(b) on the basis of its determination resolving to support Planning Permit Application No 714183.

1. Fabcot contends that the Ai Group permit application is not generally in accordance with the Town Centre Strategy, in that it proposes a supermarket which is located on land that is:
   • Not within the identified main street core retail centre; and
   • Not on land that is identified as being suitable for a supermarket, specifically super blocks 1 and 2; and
   • On land that is identified as being provided for course grain retail development that is not suited to the pedestrian oriented Main Street, being variously referred to as "highway sales", "peripheral sales" or "bulky goods retail".
2. Fabcot's contention is not that there should not be a second supermarket, but that any supermarket must be located within the area identified in the Town Centre Strategy for the location of supermarkets. This will ensure that the main street format proposed for the town centre can in fact be delivered.
3. By order dated 12 March 2014, the Tribunal directed that the application for declarations by Fabcot in application P120/2014 would be heard and determined before considering the merits of application P2671/2013, which relate to Planning Permit Application No 714183. Accordingly, these reasons relate to application P120/2014.
4. The key issue for determination is whether this permit application is generally in accordance with the Mernda Town Centre Comprehensive Development Plan (MTCCDP), which is the "Town Centre Strategy" referred to in the declarations being sought.

1. There are a multiplicity of planning controls affecting the subject land pursuant to which a permit is required for various aspects of the proposal. For the purpose of this proceeding we are concerned with the need for a permit for use and development under the Comprehensive Development Zone. The zone provisions[3] provide that in respect of use of land and buildings and works, any requirement in the schedule to this zone must be met.
2. Schedule 1 to the Comprehensive Development Zone (CDZ1) relates to the MTCCDP. The purpose of the CDZ1 includes:

To designate land suitable for a compact, pedestrian oriented and traditional mixed use town centre. ...

To implement and support the Plenty Valley Strategic Plan and Mernda Strategy Plan.

1. Retail premises (other than adult sex bookshop) is a section 2 permit required use. Clause 2.0 of the CDZ1 provides that:

All use of land, including open space and the use of land for residential purposes, must be generally in accordance with the Mernda Town Centre Comprehensive Development Plan (and any further Incorporated Plan and Development Plan required under this scheme).

1. Clause 6.0 of the CDZ1 is in similar terms with respect to a permit being required to construct a building or construct or carry out works for a use in section 2 of this schedule. The buildings and works must be generally in accordance with the MTCCDP (and any further Incorporated Plan and Development Plan required under this scheme).
2. The MTCCDP is an incorporated plan in the Whittlesea Planning Scheme and represents the comprehensive development plan for the land in CDZ1. This is the designated Town Centre land in the Mernda Strategy Plan. The MTCCDP comprises texts and plans. A copy of the comprehensive development plan for the Mernda town centre included in the MTCCDP is included in Appendix A.
3. The Fabcot land is included in the core Mixed Use Area in the MTCCDP. A copy of Figure 1 showing the core Mixed Use Area is included in Appendix B. The MTCCDP notes in its introduction that the Mernda Town Centre will be a sub-regional centre that will service a primary catchment of around 50,000 people when the Mernda Urban Growth Area is fully developed. It states that a catchment of this size is sufficient to support two supermarkets, a discount department store, and an extensive range of specialty shops. To realise the type of Town Centre that is envisaged by the Mernda Strategy Plan, five sets of Urban Design Principles have been adopted and set out to guide the Comprehensive Development Plan. Section 3 of the MTCCDP addresses elements of the Town Centre. It discusses streets and roads, the core mixed use area, retail and commercial development outside the mixed use core and other elements.
4. It is relevant to quote what is said in the MTCCDP about the core mixed use area and retail and commercial development outside the mixed use core because the language of these sections was subject to forensic scrutiny on the part of witnesses and advocates at the hearing in terms of whether the permit application by Ai Group could be said to be generally in accordance with the MTCCDP.

The proposed Main Street and Secondary Street provide a structure for four super-blocks that can accommodate large-format retail buildings and associated car parking. These are shown in Figure 1.

Super-Block 1 can support a full-line supermarket of approximately 3,300m2 that is sleeved by a range of specialty shops with direct street frontage. This will be the Town's major supermarket and will meet the weekly shopping requirement of local residents. Sufficient land is available for an internalised car park to complement on-street parking. Mid-block access will be provided from Bridge Inn Road to Main Street. The Town Centre is expected to grow outwards from this corner.

