22 It states the location of a market on the review site in a proposed mixed use residential area would be consistent with this policy. This was supported by Mr De Giovanni who was critical of the effectiveness of the St Albans Activity Centre because of its fragmentation by the railway line and Main Road East/West. He indicated that this, together with a lack of parking opportunities and traffic issues, make St Albans Activity Centre less than ideal location for retailing. He also supported the Responsible Authority's contention that the "handful of non-food stalls at the proposed market will hardly compete with the over 7000m2 of non-food shopping space".
23 The Council has recently released an Urban Design Framework for the St Albans Centre developed in 2002 by David Lock Associates and worked on as a sub-consultant by Mr Henshall. This Framework allows for an extension of retail floor space within the current St Albans Activity Centre of some 1200m2. Mr Henshall was concerned that if this market on the subject site is permitted it will take up some 970m2 of that available space leaving only 230m2 for other premises within the centre. This allowance is to provide for additional floor space over the next five years until 2011. The Urban Design Framework also has an expectation that there will be redevelopment of sites within the centre that may allow for increase in floor space allocation.
24 It was put to Mr Henshall by Mr Baulch and Mr De Giovanni that he had relied heavily on the UDF in his analysis of the impact the proposal would have on the existing centre, in particular Sam's Market and because it was an unincorporated document it should be given lesser weight than incorporated documents or policies. Mr Henshall agreed that it was a reference document but believed that, because the Council has adopted it, it places more importance on it. However, he also indicated that he had used the planning scheme policies on economic development, retail and commercial activities that he believed were relevant. He was of the opinion that, if the market was on the periphery of the existing centre, then it would make more sense than for it being located well away from any activity centre. I agree with him.
25 In my view this proposed retail activity is well removed from any other retailing although there is a small neighbourhood centre several hundred metres up Theodore Street. It is as it were in the back blocks. While it does have some connectivity with a bus route on Theodore Street it is well removed from the railway station. The type of activity that goes on at a market such as proposed requires people to take produce away from it in bulk and, if one is a pedestrian, then there needs to be a regular transport connection within very close proximity. Examples of this are the Footscray Market where there is both train and tram activity close by, Victoria Market the same and Dandenong Market that has public transport nearby.
26 At the hearing I gave some examples of Saturday and Sunday markets that also had fresh produce in the Geelong region, Sydney and Canberra. However, I agree with Mr Henshall that these are somewhat different from this proposal that will operate 4 or 5 days a week. I find that this subject site is poorly located and well removed from any other commercial and retail node to have any relevance in the retail hierarchy. I am not about to grant permits for poorly located retail and commercial developments.
27 The site is not in a Mixed Use Zone at this stage and if this is a relevant criterion then perhaps the Responsible Authority should wait until the site is rezoned appropriately to further consider such matters.
28 Mr Kusznirczuk in his submission quoted several previous Tribunal decisions in relation to retail activity. He quoted Burnside Properties v Melton Shire Council (1999/103954) where the Deputy President, Mrs Bruce, stated at para 396: