Overview: Proposal to replace exiting resturants etc with a multi storey supermarket complex. It will require zoning ammendments as well as building approvals.

Council officers reports etc rejecting are attached. It is proposed as 19 meters high, will back onto existing houses.

This shopping area – known as Jackson Court, previously had a Safeway supermarket ( closed early 2009), but it has since become a Dan Murphy’s liquor outlet.

Community Contact     Graeme Maddaford    junegraeme@yahoo.com.au        9848 5751

Attached documents:

Issues and background info re Mitchell st amendment C95:  (See below) 2013-08-27 Doncaster Mitchell St initial council officers report 27 Aug 13 rejecting appl

Council officers report from council meeting 27 August 2013 : 2013-08-27 Doncaster Mitchell St initial council officers report 27 Aug 13 rejecting appl

Council meeting on Wednesday Nov 20th.

Manningham City Council, Amendment C95, seeking approval to rezone 3- 11 Mitchell St Doncaster East from a Residential 1 Zone to a Mixed Use Zone with an associated Planning Permit Application PL11/021966

 At the Manningham City Council meeting of 27 August 2013 the above recommendation was assessed by qualified/competent council offices as not an acceptable outcome for this site. However this was overturned by some councillors.

This initial recommendation from the council officers categorised this refusal with an extensive 21 page report supported by an independent external consultant.  Refer to document “initial council officers report 27 aug 13 rejecting appl”.

This application is for 2 levels of underground parking, (with only one access / egress point for vehicles, adjacent to loading dock entry)

a ground level supermarket, 3 levels of apartments (63 x 2 bed& 2 x 1 bed),   level 5  – a restaurant and reception centre

Clearly this is not an appropriate development for this site in a residential side street, and there are a number of factors that you need to be aware of:

 

1. this is a zone change from Residential 1 to Mixed Use Zone – which allows commercial, industrial and other uses,
2. a 19 metre high building which directly opposes council’s own recommendations of a maximum height of 13.5 m for Neighbourhood Activity centres,
3. Amendment C96 (which covers this site) had extensive community input and restricts this site to a maximum of 11 m. (19 m is a 73 % increase in height ),
4. the applicant’s own report indicates there is overshadowing problems for adjoining properties,
5. the request for reduction in car parking spaces will have a major impact on the traffic movement in and around Mitchell St, potentially a full public car park overflowing into side streets with associated traffic chaos in Mitchell St,
6. application is for 2378 sq m for supermarket – council has stipulated a minimum of only 1300 sq m,
7. the recent State Government released “Plan Melbourne – Metropolitan Planning Strategy”, does not list Jackson Court as an Activity centre, hence not identified for joint development,
8. further to this report ( with respect to  item 2 & 3 above) “Plan Melbourne – Metropolitan Planning Strategy”, under initiative 4.2.2  “to protect Melbourne’s Neighbourhood centres”; councils are required to prepare local housing strategies with community consultation to introduce mandatory height controls.
   This has already been completed with Amendment C96’s mandatory 11 m height maximum.

There are other alternative sites suitable for a supermarket in Jackson Court without the need for a zone change. A current vacant shop would accommodate a mini mart, similar to Kerrimuir in Middleborough Rd Box Hill Nth.

This minimarthas been operating successfully for more than 30 years, with much less land uses around compared to Jackson Court and it does not have 65 apartments and restaurant/reception centre on top to make it viable. Surely the numerous existing standalone supermarkets across Victoria are surviving; otherwise these communities would be in a diabolic situation.

Without going into all the poignant aspects of the council officers’ report, some specifics are worth highlighting.

There is not a clear policy basis that provides support for the proposal. (4 th para Summary)

There are also some very disconcerting facts, in particular, 4.11, a section 173 Agreement could be appealed resulting in anything but a supermarket, and could even have implications on the viability of the existing retail uses. (refer 4.12)

4.41 of the report identifies height and separation issues to adjoining residential properties, and the applicant’s planning application identifies overshadowing of neighbouring residential properties.

 

This is an inappropriate development,                  lodge your objection before 13 December 2013 to

Manager Economic & Environmental Planning, Manningham City Council, PO Box 1 Doncaster Vic 3108 or

www.whatmattersmanningham.com.au/mitchellstreet

(proforma here , or write your own) 2013-11-23 amendment C95 mitchell st proforma

Up dated Objection Proforma 2013-12-05 amendment C95 mitchell st proforma

Letter to Residents 2013-12-05 letter dropversion re Mitchell st Amendment C95