Council wants government to reject 'ugly, out-of-date' town centre plan

A council in Melbourne's outer north has slammed an updated plan for a town centre next to a train station, with one councillor describing it as a "glorified drive-through".

There is already a shopping centre at the site next to the train station at the end of the Mernda line, and several river red gums.

The updated plan for the rest of the town centre at Mernda has been submitted through the Victorian government's development facilitation program, meaning it will bypass the council and go to the planning minister for approval after the November state election.

The City of Whittlesea will object to the plan, saying it is too car-dominated at the expense of a walkable town centre, and does not provide enough housing.

The plan for the 24-hectare site on the corner of Plenty Road and Bridge Inn Road includes buildings of up to 10 storeys housing retail, public space and between 298 and 368 homes, including some affordable housing.

It also includes 628 street-level car parks.

"Mernda Town Centre will be a vibrant, mixed use, green and people-focused destination," the plan reads.

'A glorified car park'

The council disagreed, and said the plan was a significant change from the one it endorsed in 2009 and amended in 2018.

"The type of retail proposed is more akin to a homemaker centre which is more suitably located on the outer edge of a town centre, where car use is reliant," council officers said in a report to councillors.

At an unscheduled meeting, councillors voted to write to the state government, calling for the plan to be scrapped.

"Council's endorsed vision is for the site to become Mernda's primary retail and commercial town centre, with more homes, quality buildings, community facilities, attractive streets and safe walking routes for pedestrians," the City of Whittlesea said in a statement.

"The landowner's revised proposal moves significantly away from that vision."

Councillor Jarrod Lappin described the plan as "isolated, car-centric, a glorified drive-through".

He said the retail aspect of the plan was particularly disappointing.

"It seeks big-box-style storage buildings which are spread out across the site, only broken up by rows and rows of car parks," he said.

Not enough housing

Cr Lappin said the plan for up to 368 homes was not enough, with council officers finding between 777 and 1,450 homes could fit on the site.

"It's uninspired, it's negligent and it's a dramatic under-utilisation of this central and important piece of land which is a shared asset for this community," he said.

"This plan … is only designed to turn a profit quickly."

Council officers noted the state government had a plan to increase density around transport hubs, like train stations.

"A proposal for less housing, in a location designated for higher housing density of housing is inconsistent with the intentions of Victoria's Housing Statement, state planning policy and risks directing more housing to less appropriate locations," officers found.

Expert says 'ugly' plan is 'from the 1950s'

RMIT Centre for Urban Research Professor Jago Dodson said he understood the council's concerns.

"Looking at the plan as it is currently proposed, a large area of the plan is surface car parking," he said.

"It's effectively just producing a pretty ugly and inefficient suburban big box development next to a rail station, which is a real wasted opportunity."

He said town centres, especially in growth areas, were an important opportunity to set the community up for sustainable transport.

"If you have a town centre that's very car-dependent, then that will tend to drive, so to speak, people to use their cars to get there," he said.

Professor Dodson said communities deserved better.

"This is a type of development from the 1950s, we're in the late 2020s, we should be doing far better than this,"

he said.

"I really hope the professional planners who work in the state agencies have given some pretty clear advice to the minister that this is an out-of-date, retrograde development.

"It would be embarrassing, from my point of view, if professional planners were actively endorsing this kind of development."

A spokesperson for the government declined to comment on a planning application during the caretaker period.

In a statement, developer Dorman Capital rejected the council's characterisation of the project as "simply untrue".

Dorman Capital said council officers continued to refer to a development plan "dating back decades without any consideration to how their vision would be economically viable today".

Managing director Nicholas Dorman said the company had met with council officers for nearly two years and made a number of concessions, which had failed to satisfy council.

"We have never been afforded the opportunity to meet with Councillors and everything they were presented at their Unscheduled Council Meeting [on Thursday] rested mostly on the planning officer's interpretation of our proposal," Mr Dorman said.

"If we are forced to start again, Mernda may be waiting another two decades for a town centre."

The ABC contacted the opposition for comment, as well as the town planner, Tract.