COB-RGB

 

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

for

Council  Agenda

Items Under Separate Cover

 

10 February 2016

 

 

 

 

 

ALL INFORMATION AVAILABLE IN VARIOUS FORMATS ON REQUEST

 

 

 


 

 

CITY OF BUSSELTON

Council  

10 February 2016

ATTACHMENTS TO AGENDA ITEMS

            

10.3           PROPOSED SUPERMARKET (ALDI) AND SHOWROOM, LOT 17, WEST STREET, BUSSELTON

Attachment 7          Schedule of Submissions............................................................................... 2                  


Council

3

10 February 2016

10.3

Attachment g

Schedule of Submissions

 

 

App.

No

NAME

Nature of Submission

Comment

Government Submissions

1

Department of Water

Local Water Management Strategy approved 20 November 2015. This endorsement does not provide exemption to gain any statutory local government or other agency planning approvals, nor other approvals that may be required under the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914, relating to water allocations, dewatering licences and permits to interfere with beds and banks of water courses.

Of note the masterplan that has been included in this LWMS is not the most current masterplan and further changes are required to meet the satisfaction of the City of Busselton. Based on discussion and knowledge of the City’s requests it is considered that the masterplan used for the purpose of this LWMS is sufficient to prove the concept. However, in the event there are modifications to the masterplan that do have implications on aspects of water management and hence the LWMS, the department should be notified to enable the implications to be assessed it is however considered these are likely to be best addressed in the subsequent UWMP.

DoW supports the need for the preparation of an UWMP as outlined in item 5 of Table 2 – Provision of the LUCP, and it is recommended that the level of detail in the UWMP be sufficient to guide the detailed design of subsequent individual Development Applications. It is however recommended that the UWMP be completed, to the satisfaction of the City of Busselton, prior to any detailed design and/or engineering drawings for subsequent individual Development Applications are received and/or assessed.

It is recommended that the following shall be required subsequent to approval of DA15/0579:

·      The Urban Water Management Plan is to be completed, to the satisfaction of the City of Busselton before detailed design and/or engineering drawings for subsequent individual development applications are assessed and approved.

Of note for this development the department highly recommended that the subsequent UWMP must:

·      Be based on the final approved masterplan that meets the requirements of and is approved by the City of Busselton.

·      Have consideration of post-development groundwater rise resulting from 1) lost evapotranspiration resulting in greater recharge, 2) post-development infiltration being in discrete areas leading to localised mounding, and 3) the potential for rise into imported fill is considered when determining the need or not for sub-soil drainage. It cannot be solely based on pre-development monitoring.

·      Include individual lot specific requirements/criteria that can be directly used for detailed design of subsequent lot development applications, as this will make the flow of assessments and approvals more efficient (e.g. discharge flow rates, detention volumes and TWLs, etc.).

·      Provide cross-sectional detail (in additional to plans) of the interface between the wetland the development boundary, including details of the connection between any on-lot sub-surface and surface drainage systems this interface area.

The LWMS was a part of the sub division and it has been approved by DoW since the making of this submission.

The Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) is required by a condition of approval on the subdivision.

A condition to require the City’s approval for the UWMP, prior to undertaking any works, has been applied in the Site Works approval DA15/0577.

 

WaterCorp

No objections to the proposals.

A 225mm diameter gravity sewer traverses the southern part of the lot (see attached plan).  It should be noted that existing sewerage mains protected within an easement are located within the subject land. It would appear from the plans that some of the building are located over this sewer.

The landowner/developer is required to make appropriate arrangements with the Corporation to relocate the gravity sewer to an alternative suitable alignment. The feasibility of relocating the sewer will be determined through the Corporation’s design process. The cost of relocating the pipes will be borne by the proponents.

The individual servicing requirements for the proposed buildings will be determined though the subdivision process (WAPC Ref. 150197) and through building approvals on each proposed lot when building applications are submitted to the Corporation for authorization under Section 82 of the Water Services Act 2012.  Approval from the Corporation’s Building Services Section are required with respect to protecting or modifying any of the existing infrastructure which are affected by the proposed development.

