C 95 Panel Recommmends Limited Term For Supermarket

These relevant comments were sent in by the “Friends of Jackson”

The prospect of a long term period for a supermarket in Jackson Court, to reinvigorate and anchor the flagging centre, appears doubtful now that the C95 panel, at the behest of the applicant, has recommended the term of the supermarket be reduced to a period of only 15 years. Manningham C95 Panel Report
Councillors who had voted to have the amendment 95 processed, on the condition the applicant would enter into an enduring 173 agreement with the Manningham Council to provide an area of at least 1300m2 for the exclusive use of a supermarket, will now have to reconsider their position when the matter is put before them next month.
In return for incorporating a permanent supermarket, councillors were prepared to allow the applicant’s land at 3-9 and 11 Mitchell Street, East Doncaster to be rezoned from residential 1. to a mixed use enabling the incorporation of the supermarket, a restaurant, reception centre, three levels of residential apartments and a basement car park plus a very generous reduction in the car parking tally requirement.
Council planning officers had also recommended the rezoning to facilitate a permanent supermarket but had strongly opposed the 19 meter height of the building which exceeded the prescribed 14.5 meters applicable to areas surrounding neighbourhood activity centres.
Local traders, residents and Church parishioners etc, who were asked to sign petitions and lobby councillors to support this development on the understanding it would incorporate a permanent supermarket, would feel somewhat betrayed if the councillors were to accept the panel’s short term recommendation.

Friend of Jackson

5 Responses to “C 95 Panel Recommmends Limited Term For Supermarket”

  1. Elizabeth Street says:

    Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal and Panels Victoria have long maintained a policy that the loss of property values and/or the viability of a project are not considered when making a planning decision. It was therefore no surprise that when the argument was raised, concerning the unlikely prospect of consolidating three allotments abutting the proposal, to achieve the required area of 1800m2, for redevelopment, was not considered. Unfortunately it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, because up to 7 of the Villa Unit/town house redevelopment would need to be acquired by separate negotiation so the prospect of these owners obtaining a fair sale price individually, would be very doubtful.

    Yet the proposition by the applicant’s advocate that a reduction in height (one storey), suggested by Council officers and most residents, could not be considered due to financial considerations, was accepted by the panel.
    It said:
    “We (the Panel) gave consideration to whether the building should be reduced in height by one storey to assist in mitigating its visual impacts”.
    “We rejected this, however, noting the suggestions for the proponent that the extent of the residential component was needed to offset the low rental return from a supermarket alone occupying the retail floor space, rather than it being accompanied by the usual more lucrative small tenancies”.
    Elizabeth Street


  2. Patrick says:

    We had assumed we would have a permanent supermarket in Jackson Court, when we signed the petition, but the draft copy of 173 agreement, initially submitted by the owner, proposed a term of only 10.5 years from the date of the amendment approval (decision expected August 2014), which could have been equivalent to a period of less than 6 years if the development was not completed and available for occupation within four years.
    With a set up cost of $1,100 per meter (a total of $1.43 million for an area of 1,300m2) a supermarket operator would require at least 15 years with 10 year options. The panel has recommended a commitment of only 15 years without options. Where does this leave shop residents, owners and traders if the proponent was to decide on a more profitable option after that period?
    Safeway opened the Jackson Court Supermarket on the 28/7/1966 and closed it on the 29/1/2009— a period of nearly 43 years with a far smaller purchaser catchment than what exists today.

  3. Coolabah says:

    No supermarket operator, with such a large undertaking, would agree to a flat term of only 15 years without there being further options.


  4. F. Day says:

    On page 53 of their report, the panel rejected its original intention to lower the height of the proposal, which they maintain was to assist in “mitigating its visual impacts”, instead, accepted the advocate’s submission, made without any supporting data, that retaining the full height of the building was necessary to offset the lower rental yield from the floor space leased to the supermarket compared to what could be achieved from more lucrative small tenancies. (specialty shops) However on page 38 the advocate indicated that at least 600m2 would be set aside for specialty shops. (probably six shops)
    Rents per square metre paid by retailers will vary markedly depending on a number of factors, even within an individual shopping centre. Major tenants, such as supermarkets, might pay lower rents per square metre, but they contribute more capital to the development, take longer term leases, up to thirty years in some cases, offer a point of difference to the shopping centre and generate foot traffic to help beget the survival of the specialty shops within the proposal itself.

    F. Day

  5. Bel Harris says:

    I agree with Stephen O’Brien’s comments in the Weekly Review “Jackson Court is great, it’s just missing a heart, and that is a Supermarket,” he said “Unless an anchor comes in, it looks pretty stark. It’s a great court, but it’s just floundering”.
    The proponent who has hitched the “sweetener”, the Supermarket, to his application for a MUZ and extra height above that prescribed, now appears reluctant judging by his advocate’s submissions to the hearing.
    The 173 agreement, which was to commence on the date on which amendment C95 comes into play in section 37 of the Act, had no termination or end date, so it was therefore assumed it would operate in perpetuity.
    The owner’s marked up version wanted it subject to a satisfactory agreement with the terms and conditions of a would be operator.
    The panel has recommended the ending of the agreement after a period of only 15 years from the date of the commencement of the supermarket use. This may not be possible unless there are options to extend the period, it is unlikely that Aldi, the suggested operator, who would have built a store in the area adjacent to Dan Murphy’s had there not been a supreme court challenge from Woolworths, would look at such a short term.
    The weak permit expiry conditions could enable the owner or an overseas investor to delay commencement of construction for several years.
    Expiry Of The Permit
    58. This permit will expire if any one of the following circumstances apply:
    58.1 The development is not started within four (4) years of the date of the issue of this permit;
    58.2 The development is not completed within six (6) years of the date of this permit;
    58.3 The use is not commenced within six (6) years of the date of this permit.
    The Responsible Authority may extend these times if a request is made in writing before the permit expires or within six months afterwards.

    Bel Harris

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.