Super-block 2 is the site for the second smaller supermarket and specialty shops. This supermarket will also be sleeved by fine-grain shops that present directly to Main Street and Second Street. An internal car park will be provided behind the specialty shops that line the northern and eastern edges of this super-block.

Super-block 3 could support community buildings with frontage to Second Street. Retail buildings will be provided on the frontages to Main Street and the Bridge Inn Road service lane. Some medium density residential development, possibly with ground floor retail, can be provided on the south-east corner of the super-block. Car parking and a green space will also be provided within this super-block.

Super-block 4 will support a discount department store (DDS) with a presumed floor area of around 7,000m2. The DDS will be sleeved by fine-grain retail premises along its frontage to Main Street and Second Street. The DDS building will however have a prominent entry point from the south-east corner of the Main Street/Second Street intersection. A large car park for the DDS can be provided at the southern end of the super-block.

Multi-level buildings that can accommodate a vertical mixing of uses, including a residential component, will be encouraged in the Town Centre core.

Retail and Commercial Development Outside the Mixed-Use Core

The Comprehensive Development Plan makes provision for coarse-grain retail development that is not suited to the pedestrian-oriented Main Street. This form of development is variously referred to as 'highway sales', 'peripheral sales' or 'bulky goods retail'. It typically requires large pad-sites and arterial road frontage, generally with service road access. Other land uses such as petrol-filling stations, garden supplies, and fast-food restaurants have similar needs.

The Comprehensive Development Plan will accommodate this form of development by providing numerous sites on the western side of Plenty Road and on either side of Bridge Inn Road. Sites in the employment park with frontage to Second Street may also be suitable for this type of retailing. These sites are confined to the limits of the Comprehensive Development Plan area to ensure a compact urban form.

1. The whole of the Mernda area is included in the Incorporated Plan Overlay (IPO1), including the subject land and the Fabcot land. IPO1 provides that the Mernda Strategy Plan applies to all land shown in the Incorporated Plan Overlay (Schedule 1).
2. The Mernda Strategy Plan is an incorporated document in the planning scheme. Under the Incorporated Plan Overlay, a permit granted must be generally in accordance with the incorporated plan.[4]
3. The Mernda Strategy Plan is stated to be the primary policy document to guide and inform the preparation of development plans and subsequent subdivision plans for the Mernda Growth Area.
4. Under the Mernda Strategy Plan, the land around the intersection of Plenty and Bridge Inn Roads is included in a Precinct Activity Centre and is land designated for retail/mixed use. The area covered by the Mernda Strategy Plan is divided into precincts. The subject land is included in Precinct 3, whilst the Fabcot land is included in Precinct 5.
5. The Precinct 3 plan in the Mernda Strategy Plan points to the red cross hatched area on the north side of Bridge Inn Road as "sites for retail and business/commercial land - uses requiring arterial road frontage." It is a moot point whether this refers to all the red cross hatched area north of Bridge Inn Road or only that on the east side of Plenty Road as suggested by the council.
6. The Precinct 5 plan in the Mernda Strategy Plan identifies the Fabcot land with a retail/mixed use designation. A line points to the red cross hatched area and states:

Mernda Town Centre - approximately 50 hectares in area (including land in Precinct 3 and 4). At full development the centre could support up to 27,500m2 (GFA) of retail and 74,450m2 (GFA) of business/commercial. Land has also been set aside for possible one of uses such as a tertiary education campus. Refer to detail development plan.

1. Section 3.4 of the Mernda Strategy Plan deals with Activity Centres. Section 3.4.1 deals with Activity Centre Hierarchy and states:

When fully developed the Mernda Town Centre is expected to have the following characteristics:

• A footprint of approximately 50 hectares and contain around 30,000m2 of retail floorspace and up to 80,000m2 of other business/commercial floorspace.
• Support medium/high density housing and community buildings in appropriate locations.
• Excellent integration with the transportation system.
• A rail station and associated transport interchange.
• A compact form with pedestrian friendly streets and public spaces.
• High architectural and urban design standards that generate local identity.
• Attractive sites for anchor tenants.
• Suitable sites for "highway sales" developments with arterial road frontage.
• Promote local employment and economic development.

