AIDA opposed the planning application for the supermarket proposed for the Bottom Shops. Our opposition, in support of the Council position, was based on the failure of the applicant to abide by the Planning Scheme, including Amendment C55. We were heartened by the VCAT Senior Member’s rejection of the revised plans. Her conclusion in the judgement of May 2011 follows:
‘The potential use of the site for a commercial development including a supermarket on the review site is appropriate and would be beneficial to this centre. There are a number of positive features of the proposal. However, on balance, I find that the reduction of parking sought is too great in this constrained location, that the interface with the Painkalac Creek corridor could be improved, and other design details require resolution. I have therefore determined not to allow the Application.’ (Baird 2011)
The most significant of the ‘other design features requiring attention’ was the location and size of the loading bay which was considered too tight for practical use by delivery vans.
AIDA is pleased that the Member’s judgement acknowledged that our concerns and those of Council were justified as regards the Surf Coast Planning Scheme and Amendment C55.
AIDA was able to email a detailed version of this judgement to those members who have provided email details, and will be continuing to email up-to-date information in future. We are aware that about a third of our members have still not listed their email address with us and urge these members to do so.
One decision which must be acknowledged was the VCAT decision to disallow the application for the development of the supermarket. As you are aware, AIDA supported council in its opposition to this proposal, in that it failed to abide by the planning provisions. Despite counsel for the supermarket seeking to exclude AIDA from the proceedings based on our being a ‘third party’ applicant, we were able to speak on the issue of parking and obviously did so with great clarity as the basis of rejection was to be that ‘on balance the reduction of parking sought was too great in this constrained location, that the interface with the Painkalac Creek corridor could be improved, and other design details require resolution’.