlled around its

limits to prevent any discharge onto any adjacent property or streets other than by means of an approved drainage system discharged to an approved outlet in a street or to an underground pipe drain to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

32) Before any occupation of the development, the subject site must be connected to an

underground drainage system including an on-site detention system to control flows to pre-development levels and treat stormwater wholly within the boundaries of the subject land, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Signage Requirements

33) The sign(s) must not contain any flashing or moving light, to the satisfaction of the

Responsible Authority.

34) The sign(s) must not be illuminated by external or internal light.

35) The sign(s) lighting must be designed, baffled and located to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority to prevent any adverse effect on adjoining land.

36) The sign(s) must be constructed and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Carpark Requirements

37) Before any occupation of the development, the permit holder must design and construct

a fully sealed car park in general accordance with the Mitchell Shire Planning Scheme and/or with AS/NZS 2890.1 and AS/NZS 2890.6 to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.







Page 42 of 49

Upgrade Requirements

38) Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority, before any occupation

of the development the permit holder must construct a shared footpath 2.5 metres wide along both the Northern Highway frontage and 2.4 metres wide along the Clarke Street frontage adjacent the development to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

39) Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority, before the use starts,

the permit holder must upgrade the Northern Highway site frontage to incorporated kerb and channel, underground drainage and associated seal widening to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Fees and charges

40) Unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the Responsible Authority, prior to the

assessment of the detailed construction plans, the permit holder must pay a design checking for civil works fee as per the adopted Council fees and charges to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

41) Unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the Responsible Authority, prior to the occupancy of the new dwellings, the permit holder must pay a supervision of civil works fee of 2.50% of the costs of assets handed over to council for the development as per the adopted Council fees and charges to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Construction Plan Requirements

42) Prior to the commencement of the development, detailed construction plans to the

satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plans must include: a) The ultimate Clarke Street / Murray Street road alignment as per the Kilmore

Structure Plan; b) Crossover details, including all traffic calming measures; c) Driveway and car parking construction and drainage details including grades and

indication of fall; d) Underground drainage details and supporting calculations, e) Any external civil works; and f) The provision of a bus stop along Clarke Street.

43) Before any occupation of the development,, all works shown on the approved construction plans must be constructed or carried out in accordance with the plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.







Page 43 of 49

Management Plans

44) Unless otherwise agreed to by the Responsible Authority; before any works associated

with the development start, management plans must be submitted to and deemed satisfactory by the Responsible Authority. The required management plans are:

45) A Construction Management and Safety Plan to include the following: a) A Gantt chart for all aspects of works including civil and all other authority specific

works; b) A liaison officer for direct contact by residents and the Responsible Authority; c) Location of site office and site compound; d) Methods to ensure that the land which is not affected by earthworks will not be

traversed by construction vehicles or machinery; e) Methods to contain dust and mud including clean up frequency and control

frequency; f) Details of proposed stock pile heights, locations, materials and volumes; g) Details proposed storage areas; h) Methods to control unauthorised personal entering the site; i) Methods to keep the site presentable being free of debris, rubbish and stockpiled

material; j) Company OH&S management organisation chart; k) Methods to ensure that appropriate PPE is always worn by all personal on site; l) Subcontractors, suppliers and external testing company contact list; and m) Proposed working hours.

46) A Site Environmental Management Plan to include the following:

a) Sediment control techniques to ensure that no mud, dirt, sand, soil, clay or stones are washed into or allowed to enter the storm water drainage system, waterways, roads, streets or reserves;

b) Methods to control erosion and the flow of water to nominated points of discharge; c) Methods to prevent and manage illegal dumping on the land; d) Methods to ensure that only EPA clean fill material is imported/exported to and

from the site; e) Location and details of the Tree Protection Measures around the trees to be

retained as shown on the approved and endorsed plans; f) Methods for weed and pathogen management; g) Designated machinery wash down and storage location; h) Methods to protect Environmental flora and fauna; i) Methods to control spill and storage of hazardous chemicals; j) Methods identify, report, and protect the discovery of archaeological and or

heritage objects; k) Methods to ensure earthwork disturbed areas will have adequate vegetation cover

after a period of 6 weeks of absence; and







Page 44 of 49

l) Methods to ensure that contractors working on the land are aware of the requirements of the all Management Plans and any other obligations of the planning permit.