1. Section 3.4.3 deals with Activity Centre Design and provides:
   • Activity centres should be positioned on arterial or major collector roads to aid retail exposure and accessibility. Traditional activity centre design based on a "main street" is encouraged. Commercial buildings should be oriented towards pedestrian friendly streets, plazas or open space. Facades should be varied and articulated to create visual interest and make streets and public spaces more engaging for pedestrians. Multi-level buildings that enable a vertical mixing of uses are encouraged. ...
   • Highway-sales or bulky-goods retail development should be restricted to sites on Plenty Road and Bridge Inn Road within the limits of the Mernda Town Centre footprint.

1. The Development Plan Overlay requires that a permit granted must be generally in accordance with an approved development plan and include any conditions or requirements specified in a schedule to the overlay.[5]
2. Schedule 15 to the Development Plan Overlay (DPO15) applies to the Mernda Town Centre Development Plan. Clause 2.0 of DPO15 requires that a separate development plan must be prepared for each of the following areas affected by this overlay:
   • Land north of Bridge Inn Road and east of Plenty Road.
   • Land north of Bridge Inn Road and west of Plenty Road.
   • Land south of Bridge Inn Road and east of Plenty Road including land to the east of the railway reservation.
   • Land south of Bridge Inn Road and west of Plenty Road.
3. A development plan must show general consistency with the relevant Incorporated Plan (Mernda Strategy Plan and Mernda Town Centre Comprehensive Development Plan).
4. Schedule 16 to the Development Plan Overlay (DPO16) relates to the Mernda Township Development Plan. Clause 1.0 of DPO16 enables the responsible authority to grant a permit for the subdivision, use or development prior to the approval of a development plan provided that the responsible authority is satisfied that the subdivision, use or development will not prejudice the future use or development of the land for the purpose of the zone or any other aspect of the Municipal Strategic Statement. Clause 2.0 of DPO16 provides that development plans must show application of the principles of the relevant incorporated plan.
5. There is an anomaly in the Whittlesea Planning Scheme about the application of DPO15 and DPO16. The text of DPO15 is clearly intended to apply to the Mernda Town Centre Development Plan, including land both north and south of Bridge Inn Road. In particular, it includes direction that a Development Plan must be prepared for "Land north of Bridge Inn Road and west of Plenty Road", which is the NWDP area. The text of DPO15 then includes specific detail of how the respective development plans to be prepared should be consistent with the Mernda Strategy Plan and the MTCCDP. However, the Planning Scheme Map identifies the land at the north west corner of Plenty Road and Bridge Inn Road as within DPO16. DPO16 also applies to a number of small sections of land east of Plenty Road in the Mernda Township area. The text of DPO16 is more broad but does include direction that a development plan must show "application of the principles of the relevant incorporated plan". In application of either DPO, the associated development plan must be consistent with the relevant incorporated plans.
6. The following development plans have been approved under DPO15 and DPO16.
7. The Mernda Town Centre Development Plan was approved under DPO15 in 2012 for the Fabcot land. It includes some departures in detail from the MTCCDP, but has not been challenged as not being generally in accordance with the MTCCDP.
8. The North West Development Plan (NWDP) was approved in 2012 and includes the subject land. It was prepared by Tract Consultants on behalf of Ai Group. The body of the NWDP refers to DPO16 and the requirements for preparation of a development plan under DPO16. Nevertheless the NWDP is stamped as being approved "in accordance with clause 43.04 schedule 15 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme". It appears that this is on the basis that the planning officer considered there was an error in the planning scheme maps and that the subject land should be included in DPO15 rather than DPO16.
9. Irrespective of whether there is an error in the planning scheme maps, the subject land is clearly shown as being in DPO16 and the development plan for the subject land should be endorsed pursuant to DPO16. It will require an amendment to the planning scheme to correct this anomaly. In the meantime, despite the way in which the NWDP is endorsed, we have proceeded on the basis that it is a development plan that has been approved under DPO16 and that it is generally in accordance with the relevant incorporated plan, which the parties all agree is the MTCCDP.
10. The NWDP consists of text, plans and illustrations. Section 3.3 of the NWDP deals with 'Key Land Uses and Buildings'. It states:

The development plan proposes a mixture of land uses, including retail, residential and office. Ground floor [sic] uses are primarily retail, whilst the upper floors will be used for either residential or office. Upper floors may also be used for medical centres, child care, gymnasium or associated uses. Areas of open space are also proposed around major trees and to assist in providing pedestrian connections across the site.

