ATTACHMENT 3 – Schedule of Public Consultation Submissions From Initial RAR 204 Great Eastern Highway, Ascot LG Reference: 397/2015 DAP Reference: DAP/15/00869

CITY OF BELMONT SCHEDULE OF SUBMISSIONS

PLANNING APPLICATION 379/2015/DAP – CONVENIENCE STORE LOT 730 (204) GREAT EASTERN HWY, ASCOT

No. Name and Address Resume of Submission Officer Comment 1. Hungry Jack’s Pty Ltd

208 Great Eastern Highway

Support the convenience store land use component, but object to the service station development. a) Support the Convenience Store as Hungry Jack’s and believe it to be a

compatible business. b) Having the Caltex control building on the eastern boundary of the Lot and so

close to Great Eastern Highway blocks the visibility of passing traffic to HJ’s. This may cause some traffic safety concern. This could be solved by re-design of the petrol station layout.

c) If Main Roads requiring the entry and exit off Great Eastern Highway to the

petrol station to be closed, cars may use HJ’s as a rat-run to enter the rear of the petrol station. This has the potential to cause a bottleneck at the exit point of HJ’s drive-thru. A left-in only to the petrol station may be a better solution.

d) The potential for conflict where vehicles enters via HJ entry and attempt to

perform a left turn (via easement) into the petrol station, this may cause traffic backup and a dangerous situation due to the turning circle being too tight.

e) The fuel tanker requires the full width of the Resolution Drive crossover to

egress the site, this will impact on vehicle movements associated with Hungry Jacks.

a) Noted. b) Local Planning Scheme No. 15 and clause 5.11.1 (d) is silent on setback

required for a building to the side boundaries, therefore, the ability to reduce the side setback of a building within the Mixed Use zone is available. The building is setback in accordance with the primary street setback.

c) The proposed access arrangements are in accordance with the SVAP.

Ultimately, the SVAP aims to rationalise and consolidate access to balance the competing needs of regional traffic travelling along the highway and local traffic wishing to enter property on the highway. Main Roads preference is to amend the current access arrangement between Lot 501 and Lot 730 to a left in only access. This would be the main entrance of the SVAP from Great Eastern Highway.

While the Great Eastern Highway entry to 208 Great Eastern Highway should not be significantly impacted, the City has concerns over fuel tanker access and egress from the subject site. This is discussed in detail in the RAR.

d) Access from Great Eastern Highway via the Hungry Jacks crossover and

a tight left turn into Lot 730 would be difficult as the geometry to turn would be difficult to manoeuvre; however, this does not deter people from the attempt. The SVAP shows three easements to be created over Lot 730 on the northern, western and southern alignments. Main Roads and the City of Belmont are of the view that the southern easement would not be required as sufficient movement through the site is created via a combination of the western and northern alignments. It was discussed that the proposed easement on the southern elevation could be utilised as landscaping and pedestrian access in lieu of a public access easement. It was also intended that the removal of the southern easement would limit the connection to the Hungry Jacks site and prevent rat-running through the site.

e) Upgrades to the Great Eastern Highway began in 2012. During this time

an agreement could not be reached for shared access arrangement over Lot 730 to support a central access for the lots. Due to this Main Roads WA supported a left-in access only to Lot 100, engaged a land swap with Lot 1 (No. 18) Resolution Drive and reconfigured the public access to

Resolution Drive. The original design for the Resolution Drive crossover was insufficient to accommodate a safe and efficient access to the Hungry Jacks drive thru and therefore was specifically reconfigured to ensure correct geometry into Hungry Jacks drive thru.

Transport Impact Assessment indicates the fuel trucks cannot stay lane correct utilising the current access arrangements egress to Resolution Drive. The only means for the fuel tanker to exit the site is via the Resolution Drive crossover. Both Main Roads and the City of Belmont have identified that modifications are required to the existing crossover to ensure the fuel tankers remain land correct to ensure there are no conflicts with the incoming traffic to the Hungry Jacks drive thru. This is discussed in detail in the RAR.

2. City of Belmont

Property and Economic Development,

Lot 1 (No. 18) Resolution Drive, Ascot

Object to the service station development. a) There is concern that the proposed development of lot 730 (204) Great

Eastern Highway, Ascot into a Caltex Petrol Station will significantly limit the development potential of Lot 1 (No. 18) Resolution Drive and in turn the realisation of the City’s vision for the area. More specifically, there are concerns regarding the impact on: - Site access; - Local amenity; - Development potential; and - Property values

Impact on site access

b) The access and egress from Lot 730 (No. 204) Great Eastern Hwy is proposed to be gained from Great Eastern Highway and egress onto Resolution Drive via the existing public access easements over Lot 1 (No. 18) Resolution Drive and Lot 100 (No. 208) Great Eastern Highway. The Strategic Access Policy Plan, prepared by Main Roads, indicates that the existing 3 metre access easement over Lot 1 (No. 18) Resolution Drive should be mirrored over Lot 730 (204) Great Eastern Highway. An access easement should also be provided over the western boundary of Lot 730 Great Eastern Highway. These connections are fundamental to efficient and effective transport movements through these sites now and in the future. The current development application is not consistent with the Strategic Access Policy Plan and as such will compromise efficient and effective transport movements.

c) Beyond adherence to the Strategic Access Policy Plan, the City is very

concerned over fuel trucks using an easement that is currently heavily patronised by Hungry Jacks clients and may, eventually, be used for the employees and residents of a mixed use development at 18 Resolution Drive. Heavy vehicles impose physical and psychological effects on surrounding traffic flow because of their length, size and operational characteristics. It was never envisaged that these access easements would be utilised by heavy vehicles.

d) The existing easement over Lot 1 (No. 18) Resolution Drive grants to the Grantee, being the State of Western Australia acting through the Minister for Lands, and the public at large, the right to access the easement land with or without any motor vehicles. The rights granted to the Grantee under the easement are very broad and the easement currently does not include any limitations on the types of vehicles that may use the easement. As an

a) The concern over the suitability of the service station land use is noted.

The likely impact of the proposal on the Golden Gateway Project Structure Planning area is discussed in the RAR.

b) The application has been amended to provide access in accordance with the SVAP, however there are concerns over access and egress arrangements for fuel tankers associated with the proposed service station, this is further discussed in the RAR. c) Refer to response 2(b) above. d) The submission is noted; however, as of right vehicles (up to 19m in length) may access a public access easement. It is for the applicant to demonstrate that the lot is conducive for the land use and its ancillary delivery requirements. Currently, the Traffic Impact Assessment states that the fuel tankers cannot stay lane correct when

affected landowner, the City does not support fuel tanks using the public access easement and will consider contacting the Grantee to request that the easement be modified to limit the types of vehicles that are permitted to use the easement.

Impact on local amenity

e) Lot 730 (204) Great Eastern Hwy is currently a derelict site. It has been well documented that abandoned and derelict properties have a negative impact on local amenity. While any redevelopment of this site can be expected to generate some improved amenity, negative externalities will also result from a range of factors including, traffic congestion, noise, emissions, light pollution, odour, visual impact, operating hours and stigma, which will negatively impact the amenity of the area. This development will provide both amenity and disamenity to the local area. It is unclear from the development application whether the proposed development will represent a net improvement to the amenity of the site and surrounding area. Even if the net effect was positive, the impact of the development on individual land owners depends directly on proximity to the development. The benefits and costs that result from the development will be unevenly distributed, with adjacent landowners, like the City of Belmont, receiving very little benefit and incurring most of the costs.

Impact on development potential

f) For a single 7.5kL tank, AS1596:2014 specifies a minimum separation of 15m from residential premises and 10m from commercial uses. The size and location of the LPG storage tank proposed in the application is such that the required separation (10m-15m) would extend beyond the site boundary to encroach on Lot 1 (18) Resolution Drive. This would significantly limit of the development potential of Lot 1 (18) Resolution Drive.

g) AS1596 also specifies a population limit area, within which an equivalent population level should not be exceeded. For a single 7.5kL tank, the population limit area is a 55m radius of the tank. With this area, occupancy would be limited to 90 residents for residential uses and 300 persons for commercial uses. The 55m radius from the proposed location of the tank would take in almost the entirety of Lot 1 (18) Resolution Drive, as well as portions of the following surrounding lots, 208, 501 and 502 Great Eastern Highway and 101 and 133 Grandstand Road. Given the extent of existing development within the 55m radius, it is likely that, if the proposed development were to eventuate, any future development of Lot 1 (18) Resolution Drive would be severely constrained by the maximum population level under the Australian Standards.

h) The development application does not appear to consider the adherence of the proposed development to Australian Standards, nor does it consider the implications for those landowners, including the City of Belmont, which are located within the separation distance and population limit area. As an affected landowner, the City of Belmont would not be supportive of the restrictions this development would have on the development potential of

delivering fuel. The current access arrangement was designed for smaller vehicles, it is not sufficient to support the access of as of right vehicles and the access will require modification for the proposed land use. e) The use of ‘service station’ is an ‘A’ use in the Mixed Use zone under Local Planning Scheme No. 15 which means the use is not permitted unless the local government has exercised its discretion by granting planning approval after giving special notice in accordance with clause 9.4. The RAR discusses the suitability of the proposed service station land use. f,g & h) Currently Lot 1 (No. 18) Resolution Drive is vacant with the ability for

development in accordance with the objectives of the mixed use zone and the uses provided under that zone.

The application was referred to Department of Mines and Petroleum who stated that under dangerous goods legislation Caltex would be held solely responsible for maintaining the safety of the storage and if the surrounding land use changed then Caltex would be required to ensure the site’s compliance. The Department of Mines and Petroleum has no jurisdiction or control over the adjacent sites land uses. The SVAP provides an internal road vested as a public access easement the LPG tank would be required to be setback 6m from the Public Access Easement. Compliance with the setback of the LPG tank is discussed in the RAR.

Lot 1 (18) Resolution Drive.

Impact on property values

i) The likely negative externalities associated with the development including, the restrictions imposed on the development of adjacent properties, congestion to access to adjacent properties and the overall impact on the amenity of the local area is likely to adversely affect surrounding property values. This will erode the existing wealth of the adjacent land owners and revenue streams to all levels of government. While this, in and of itself, is not a planning concern, any reduction in property value is likely to limit the capacity for future development and redevelopment of the area. A developer will typically leverage the existing equity in their property to access capital to fund development. Facing lower property values, the developer will have less equity to leverage for redevelopment. The relative amenity of the site will also influence take up rates, and sale prices of the final product which will reduce the return on the investment. If both the equity and the potential return to a developer are eroded, it is likely that one or a number of following outcomes will result:

- Development and/or redevelopment will be of a smaller scale and/or lower quality than it otherwise would be;

- Development and/or redevelopment will be delayed;

- Development and/or redevelopment will not occur at all.

j) As an affected landowner, the City of Belmont would not be supportive of the unnecessary constraint to the development of Lot 1 (18) Resolution Drive.

k) It is the position of the City of Belmont, as an affected landowner, that the merits of the project are insufficient to ameliorate the associated negative externalities identified including, restrictions imposed on the development of adjacent properties, congestion, reduction in local amenity and erosion of surrounding property values and undermining the achievement of the City’s vision for its land holdings.

i) In essence, the planning issue for consideration by local government is not whether a proposal will adversely impact on the value of land but whether the proposal will have an adverse impact on the amenity of the locality. Accordingly, a submission that suggests a proposal will have an adverse impact on the value of land can be disregarded. It is more relevant for the purpose of determining this planning application to consider the suitability of the proposed land use in light of the likely adverse impact on the amenity of the locality. The suitability of the service station land use is discussed in the RAR. j) Refer to response 2(i) above. k) Noted. The proposal has been assess against the relevant planning framework as detailed in the RAR.