Due to the increase in development density, upgrading of the current system may be required to prevent existing customers being affected by the proposed development.  The principle followed by the Water Corporation for the funding of subdivision or development is one of user pays. The developer is expected to provide all water and sewerage reticulation, and a contribution for Water, Sewerage and Drainage headworks. In addition the developer may be required to fund new works or the upgrading of existing works and protection of all works.

The subject area falls within the Busselton Drainage Catchment. The Water Corporation’s drainage system can only take predevelopment flows. So the developer will need to compensate any additional flows on their own land.

The “No objection” is noted.

The applicant has indicated that sewer lines will be relocated and no buildings will be constructed over a sewer line.  A requirement to provide easements for the location of utilities is a condition of the subdivision approval and has been reflected in the Site Works approval.

 

Department of Health

The DOH provides the following comment:

Water Supply and Wastewater Disposal.   The proposed development is required to connect to scheme water and reticulated sewerage in accordance with the draft Country Sewerage Policy.

Food Act Requirements All food related aspects to comply with the provisions of the Food Act 2008 and related code, regulations and guidelines.

 

The DOH comments are routine matters that have been addressed in the conditions of sub division and the provision details is a condition of the Site Works approval.  The DOH comment is applicable to all Lots.

 

Department of Fire and Emergency Services

The final Masterplan design is yet to be promulgated and therefore DFES comment pertaining to Building Code of Australia (BCA) requirements is limited. It is assumed that any buildings will be required to be afforded the provision of life and fire safety systems in accordance with the relevant provisions of the BCA.

In this regard DFES and community expectations will require satisfactory emergency vehicular access to be provided to each building. Given that all access roadways and turn around areas should satisfactorily accommodate the mass of an attending fire appliance, please review DFES Guideline GL-11 from our website, which provides data on fire appliances to enable designers to plan adequate access to and around developments.

Local government is to have regard for the current WAPC SPP 3.4 and Draft SPP 3.7. DFES would expect that all future development is in accordance with the current ‘Planning for Bush Fire Protection Guidelines’ Edition 2 May 2010’ and/or future ‘Planning for Bushfire Risk Management Guidelines & Appendices’ as is necessary.

 

These comments relate more to the overall development than just the supermarket and showrooms proposal.

The subject site is not affected by the provisions of the BCA for bushfire prone areas.

Details of the location and capacity of fire emergency infrastructure been assigned as a condition at the Site Works approval, and will also be pursued at the building permit.

The City had sort additional information regarding the movement of service and emergency vehicles through the site.   The City has received advice from the applicant’s traffic engineers demonstrating internal Road widths and radius is adequate and that roundabouts within the site are to be a drive–over type.

 

 

Main Roads

Main Roads principal concern relates to access from BusseII Highway and more particularly the impact the development will have on the West Street / BusseII Highway intersection. The suggestion that modifying the signal phasing at this intersection (in accordance with the Arup Traffic Study) may improve the capacity of the intersection is not supported and in fact appears to be contradicted by the modelling undertaken by Jacobs (refer Jacobs Final Technical Note).

Also as outlined previously, the current signal phasing at the intersection is about as good as you could achieve from a capacity and safety perspective and significant additional capacity could only really be achieved by increasing the number of lanes. The upgrade of the West Street / Bussell Highway intersection is obviously very constrained by the adjacent development (buildings, services etc) and therefore any widening to create extra lanes required would be difficult to achieve and very costly.

If a significant upgrading is not being contemplated, then the only way to reduce pressure on this intersection is to provide additional connections from BusseII Highway to the site. In this regard, the most important requirement is considered to be an access that intercepts vehicles from the west before they get to West Street. The only way to achieve this is to create a new access that allows the right turn in from BusseII Highway - something that the proponents are not offering. The proposal for two left — in / left - out connections to Bussell Highway will take some pressure off the signals at West Street, but not nearly to the same extent as providing a right-in.

