Term of Doncaster Supermarket Now in Dispute

This Concerning sidestep was sent in regarding the long running Jackson court shopping center rezoning request.

The panel hearing, held on 28/3 to 1/5, in relation to 3-9 and 11 Mitchell Street/Jackson Court, East Doncaster was to hear evidence and consider a planning scheme amendment C95. It was proposed, in return for having the land rezoned to a mixed use (MUZ) and council approving a planning permit for a development 19m high, the applicant would agree to provide an area of at least 1300m2 on the ground floor of the proposal for the purpose of a supermarket by way of a 173 agreement (enduring) to be registered on the title to the land. However, according to documents submitted to the panel on behalf of the applicant, there now appears a reluctance to be bound by such an agreement, notwithstanding it was the basic condition on which Councillors approved the amendment proposal be submitted in the first place.

Comments below from Hugh Smyth (page 33) , on behalf of the applicant, deems a 173 agreement unnecessary and inappropriate..

“Delete Condition 48 which imposes a Section 173 Agreement on the land, requires the ground floor of any building be used for a supermarket with at least 1300 square metres of leasable floor area. I do not believe that this is agreement is necessary or appropriate. Moreover, it has the potential to be entirely impractical if, in the future, a supermarket is not viable. The planning controls will provide a proper and satisfactory framework for controlling the future use and development of the land”.

And the applicant’s draft copy of the 173 agreement proposes a term of 10.5 years from the date of the approval of the amendment which could be a very short period depending on if and when the development is completed and made available to the operator of the supermarket and/or whether the property is to be sold to an investor…

The Jackson Court Urban design analysis (Plannisphere) for Manningham Council, have recommended, in addition to a 173 agreement for the provision of a supermarket, the land be rezoned to mixed use but development be limited to a height of 14.5m throughout the centre. This was would offer a proportionate scale of heights and provide equal opportunity to owners already in the mixed use zone and remove any perception of favouritism towards the applicant.

It should be noted that as council officers do not support the proposed planning Scheme amendment and associated planning permit request (Refer to Minutes dated 27 August 2013),

The panel’s decision should be available within 30 days and presented to Councillors at the July meeting. They can approve, amend or reject it, in the meantime the public will have the opportunity to lobby Councillors

OBJECTOR

2013-08-23 Jackson court Council Draft of 173 Agreement

2013-08-23 jackson court urban design analysis_final report 23 august 2013

2013-08-23 Manningham council minutes 27 august 2013 – full

2014-02-25 Jackson court Applicant Suggested section 173 agreement

2014-04-14 Jackson court Hugh smyth Planning Statement of evidence

3 Responses to “Term of Doncaster Supermarket Now in Dispute”

  1. Kelvin Wu says:

    We signed a petition, in support of a Supermarket in a five storey building, but it did not indicate the height of the project, it was only later, after the publication of the council report, that we discovered it would be 19 meters. We had assumed five storeys would be slightly above the recommended height of 14.5 metres for developments surrounding neighbourhood activity centres.
    If this amendment is approved the development will tower above all other buildings within the centre and overwhelm the abutting single storey villa units along its western boundary.
    K.H

  2. Talford says:

    While it is possible the panel could recommend the rezoning of the land in Mitchell Street, it is unlikely to approve a height that could not be extended to all other sites within the centre, already zoned for mixed use, and unlike this proposal, they are separated from nearby residences by either a roadway, lane or parkland.
    It might be difficult for Councillors, who voted for the processing of this amendment, to change their position even though the applicant now appears unwilling to enter into an enduring 173 agreement with Manningham Council. However, a recommendation for a maximum building height of 14.5m, applicable across the entire centre, would be fair and offer equal opportunity to all owners.
    Talford

  3. Janice W. says:

    I disagree, I think our councillors, who initially supported this application be considered, will now reject it unless a permanent 173 agreement for a supermarket, as promised to the community, be lodged on the title. If the applicant’s suggestion that a term of only ten and a half years, applicable from the date of approval of the amendment, is adopted it could mean we may never see a supermarket given the time that could elapse from approval to when the development is eventually finished. It could be several years, especially if the land is sold to an overseas investor who may wish to hold the property indefinitely rather than develop it in the short term. In any case the current owner or a purchaser of the development are quite within their rights to delay commencement.
    Janice W.

Leave a Response

Currently you have JavaScript disabled. In order to post comments, please make sure JavaScript and Cookies are enabled, and reload the page. Click here for instructions on how to enable JavaScript in your browser.