1. A copy of 'figure 5. Development Plan' is included in Appendix C. It is relevant to note that when the NWDP was approved, the Council specifically excluded any reference to a supermarket for the land.

IS THE PERMIT APPLICATION GENERALLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MTCCDP?

1. It is well established and accepted by all parties, that:
   • General accordance is a question of fact, to be assessed on the facts and circumstances of each case.
   • The less precision there is in the primary document/s, the more flexibility is given by the phrase "generally in accordance with".
   • "Generally in accordance" does not require the proposed development to be identical to that described in the development plan or incorporated plan.
   • It is appropriate to read the development plan or incorporated plan as a whole when making this assessment, and to have regard to the objectives, responses and plans comprising the approved plan.[6]
2. There are various plans that the proposed use and development and any permit issued must be generally in accordance with under the CDZ1, ICPO1 and DPO16 (namely, the Mernda Strategy Plan, Mernda Town Centre Comprehensive Development Plan and North West Development Plan). However, the key plan relevant to this proceeding is the Mernda Town Centre Comprehensive Development Plan (MTCCDP), which is the incorporated plan under the Comprehensive Development Zone (CDZ1). When considering this document and deciding whether the proposed use and development is generally in accordance with it, it is relevant to have regard to the plan as a whole, including its language and intent.

1. The Mernda Town Centre Comprehensive Development Plan (MTCCDP) is a strategic planning document in its nature, setting a policy framework for decision making in the town centre. It is therefore written in strategic planning language using a format of establishing a preferred 'vision' for the centre and strategies to achieve preferred outcomes. It does not prescribe a set of land uses in the way that a zone would or establish specific built form controls. Rather, it takes an integrated urban design.
2. The need to read this document as a whole to understand its intent and aspiration is something acknowledged by Mr Gobbo in his cross examination of Mr Barlow's evidence.
3. The opening statement of the MTCCDP directs that it is the 'valued characteristics of a traditional urban village' that is sought. The MTCCDP repeatedly refers to the creation of a 'core' within which a 'main street' environment will establish this traditional urban village. At the heart of the 'main street' or 'urban village' approach are the numerous statements throughout the MTCCDP about establishing a 'mixed use core' around which other uses can establish to support this core.
4. 'Traditional urban village' and 'main street' are both town planning terms derived from the new urbanist movement that commenced in the late 20th century. They therefore derive a specific meaning in a town planning document, and care should be exercised in applying a simple, plain English reading of these terms.
5. A traditional urban village is a concept of establishing a walkable neighbourhood, ideally associated with public transport interchange. This is partly to establish environmentally sustainable design but also to create a sense of place or identity to a place, rather than urban environments being a series of individual, segregated land uses. The "urban village" typology is embedded in centralising uses and mixing uses into a core, around which housing is focussed to create a walkable catchment.
6. The Australian Concise Oxford Dictionary defines a "main street" as "the principal street of a town". When correlated with the urban village concept, this "main street" is the main traditional shopping street where the principal shops and businesses are situated. In the MTCCDP it is clear that the 'main street' is not the main vehicle thoroughfare but rather the main pedestrian focal point.
7. The main street, mixed use core proposed in the MTCCDP is at the south east corner of Bridge Inn Road and Plenty Road. The location of 'the core' is not disputed by parties to the application, only whether the 'core' is the only location in which a supermarket can establish. Specifically, Mr Gobbo submitted that a supermarket is not prohibited in other precincts and therefore should be able to be tested by Council as a proposal, not simply 'prohibited'.
8. There is nothing in the MTCCDP that suggests a supermarket is prohibited outside of the core area. However, the MTCCDP is not written in a way that lists all the uses that should or should not go in each precinct. To be generally in accordance with the MTCCDP we consider that it takes more than simply determining the use is not prohibited. The directions of the MTCCDP are more holistic in its vision to establish an urban village typology. Therefore to determine if a use is 'generally in accordance' with the plan there is a need to consider the use location according to design parameters that go to establishing a traditional urban village.
9. The MTCCDP identifies that both restricted retailing and core retailing includes uses that have large footprints. However, it differentiates how these two forms of retailing with large footprints should be addressed.
10. Within the core mixed use area it states the area "can support a full line supermarket... that is sleeved by a range of speciality shops with direct street frontage". At the time of writing the MTCCDP only one full line supermarket was envisaged and this was proposed to be located in the core.
11. The MTCCDP directs that all uses should have active frontage, but differentiates the capacity of notably Plenty Road but also Bridge Inn Road, as 'too hostile for fine grain retailing' environments where fine grain retailing is not suited.
12. It goes on to state that "Bridge Inn Road is projected to carry over 20,000 vehicles per day and will ultimately be constructed as a four lane divided road. It will have similar characteristics to Plenty Road in terms of its retail and commercial potential and, as a consequence, is not suited to a main street function".
13. It is quite clear that the MTCCDP considers large format retailing that is 'core retailing' should locate in the mixed use core where it can integrate into a 'main street' environment.
14. The document repeatedly refers to the establishment of a main street and that the location for this is within the core retail environment in a traditional neighbourhood environment. This includes direction for large format retailing (notably the directions in the mixed use core - 'section b' refer to supermarkets) to be sleeved by fine grain retailing.
15. Conversely, the proposed location of the second supermarket pursuant to the permit application for the subject land is on the north west corner of Plenty Road and Bridge Inn Road. The approved Mernda Town Centre North West Development Plan (NWDP) identifies a footprint for "retail / office" at second level to face both Plenty Road and Bridge Inn Road. Whilst "retail" is consistent with the MTCCDP for this north west site, the MTCCDP directs specifically that:

Projected traffic volumes on Plenty Road and Bridge Inn Road are not conducive to a pedestrian orientated Town Centre environment. These roads will be too hostile for fine grain retailing and are more suited to bulky highway sales developments.

1. Hence, whilst the MTCCDP and NWDP direct use of the north west site for retail use, it is quite apparent that the direction of the MTCCDP is that this site is not a location for "main street" or fine grain retailing functions.
2. It is the combination of these design directives that are considered to be the specific and consistent requirements of the MTCCDP which cannot be achieved on the subject land as the proposed location for a supermarket. The NWDP identifies a footprint for retailing that faces directly to Plenty Road and Bridge Inn Road with car park behind, it does not establish a 'main street' environment or a traditional neighbourhood, grid typology sought by the MTCCDP.
3. The approved NWDP provides a design layout that accords with the direction to locate footprints for uses conducive to highway frontages, being bulky goods retailing.
4. Our reading of the MTCCDP is that for a supermarket to establish it should be sleeved by a range of speciality shops with direct street frontage to a 'main street' environment. Such speciality shops are fine grain retailing that are to be located in the main core, so as to create a traditional neighbourhood village. The MTCCDP expressly states that such form is not conducive to Plenty Road and Bridge Inn Road. Rather, the MTCCDP directs a 'main street' environment to encourage walking and social engagement as a 'traditional urban village'. Its location close to the future transport hub is critical to principles underlying this traditional main street approach.
5. In our view, given the overall objectives of the MTCCDP area to create a 'traditional urban village' based on a 'main street' grid/core of activity within which the supermarket and department store retailing will occur, the corollary is that it will not occur out of this core. The introductory statements in section 3 of the MTCCDP reinforce that "retail development should have a strong relationship to the street" and that "the relationship between buildings, their uses, and the street will be a fundamental determinant of the Town's economic performance". This is supported by the broader directions of the Mernda Strategy Plan (section 3.4.3 page 26) that "Traditional activity centre design based on a 'main street' is encouraged".
6. The NWDP does not identify what is described by the MTCCDP as a pedestrian friendly, main street environment onto which speciality retailing with a large format supermarket behind can establish. This is consistent with the MTCCDP that directs this 'main street' environment to be located away from Plenty Road and Bridge Inn Road to a location south east of the intersection, and the Urban Design Principle #1 of the MTCCDP to "Concentrate most intensive mixed use development in the core of the Town Centre - close to public transport and arterial roads". We note that Mr Gobbo pointed out that this direction refers to "most" not "the most" intensive uses, implying that some intensive uses may occur outside of the core. However, we regard this as a question of semantics. Whether this direction means "most of" rather than "the most", is not considered sufficient justification to warrant a significant deviation from the more consistent directions of the MTCCDP.
7. It was not disputed that the 'mixed use core' was to the south east of the intersection, or that this was the location of the main street. Even if the NWDP did create a main street environment and thereby created a second 'core', we consider this would represent such a significant shift in strategy it would not then be generally in accordance with the MTCCDP.
8. Mr Gobbo contended some shifts had already occurred in approving the Mernda Town Centre Development Plan (MTCDP) for the area at the south east corner of Bridge Inn Road and Plenty Road. Whilst the main street / second street axis has now emphasised the north south alignment rather than the east west alignment and moved more to the south, off the intersection of Plenty Road and Bridge Inn Road, the fundamental principle of providing a large format core retail, including a DDS and supermarkets in the 'main street' environment close to where public transport is planned, has not altered. The design of this core in the MTCDP appears to meet the specific directions of the MTCCDP to provide large format (intensive) retailing behind speciality retailing that in turn faces directly to a main street. Such a main street format cannot be found in the approved NWDP.
9. If there is economic support for a second full line supermarket, which we acknowledge is a question to be determined in the context of considering the merits of the permit application, it should be to reinforce the core activity centre as a main street, not establish a secondary core.

