Key Takeaways
- The Pakenham Place Shopping Centre has been largely vacant for years, with only a Coles supermarket and Liquorland still operating after Target’s 2021 closure.
- Developers Banco Group and Leaf Corporation purchased the precinct in 2020, planning a major mixed‑use redevelopment that would include new retail, residential, and community spaces.
- A heritage‑listed interwar bungalow at 39 Main Street, owned by the developers, sits adjacent to the centre and is protected by a heritage overlay, requiring a demolition permit for any alteration.
- Cardinia Shire Council’s officers refused the demolition permit in late January 2026, citing insufficient conservation measures and lack of a proposed replacement development; the decision was made under delegation without public debate.
- The developers appealed to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT), arguing that retaining the house blocks the site’s “gateway” function and hampers feasible redevelopment, while opponents warn that demolishing heritage erodes community character and sets a dangerous precedent.
- As of mid‑2026, the VCAT hearing is pending, leaving the redevelopment timeline uncertain and the shopping centre continue to suffer from vandalism, squatting, and a perception of neglect.
Background of the Redevelopment Plan
In 2020, Banco Group and Leaf Corporation acquired the Pakenham Place Shopping Centre precinct, envisioning a transformative project that would replace the aging retail hub with a vibrant mixed‑use development. The proposal called for new shops, residential apartments, communal facilities, and improved public realm connections to the nearby train station. The developers framed the project as essential for revitalising a suburb that, despite its growing population, lacked diverse retail options and suffered from an eyesore at the heart of the community.
Current State of Pakenham Place
Since Target’s closure in 2021, much of the centre has lain boarded up and abandoned. Graffiti defaces exterior walls, barbed‑wire fencing deters trespassers, and the vacant spaces have attracted squatters and illicit activity. Resident Nicole Taylor described the precinct as “embarrassing” and said its rundown appearance depresses community morale and discourages visitors. She noted that the suburb already contains many residents but offers only the bare minimum of services, reinforcing the sense that the shopping centre is a neglected liability rather than an asset.
Heritage Property at 39 Main Street
Adjacent to the shopping centre sits a 1929 interwar bungalow on Main Street, listed under a heritage overlay that recognises its individual significance. The building is currently unoccupied, boarded up, and has suffered repeated break‑ins despite security upgrades. Because the developers own the land, any demolition or alteration would require a planning permit, triggering an assessment of heritage conservation guidelines. The property’s location is described by the developers’ town planner as a “gateway” to the precinct, suggesting that its presence influences access and visibility for the proposed redevelopment.
Council’s Permit Refusal Process
In late January 2026, Cardinia Shire Council’s planning officers issued a refusal for the demolition permit. The refusal document argued that the developers had not adequately addressed conservation requirements and had not submitted a concrete plan for what would replace the heritage house. Although the activity‑centre zone encourages mixed‑use development and generally does not require a permit for demolition, the heritage overlay creates an exception that mandates careful consideration. Notably, no councillors raised questions during an internal briefing, so the matter was decided by officers under delegation and never debated at an open council meeting—a point that later drew criticism from transparency advocates.
Developers’ Argument for Demolition
Banco Group and Leaf Corporation contested the refusal, taking the dispute to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) with a hearing scheduled for June 4, 2026. Their town planner contended that retaining the bungalow would “significantly impede” development, rendering the site unusable as a gateway and limiting the feasible scale of new construction. Architect and conservation consultant John Briggs, engaged by the developers, acknowledged the heritage loss but argued that the public amenity benefits of a revitalised activity centre outweighed the limited community gain from preserving a single, deteriorating house.
Community and Opposition Views
Local resident Andrew Cook, who grew up in Pakenham and now lives in nearby Drouin, stood as the sole objector to the demolition application. He warned that allowing the demolition of a heritage‑listed building would erode the purpose of heritage protections, giving developers unchecked liberty to remove historic fabric. Cook emphasised that even a small corner block contributes to the suburb’s character and that its removal would set a precedent undermining future conservation efforts. Other community members echoed concerns about losing tangible links to Pakenham’s past, fearing that short‑term economic gains could sacrifice long‑term cultural identity.
Council’s Position and Public Communication
Cardinia Shire Council maintains that the redevelopment of Pakenham Place is a private‑sector responsibility, as the land is privately owned. Acting General Manager of Community and Planning Wayne Mack reiterated that the council refused the permit because the property is individually significant, and that the owner may still pursue demolition of surrounding properties. The council expressed continued support for the redevelopment outlook but declined further comment while the VCAT process is underway, citing procedural constraints. A spokesperson did not respond to inquiries regarding why the permit refusal was not discussed publicly or whether the activity‑centre zone’s objectives were fully weighed in the decision.
Implications for the Redevelopment Timeline
The ongoing VCAT review has injected uncertainty into the project schedule. No confirmed timeline exists for the commencement of works, and the shopping centre remains in its deteriorated state, continuing to attract graffiti, vandalism, and squatting. Should the tribunal uphold the council’s refusal, developers may need to redesign the proposal to incorporate or adaptively reuse the heritage house, potentially altering density, layout, and financial viability. Conversely, a decision in favor of demolition could clear the way for the envisioned mixed‑use development, though it would likely provoke further heritage‑advocacy scrutiny and possibly trigger additional legal challenges.
Broader Lessons for Heritage‑Led Development
The Pakenham Place case illustrates the tension between urgent urban renewal ambitions and statutory heritage safeguards. It underscores the importance of early, transparent dialogue between developers, councils, heritage experts, and the community to identify mutually acceptable solutions—such as adaptive reuse, sympathetic integration, or compensatory heritage measures—before disputes escalate to tribunals. The outcome will not only shape the future of a single suburban precinct but also signal how Melbourne’s outer‑growth corridors balance growth, amenity, and the preservation of local character in the years ahead.