47) A Traffic Management Plan to include the following: a) Proposed haulage routes to and from the subject land; b) Expected frequency of vehicle movements to and from the land; c) Site access arrangements for construction vehicles and emergency vehicles; and d) A traffic control signage plan including working hours signage and after-hours

signage to control both vehicle and pedestrian movements as required.

Reinstatement Requirements

48) Any road(s), footpath(s) and/or other infrastructure damaged as a result of the

construction works (including but not limited to trenching and excavation for utility service connections, movement of vehicles and the likes), must be reinstated to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and at the cost of the permit holder.

VicRoads Requirements

49) Prior to the occupation of the development hereby approved by this permit:

a) Detailed design plans generally in accordance with the Traffix Group Functional

Layout Plan (Drawing No. G16707- 01, Issue E dated: 21st February 2019) must be submitted and to the written satisfaction of the Roads Corporation. The detailed design plans must be drawn to scale, clearly dimensioned and include (but not limited to) the following: i. The current layout of the development; ii. A swept path diagram for a 19m semi-trailer vehicle entering the site

from the Northern Highway; iii. The proposed potential bus stop is relocated 60-70 metres toward

the west; and iv. Intersection lighting in accordance with AS1158.

b) A detailed design Road Safety Audit at the detailed design stage in accordance with VicRoads’ Road Safety Audit Policy. The audit findings and the consultant’s responses to the findings must be provided to the Roads Corporation for review and approval. Any mitigating works arising out of the audit must be carried out by the applicant at no cost and to the satisfaction of the Roads Corporations;

c) A VicRoads signed Memorandum of Authorisation must be completed by the applicant and returned to VicRoads permitting the installation of any Major Traffic Control Items required as part of this development (e.g. Give Way signs etc); and







Page 45 of 49

d) All arterial roadworks must be completed to the satisfaction of and at no cost to the Roads Corporation.

GBCMA Requirements

50) The development must meet best practice for water sensitive urban design principles in

accordance with “Urban Stormwater Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines, CSIRO 1999”.

51) The floor levels of the proposed buildings are to be constructed at least 300 millimetres

above the 100-year ARI flood level or higher floor level deemed necessary by the Responsible Authority. (The Goulburn Broken CMA’s estimates of the 100-year ARI flood levels for the location described above range between 334.2 metres AHD, adjacent to the Kilmore Creek, and 336.8 metres AHD, at the south-west corner of the property. These levels were established by recent hydrologic and hydraulic analyses of the Kilmore Creek).

Goulburn Valley Water Requirements

52) Payment of new customer contribution charges for water supply to the development,

such amount being determined by the Goulburn Valley Region Water Corporation.

53) Provision of separate water supply meters to each tenement within the development, located at the property boundary and to the satisfaction of Goulburn Valley Region Water Corporation.

54) Payment of new customer contributions charges for sewerage services to the development, such amount being determined by the Goulburn Valley Regional Water Corporation at the time of payment.

55) Connection of all sanitary fixtures within the development to reticulated sewerage, at the developers expense, in accordance with the standards of construction adopted by and to the satisfaction of the Goulburn Valley Region Water Corporation. All works required are to be carried out in accordance with AS 3500.2 – ‘Sanitary plumbing and drainage’ and to the satisfaction of the Corporation’s Property Services Section.

56) Discharge of trade waste from the development shall be subject to a Trade Waste Consent Agreement. The owner and or occupier is required to submit a completed Trade Waste Application, and install the required pre-treatment facility to the satisfaction of Goulburn Valley







Page 46 of 49

Water’s Trade Waste Section, before approval to discharge trade waste from the development into Goulburn Valley Region Water Corporation’s sewer is granted.

EPA Requirements

57) Construction and post-construction activities must be in accordance with EPA

Publication 275 Construction Techniques for Sediment Pollution Control 1991 or as amended.

Permit Expiry

58) This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:

a) The development is not started within two years of the date of this permit. b) The development is not completed within four years of the date of this permit. c) The use is not started within four years of the date of this permit. d) The use is discontinued for a period of two years.

The Responsible Authority may extend the permit if a request is made in writing in accordance with Section 69 of Planning and Environment Act 1987.







Page 47 of 49

PERMIT NOTES

Relevant Authority Information provided to assist the applicant or owner

Council Building Unit Please note that this approval does not constitute a Building Permit. You should enquire with Council’s Building Services Unit on 5734 6230 to ascertain if a building permit is required for this proposal.

