AUSSIE GROUP TO BUILD MITCHELL ST PROPOSAL
CBRE the sellimg agents have confirmed that Pace Development Group have purchased the land at Mitchell St in the Jackson Court Activity Centre for over $13 Million, approx $3,550 per sqm
Mitchell Street Frontage
Shane Wilkinson
The sale to Pace Development Goup, its Managing Director Shane Wilkinson pictured left, comes more than 12 months after the Manningham Leader had reported that the five storey multi use development had been advertised for sale as “the development opportunity of the year” but owner Mr Mimmo said the property was not for sale at that stage and the proposal had been listed on an agent’s website without his knowledge
The five storey proposal, on a land area of 3.661 sqm, has approval for 69 apartments and up to 1,078 sqm for specialty shops and at least 1,300 sqm to be set aside for supermarket
It is understood that the top floor area of the building, designated for restaurant, could be replaced with 13 extra apartments, subject to additional car spaces being provided.
revised development plans may 2013
Manningham officers had originally recommended that the proposal be rejected although it was conceded there was some merit to the proposal, within the context of Manningham’s hierarchy of activity centres, but in considering the strategic basis of the proposal there was not a clear policy basis that provided support for the project. Furthermore, while recognising that the site was appropriate for development and putting aside the zoning issue, it was considered that the degree of change including the height and scale of the building, was excessive and did not provide a suitable transition to the
adjacent residential properties. Further the proposed height of the development, did not respect the designated neighbourhood character of the local area and would have had a detrimental impact on adjoining residents and set a precedent for consideration of heights above 13.5 metres in and around other Neighbourhood Activity Centres.
It was proposed not to support the request for an amendment to the Manningham Planning Scheme and planning permit application on the grounds that the proposed height of the development, at almost 19 metres, was not an acceptable outcome for this site, having regard to the context of its location and being a small Neighbourhood Activity Centre and the character of the local area.
Officers recommended that a height of 14.5 metres be prescribed for redevelopment across the entire Activity Centre. A reasonable compromise considering that Tunstall Square, a much larger activity, was limited to a maximum height of 13.5 metres.
Council Consultant recommended a compromise of 14.5m across the entire centre.
jackson court urban design analysis_final report 23 august 2013
Prior to approval of the Amendment, a section 173 agreement should be required to be entered into that provides: a) That at least 1,300 sqm of the leasable area of the ground floor of the permitted building must be set aside on the endorsed plan and only used for the purposes of a supermarket. b) For ending of the agreement after a period of 15 years from the date of the commencement of the supermarket use.
Nine Councillors
Councillors, led by an impressive speech by Meg Downie, (centre) voted to accept amendment C95
It could be at least a year before construction of development can begin because of the need to pre-sell a high quota of the apartments and to locate an operator for the Supermarket.
8 Comments
The maximum period allowed for the supermarket is only 15 years and it can be as small as 1,300m2. Which means the remainder of the retail area could consist of several shops which could, depending on their category, be in direct conflict with other retailers in the area, especially with the supermarket located next door to provide the foot traffic .
One councillor, who had behaved like an advocate for the development, had an agenda which did not include consulting the shop owners of the centre. Nobody bothered to inform them or provide them with a copy of Council’s $12,000 urban study that had recommended a height overlay of 14.5m be extended to all the property owners of the centre including the proposed land rezoning in Mitchell Street…What could be fairer?? .I know of two owners who were willing to combine their properties and build a permanent supermarket which would be up and running today without any strings attached. Now we are going to be stuck with this 19m monstrosity, so out of whack with the rest of the centre, in return for a temporary supermarket…Thanks Pal
The replacement of the top floor hospitality venue with apartments might be a good thing for the many restaurateurs of the centre because it would create an extra diner catchment and less opposition. There will be a problem for the developer with the extra parking required because it would have to be provided onsite. The most obvious solution would be to install a three tiered car stacker system.
That might be true but it would also increase the value of the property substantially which might result in the new owner reselling the land again to an Asian syndicate. The permit conditions are written in such a way they do encourage this.
The development has to be started within (4) four years from the issue of a permit but commencement of construction can be further delayed if requested in writing to the responsible authority. It is hoped that this does not occur for it would mean renegotiating the lease or even a situation where the supermarket operator could walk away.
The Supermarket could be much smaller than the 1,300 sqm specified because at least 20% of the total area is usually set aside for for “Back Of House” facilities such as storage space, offices and toilets etc. There was no clarification as to whether the 1,300 sqm included these ancillary areas so you would have to assume that it did. Which means we could finish up with an area just over 1,000 sqm making it more of a “top up” store than a supermarket.
The consultant representing the proponent suggested that there be no agreement for a supermarket because it was unnecessary and if there was it should only be for ten years and not 15 and also wanted a proviso for a change of use if supermarket proved non viable.
There has been no word on who will be the operator. This is because the current owner had decided to sell the project and has left it to the purchaser to negotiate. ALDI could be interested but might want a larger area. It would be more suitable for a smaller operator such as IGA.
That is correct. The prescribed area would be too small for ALDI which is disappointing because that is what we were told at the beginning. The lack of a rear service entrance will definitely be a problem. It might have been better to have left the reception centre in Mitchell St as it is and have gone with the height overlay across the activity centre and encouraged site consolidation to bring in a smaller operator.