Further objections to Kaufland developments
As the Kaufland planning process rolls on, it seems there are many retailers still objecting strongly to the arrival of the German hypermarket.
The owners of the Pacific Epping Shopping Centre, Queensland Investment Corporation (QIC) and Bevendale Pty Ltd, have put forward a joint submission opposing the Kaufland store planned for the area in which their own shopping centre is located.
In the submission from QIC and Pacific Group of Companies (PGOC), the owners “strongly object” to the proposal for the Epping store saying it is “inconsistent” with local and state planning policy.
The owners believe that it is “not strategically justified” and will result in the underdevelopment of strategically located land within a “designated metropolitan activity
“The proposed Amendment will result in an inequitable planning outcome by exempting the owners of the Kaufland site from the built form provisions of the ACZ1, which other Epping Central stakeholders are required to address,” the submission reads.
Kaufland requested that the Minister for Planning assist in facilitating its plan to deliver an initial tranche of proposed supermarket-based stores and members of the public can have their say on the proposed developments.
Just under 20 submissions have been put forward to an Advisory Committee for consideration, including one from the Master Grocers Association who began a Save Our Shops campaign last year.
Jos de Bruin, CEO Master Grocers Association, told Inside FMCG at the time that the retailer poses a “major risk to any family enterprise and private business” and criticised the planning route taken by the retailer.
Kaufland told Inside FMCG in November that the Victorian government’s advisory committee process is “legitimate, transparent and accountable and encourages public engagement”.
In response to criticism of its planning pathway the retailer said: “Kaufland is making significant investment and employment decisions for which it requires a degree of certainty that a traditional planning pathway through six individual Councils could not provide. Cases such as Kaufland’s, in which certainty is needed across multiple sites at one time, are one of the reasons such a panel process exists.”