This planning permit has been assessed against the requirements of the Heritage Overlay only. This planning permit has NOT been assessed against the requirements of ResCode.

Council Engineering Services Unit

A legal point of discharge must be obtained from Council prior to the construction of the drainage.

A road-opening permit must be obtained from Council’s Engineering Services Unit before any vehicle crossover is constructed

Council Environmental Health Unit

An application to install a Septic Tank System must be submitted to the Environmental Health Unit including any prescribed fee and plans detailing the distance of the system from boundaries and the size of the effluent area

VicRoads The increase in discharge of any concentrated drainage onto the arterial road reserve is not permitted unless approved in writing by VicRoads.

Separate ‘detailed design’ approval (fees and charges apply) and the specifications of these are required under the Road Management Act. For the purposes of this application the works will include provision of:

A left turn lane;

A raised median island; and

Any other works within the arterial road reserve

Please forward details marked attention to David Wallace on:

[email protected]

Further information regarding VicRoads’ consent to work within the road reserve can be found on the VicRoads Website:

https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/business-and-industry/design-and-management/working-within-the-road-reserve

or by or telephoning (03) 5434 5089.

GBCMA A “Works on Waterway” permit must be obtained from the Goulburn Broken CMA for drainage outfall structures on the Kilmore Creek.

Goulburn Valley Water Any structures to be built must be clear of any easement in favour of Goulburn Valley Regional Water Corporation.

mailto:[email protected]









Page 48 of 49

It is recommended a licenced surveyor is used to confirm the location and alignment of the sewer. Goulburn Valley Water will assist on site with the lifting of the manhole lids as requested.

Should the permit holder wish to subdivide each tenement onto separate titles in the future, provision of appropriate servicing arrangements to facilitate a future subdivision proposal should be investigated as part of this development.

Country Fire Authority The building owners and managers should prepare an emergency management plan for the development in consultation with the local fire brigade to ensure emergency response and equipment is appropriate.

[If the permit has been amended, include the following table indicating the date and nature of amendments included in the amended permit, and the name of the responsible authority that approved the amendment]

Date of amendment Brief description of

amendment

Name of responsible

authority that approved the

amendment







Page 49 of 49

IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THIS PERMIT

WHAT HAS BEEN DECIDED?

The Responsible Authority has issued a permit. The permit was granted by the Minister under section 96I of the

Planning and Environment Act 1987 on approval of Amendment No. C124 to the Mitchell Planning Scheme.

WHEN DOES THE PERMIT BEGIN?

The permit operates from a day specified in the permit being a day on or after the day on which the amendment to which the permit applies comes into operation.

WHEN DOES A PERMIT EXPIRE?

1. A permit for the development of land expires if—

• the development or any stage of it does not start within the time specified in the permit; or

• the development requires the certification of a plan of subdivision or consolidation under the Subdivision Act 1988 and the plan is not certified within two years of the issue of a permit, unless the permit contains a different provision; or

• the development or any stage is not completed within the time specified in the permit, or, if no time is specified, within two years after the issue of the permit or in the case of a subdivision or consolidation within 5 years of the certification of the plan of subdivision or consolidation under the Subdivision Act 1988.

2. A permit for the use of land expires if—

• the use does not start within the time specified in the permit, or if no time is specified, within two years after the issue of the permit; or

• the use is discontinued for a period of two years.

3. A permit for the development and use of land expires if—

• the development or any stage of it does not start within the time specified in the permit; or

• the development or any stage of it is not completed within the time specified in the permit, or, if no time is specified, within two years after the issue of the permit; or

• the use does not start within the time specified in the permit, or, if no time is specified, within two years after the completion of the development: or

• the use is discontinued for a period of two years.

4. If a permit for the use of land or the development and use of land or relating to any of the circumstances

mentioned in section 6A(2) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, or to any combination of use,

development or any of those circumstances requires the certification of a plan under the Subdivision Act 1988,

unless the permit contains a different provision—

• the use or development of any stage is to be taken to have started when the plan is certified; and

• the permit expires if the plan is not certified within two years of the issue of the permit.

5. The expiry of a permit does not affect the validity of anything done under that permit before the expiry.

WHAT ABOUT REVIEWS?

• In accordance with section 96M of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, the applicant may not apply to

the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal for a review of any condition in this permit.

Documents

Mitchell Planning Scheme Amendment C124 and Planning