ATTACHMENT 4 – Schedule of Public Consultation Submissions From Second RAR 204 Great Eastern Highway, Ascot LG Reference: 397/2015 DAP Reference: DAP/15/00869

CITY OF BELMONT SCHEDULE OF SUBMISSIONS (25 January -10 February 2016)

PLANNING APPLICATION 379/2015/DAP – CONVENIENCE STORE LOT 730 (204) GREAT EASTERN HWY, ASCOT

No. Name and Address Submission Officer Comment

1. Cornerstone Legal on behalf of the Landowner Lot 501 (No. 202) Great Eastern Highway, Ascot

Objection The Decisions Maker should exercise its discretion and not grant approval of the Application for the following reasons: 1) The Applicant has no lawful right to use the Lot 501 access. Access over Lot

501 will amount to trespass. 2) The Application does not provide for safe access to the Subject Land. Due

to safety concerns the landowner does not give consent to any modifications being made to the existing access agreement and the Decision Maker has no power to insist that the City of the landowner permit access over Lot 501.

3) The Applicant will not preserve and will detrimentally impact the area’s amenity for the following reasons: a) The proposed hours of operation will produce traffic movement and

noise from cars and trucks entering and leaving the service station. b) The Application will generate a significant increase in the volume of

traffic. c) The proposed development will intrude upon the existing land uses

within the area. d) The cumulative effect of traffic congestion, noise, odour, emission, light

pollution, visual impact and operating hours, will have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the locality.

4) The proposed development is an incompatible land use. The proposed Service Station is surrounded by eating establishment, accompanied with the overarching aims and objections for the Mixed Used zone, creates an adverse impact on the continued and future operations of compatible land uses within the precinct.

5) The presence of a Service Station among the existing land uses, accompanied with the overarching aims and objectives for the precinct creates an adverse impact on the continued operation of the existing and future land uses.

6) The Application is wholly inconsistent with the objectives set out in LPS15. 7) Service Station will become an ‘X’ prohibited use on the subject site. The

amendment is a seriously entertained planning proposal and the Decision Maker ought to give the amendment due regard. Supporting the Application in light of the amendment would be contrary to orderly and proper planning.

ACCESS

8) Vehicles and fuel tankers are proposed to ingress and egress the public access arrangement between Lot 501 and the Subject Site.

1-2) An Easement in Gross is granted to the City of Belmont over the relevant portion of Lot 501. It is granted not only to the City of Belmont but on the terms of the easement, the rights granted to the City include the right to authorise others to go, pass and repass over and along the land. In exercising those rights, please refer to the Responsible Authority Report (RAR). The use of the easement by the proposed convenience store will need to be considered at Council (City of Belmont) at the request of the applicant. The issues raised in the objection would be matters for consideration by the Council. 4) Noted. Under LPS15 ‘Convenience Store’ is an ‘A’ use within the Mixed Use zone. An ‘A’ use is not permitted unless the decision maker (DAP) has exercised its discretion by granting approval. Concerns with relation to compatibility of the land use with existing land uses were addressed in the original RAR. However, the matter of compatibility in the context of LPS15, Amendment No. 7 is relevant and is addressed in the current RAR. 5-6) Noted. 7) Prefer to discussion on Amendment No. 7 in RAR. 8) Agreed.

2 | P a g e

9) The Landowner of Lot 501 submits that there is no existing public access and the Applicant has no lawful right to use the Lot 501 for access.

10) To date, there are six (6) easements registered on Lot 501, being as follows: a) G101313 – Easement in favour of the City of Belmont registered on 14

February 1996; b) G197237 – Reciprocal easement for Lots 500, 501 and 502 on Diagram

90797 registered 7 June 1996; c) G197241 – Reciprocal easement for Lots 500, 501 and 502 on Diagram

90797 registered 7 June 1996; and d) Easement Burden created under section 27A of the Town, Planning and

Development Act 1928 (T,P&D Act) dated 7 June 1996

G101313

11) Created by a Deed dated 9 February 1996 between Mossregal Pty Ltd being the registered proprietor of the land now being Lots 500, 501 and 502 on Diagram 90797 and the City of Belmont.