1. In the CDZ1, a permit is required for both use and development of land. In each case, the use and development must be generally in accordance with the MTCCDP. Whether the use and development is generally in accordance with the MTCCDP is a question of jurisdictional fact.
2. The contentious element of the permit application is the use and development of the subject land for the purpose of a supermarket. It is this component (both use and development) that Fabcot submits is not generally in accordance with the MTCCDP. Other aspects of the proposed use (medical centre, convenience restaurant and gym) are not contended to be contrary to the MTCCDP. We agree. The critical aspect is the supermarket.
3. Mr Gobbo submitted that:
   • The MTCCDP does not purport to operate as a zone control by prohibiting specific land uses on specific sites.
   • In relation to supermarkets, the MTCCDP encourages and facilitates a supermarket of approximately 3,300m2 and a smaller supermarket (scale and type not stated) on specific super blocks within the mixed use core of the town centre.
   • Properly understood, the MTCCDP does not remove the discretion to consider a further supermarket on the subject land. It is not a prohibition. As a supermarket is clearly a retail use permissible in the CDZ1, clear words would be necessary to shut out the available discretion.
   • The level of guidance in the MTCCDP in relation to supermarkets is at a relatively low and general level. Properly understood, the MTCCDP expresses a preference (indeed a strong preference) for the location of a full line and a smaller supermarket. It is not expressing a preference for location of, let alone a prohibition of, of any further supermarkets.
   • The merits of the proposed supermarket are absolutely irrelevant. The "consequences" of finding the proposal is generally in accordance with the MTCCDP are absolutely irrelevant. The Tribunal would be falling into error if it allowed any of the foreshadowed concerns about the proposal to infect its determination on the discreet threshold question.
   • The Tribunal must also be vigilant not to allow the applicant's evidence and submissions about the rationale for the MTCCDP, and the alleged consequences of undermining that rationale, to be taken as if actually part of the text or graphics of the MTCCDP. They are not. The document must be read on its face.
   • Whilst it is appropriate to read planning documents purposively, and not in an overly technical or legalistic manner, the plain words must be the starting point. There is no warrant in this case for implying or adding in additional words to bring about the prohibition sought by the applicant.
4. The evidence being referred to by Mr Gobbo is the expert planning evidence of Mr Barlow and the expert economic evidence of Mr Duane for Fabcot. Whilst some of their evidence dealt with the specific merits of the permit application, they also gave evidence that:
   • Large format retail uses (supermarkets and DDS's, in particular supermarkets) are essential elements in the success of shopping centres, and invariably form their heart. They drive the performance of the centre as a whole, creating customer volumes that support the specialty stores, and pedestrian traffic that leads to activation of the centre.
   • Main street shopping centre development is a relatively new phenomenon in Australia. It is difficult to get right, in part because it requires a large provision of specialty stores, convenient car parking close to the anchor stores, and good connectivity.
   • A main street shopping centre requires anchor stores on both sides of the main street to encourage pedestrian flows, and to support the large provision of specialty shops required.
   • The consequences of a supermarket locating outside the core mixed use area are that:
     1. The development of a main street typology shopping centre, as envisaged in the MTCCDP, will be unlikely to proceed; and
     2. The overall provision of specialty shops will be less.
5. These propositions are generally understood principles within a strategic planning context for activity centres. The Tribunal is an expert planning Tribunal and understands these broad concepts. The expert evidence given in this case about these principles reinforces the Tribunal's understanding of them and our finding that these principles underlie the language and intent of the MTCCDP. We therefore reject Mr Gobbo's submission that we would be falling in to an error of law to give weight to these aspects of the evidence by Mr Barlow and Mr Duane. Ultimately, the findings of jurisdictional fact in this matter are ours alone, but we consider we are entitled to have regard to their evidence about the economic and planning principles which underlie and inform the MTCCDP.