12) Pursuant to the Deed, the Grantor grants an easement to the Grantee in accordance with section 33 A of the Public Works Act 1902 for the purpose of the Grantee’s authorised officers, employees, agents and other authorised persons, accessing the portion of the Servient Tenement.

13) Pursuant to the Deed, entry to the Subject Land is not contemplated; rather G101313 is for the purpose of Lots 500, 501 and 502 only. G101313 does not enable access to the Grantee to the Subject Land.

14) Further, G101313 does not enable the Grantee to authorise the public at large to access onto the Servient Tenement. In the absence of express authorisation by the Grantee, persons cannot enter onto the Servient Tenement.

15) Pursuant to the Deed, the Grantee has no power to grant access to the Subject Land or to authorise the public to access the Subject Land from Lot 501.

G197237

16) G197237, created by a Transfer of Land for Lot 500 on Diagram 90797, creates a reciprocal easement for the purpose of a right of carriage way and parking over Lots 500, 501 and 502.

17) G197237 is only for the Registered Proprietors of Lots 500, 501 and 502 and their tenants, servants, agents, workmen and visitors and not for the purpose of public access.

18) In light of the above, G197237 does not create of allow a right of access to the Subject Land.

G197241

19) G197241 created by a Transfer of Land for Lot 501, creates a reciprocal easement for the purpose of a right of carriage way and parking over Lots 500, 501 and 502.

20) G197241 is only for the Registered Proprietors of Lot 500, 501 and 502 and

9) Agreed under the current easement arrangements either consent must be granted by the owners or consent can be sought from the City of Belmont Council. 10) Noted. 11-19) See above comment number 9.

3 | P a g e

their tenants, servants, agents, workmen, customers and visitors and not for the purpose of public access.

THE EASEMENT BURDEN

21) The Easement Burden is for the following purpose: a) Drainage in favour of the City pursuant to section 27A of the T,P&D Act;

and b) A 10cm pedestrian accessway along the front of Lot 501 and Lot 502

which is vested in the Crown pursuant to section 20A of the T,P&D Act. c) The Easement Burden is shown on Diagram 90797.

22) The 10cm pedestrian access way does not create public access over Lot 501 to the Subject Land.

23) In light of paragraphs 7-21 above, the easements do not create a right of access from Lot 501 to the Subject Land. The existing easement over Lot 501 do not grant the public right to access the Subject Land via Lot 501. The Applicant has no lawful right to use the Lot 501 for access. Access over Lot 501 will amount to trespass.

STRATEGIVE VEHICLE ACCESS PLAN

24) The Strategic Vehicle Access Plan (SVAP) prepared by Main Roads, provides for the share connection between Lots 500, 501 and 502 on Diagram 90797. The SVAP is not a final document and is subject to further amendments. Further, the SVAP was prepared by Main Roads rather than the City.

25) The SVAP does not authorise the Applicant or the public, the right to access the Subject Land from Lot 501.

26) The landowner does not consent to Lot 501 being used to access the Subject Land and the SVAP does not override the existing contractual arrangements.

27) In light of the above, the Decision Maker ought not to rely on the SVAP.

LANDOWNER GRANTING ACCESS

28) The Landowner will not grant access to the Subject Land from Lot 501, given that: a) Lot 501 and Lot 502 is already heavily patronised, by clients of Lot 501

and Lot 502 and the increase in traffic will not be safe and will be detrimental to the restaurant operated from Lot 501;