6. We agree with Mr Gobbo that it is not relevant for us to consider the merits of granting a permit for this particular supermarket. Our task is confined to a consideration of whether allowing the use and development of the subject land for a supermarket would be generally in accordance with the MTCCDP.
7. We find that if a supermarket is permitted to locate outside the core mixed use area at the intersection of two primary arterial roads (Plenty Road and Bridge Inn Road), the purpose of the MTCCDP to create a compact, pedestrian oriented and traditional mixed use town centre will be frustrated and potentially thwarted. A supermarket is a key anchor store within a town centre. It will generate high customer numbers and encourage pedestrian flows, which in turn will support other specialty retail uses within the town centre. We find that locating a supermarket outside the core mixed used area will fragment the town centre structure envisaged by the MTCCDP of a traditional urban village. Separating a supermarket on the subject land from the main street, mixed use core proposed in the MTCCDP by two arterial roads that will ultimately be four lane divided roads carrying in excess of 20,000 vehicles per day, will discourage larger volumes of people from visiting the town centre core. From a planning perspective, we consider that the workability of the core and generation of multi purpose trips are likely to decline if supermarket uses are not all located within the core and the synergistic effects of core location will be lost. We consider further that the outcomes, which we have found will occur should a supermarket be located on the subject land, would not be consistent with the delivery of a compact walkable main street town centre.
8. We find that whilst retail use of the subject land is contemplated by the MTCCDP, it is not retail use for the purpose of supermarket. This type of retail use should be located within the mixed use core. The subject land is suited for more coarse grained bulky goods and highway related retailing. The lack of any outright prohibition on the supermarkets outside the core, in particular on the subject land, does not change our interpretation of the meaning and intent of the MTCCDP. As we have said, it is a strategic planning document and must be interpreted as such. We note that a planning permit is required for uses, not just development. The CDZ1 has been specifically and carefully drafted to retain control over the location of particular uses within the Mernda Town Centre. The MTCCDP has been drafted on the basis that there is control over both use and development. The direction it provides about the location of uses and the design of the centre as a whole is based on this level of control.
9. Accordingly, we find on the question of jurisdictional fact that the proposed use and development of the subject land for the purpose of a supermarket is not generally in accordance with the Mernda Town Centre Comprehensive Development Plan. Therefore, we propose to make the declarations applied for by Fabcot.
10. Finally, we note that these findings apply irrespective of whether this is a first, second or third supermarket. Should the council, in its capacity as planning authority, consider that circumstances have changed since the introduction of the MTCCDP such that a supermarket in a location outside of the retail core may be appropriate, then it should seek to amend the incorporated plan under the CDZ1 by way of a planning scheme amendment. Simply making a determination on the merits of a planning permit application is not the correct way to substantially alter the strategic intent of the MTCCDP as an incorporated document in the planning scheme.

[1] The Tribunal consists of Deputy President Helen Gibson and Member Alison Glynn. To the extent that section 149B of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 requires that the Tribunal's power under this section to make a declaration is exerciseable only by a presidential member of the Tribunal, such declaration has been made by Deputy President Gibson notwithstanding the language used in these reasons and orders.

[2] Under section 149B Planning and Environment Act 1987.

[6] Canet v Brimbank CC [2003] VCAT 13; Casey Garden's Development Pty Ltd v Casey CC [2009] VCAT 2489; Bachley Street Pty Ltd v Maribyrnong CC [2013] VCAT 766