21-22) Noted. The 10cm pedestrian access way limits the ability to increase the crossover width further into Lot 501. There is a 3m parallel easement in favour of the City and a 10cm pedestrian access way (PAW) along the front of Lot 501 and Lot 502. The PAW (also known as a spike strip) is created to prohibit vehicle access to the Great Eastern Highway from Lot 501 and Lot 502. 24 - 27) This SVAP was formulated from the Great Eastern Highway Strategic Access Study commissioned by Main Roads Western Australia (MRWA) for the purpose of providing a plan for vehicle, pedestrian and cyclists’ access along Great Eastern Highway, with particular attention to access for vehicles to properties fronting the Highway. The immediate need for the plan arose from the upgrade the Highway to incorporate three traffic lanes in each direction and a median strip over the whole length of the Highway within the City of Belmont. The SVAP is used to provide guidance to the City of Belmont, MRWA and the WAPC when determining development and subdivision applications for land adjacent to the Highway to limit access along the Great Eastern Highway. The precise location of rights-of-carriageways, public rights-of-way or crossovers delineated on the SVAP may be varied subject to the agreement of MRWA and the City of Belmont providing the purpose and intent of the access is maintained. This SVAP may be updated with agreement from MRWA and the City of Belmont. The right to access an existing easement created prior to 1996 is a separate process which would require the approval from the Council of the City of Belmont. 28-29) A Road Safety Audit has been conducted on the proposed access arrangements. The Road Safety Audit is structured to review the safety performance of a road. The Audit provided that the fuel tanker requires the full width of the crossover fronting Lot 501 and that control measures are required to ensure the fuel tanker or large trucks are not being impacted on when

4 | P a g e

b) The proposed traffic manoeuvre creates significant safety concerns c) The heavy vehicles impose significant safety concerns; d) The heavy vehicles impose significant effects on surrounding traffic flow;

and e) It was never envisaged that this access be utilised by heavy vehicles

29) The Landowner does not consent to access being provided to the Subject Land from Lot 501. Further, consent to further amendments to the existing easements will be withheld.

RELEVANT SCHEMES

30) This section of the submission will identify the inconsistencies between the Application and the relevant scheme. It will provide the Decision Maker substantial reasons to exercise its discretion and not grant approval of the Application.

CITY OF BELMONT LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME NO. 15

31) The City’s LPS15 is an important scheme that highlights the overall and specific objectives to be implemented by the City.

32) The Decision Maker is required to have due regard to the LPS15 when it considers the Application.

33) The Subject Land is zoned ‘Mixed Use’ under the LPS15. Clause 4.2 of the LPS15 sets out the objects of the Mixed Use zone as follows:

“The Mixed Use Zone is intended to allow for the development of a mix of varied but compatible land uses such as housing, offices, showrooms, amusement centres, eating establishments and appropriate industrial activities which do not generate nuisances detrimental to the amenity of the district or to the health, welfare and safety of its residents. Buildings should be of a high standard of architectural design set in pleasant garden surrounds with limited vehicular access from properties to primary roads.”

34) The proposed Convenience Store is classified as an ‘A’ use. As a result, the Decision Maker may exercise its discretionary to approve the Application under the LPS15.

35) The Application should only receive the Decision Maker’s approval if the use proposed is considered to be consistent with the stated scheme objectives for the subject zone.

36) However, the Landowner considers the Application is inconsistent with the LPS15 objectives and aims for the following reasons: a) The size, scale and land use intensity of the proposed development is

likely to impact on the general amenity of the precinct. It will have a detrimental impact on the general amenity of the precinct. It will have a detrimental impact on existing and future activities on adjoining land. For example, the Application will have a detrimental impact on the existing eating establishments.

b) The proposed land use is incompatible with the established land uses on the adjoining properties. This incompatible land use will generate a

entering Lot 730. The impact of this is minimalised as fuel tankers are only expected to access the site 2 to 3 times per week and generally outside of peak times. It has been recommended by Main Roads WA that delivery hours are restricted to hours outside of peak period, those hours (daily) being:

- 07:30 to 09:00; and - 16:30 to 18:00.

It is noted that there a strong objection to the use of the existing crossover by the proposed convenience store. 31-35) Agreed. Under LPS15 ‘Convenience Store’ is an ‘A’ use within the Mixed Use zone. An ‘A’ use is not permitted unless the decision maker (DAP) has exercised its discretion by granting approval. 36-39) It is noted that the Landowner considers that there is incompatibility with the existing land uses and the proposed application. The application is being considered on the grounds of a discretionary use.