The most western access/ driveway connection to BusseII Highway was modelled by Jacobs as a full intersection with different treatments, including a roundabout and traffic signals. All were discounted, accept the option of the unsignalised T junction which is now no longer being pursued, presumably because of the difficulty /cost of widening BusseII Highway. Jacobs modelling for the signalised intersection showed that a signalised intersection would result in "extensive queuing on BusseII Highway" which is not supported by our analysis.

If widening of BusseII Highway is problematic then the option of a signalised T junction without turn lanes whilst not ideal, would not be an issue from a capacity perspective — a similar intersection already exists on BusseII Highway at Queen Elizabeth Avenue. If this option is pursued then it is important that the left-out from the access is done under Give Way to minimise the impact on Bussell Highway.

The development will also have a significant impact on West Street south of the highway and it is important that the ultimate requirements for this road are at least protected and the necessary provision made for any future upgrade. In this regard, a plan showing the ultimate dual carriageway, intersection layouts, pedestrian facilities etc should be prepared.

It is understood that there is also a proposal to expand the existing BusseIton Shopping Centre on the north side of the highway which will only further increase traffic demands at the West Street intersection with BusseII Highway. It is strongly recommended that City carry out an independent review of the traffic modelling, which focuses on the impact that the proposed development will have on the traffic signals at the BusseII Highway / West Street intersection. Main Roads could assist in this review. Further, it is recommended that the City investigate requirements for including a right turn in access from BusseII Highway and longer term requirements for upgrading the intersection of West Street and BusseII Highway. Also, it is recommended that concept designs be prepared for the two proposed access / driveways to BusseII Highway to ensure that appropriate access, widening and intersection treatments can be accommodated.

The comments of Main Roads are not specific to the proposed supermarket and showrooms but relate to the overall site.

The subject of these comments was considered as part of the review of the Land Use Concept Plan.  The City received advice from the applicant’s transport consultants and sought external advice in preparing the solutions identified in the Land Use Concept Plan.

The City is confident in the advice it received that Bussell Highway does not have sufficient width to accommodate the solutions identified by Main Roads; there is insufficient space for a slip lane and without it passage along Bussell Highway would be constricted.

The constraints at the West Street Bussell Highway intersection are acknowledged and proportionately caused and worsened by the existing size of the City of Busselton and the expected population growth.

The City acknowledges a significant upgrade at the West Street Bussell Highway intersection is required.

 

Department of Environment and Regulation

Lot 17 has not been reported to DER under Section 11 of the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 and DER does not hold any information on its contamination status.

Lot 17 is located within an area mapped as possessing a medium to high risk of encountering acid sulfate soils within 3m of the ground surface.

It is recommended that the following conditions be included on any approvals:

·      An acid sulfate soils self-assessment form and, is required an acid sulfate soils report and an acid sulfate soils management plan shall be submitted and approved by the Department of Environment Regulation before any subdivision works or development are commenced. Where an acid sulfate soils management plan is required to be submitted, all subdivision works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved management plan.

An assessment of the site indicated that fill will be cut and redistributed across the site. Aerial imagery suggests that fill soils may have been deposited at the site. The use of uncontrolled fill is a land use activity that has the potential to cause contamination as specified in the guideline ‘Assessment and Management of Contaminated Sites’.

DER does not recommend that a contaminated condition is required in this instance, but request that due to the risk the following advice note be included on any approvals:

·      The use of uncontrolled fill is a land use activity that has the potential to cause contamination as specified in the guideline ‘Assessment and Management of Contaminated Sites’ (Department of Regulation, 2014). Any use of fill material should be undertaken in accordance with the Environmental Protection Act 1986 and DER’s guidelines for the use of waste derived materials.

 

The comments of DER are routine matters pursued at subdivision (conditioned).  The subdivision and Site Works approvals both require an acid sulphate soil assessment and a soil contamination assessment, together with remedial actions to be undertaken if required.

 

Department of Parks and Wildlife

The ‘Lot 09 Proposed Site Plan Overall’ in Appendix 3 of DA15/0579 appear consistent with the agreement reached with Department of Parks and Wildlife for the treatment of the wetlands buffer within the southern portion of Lot 17.

The proposal is acceptable, and the Local Water Management Strategy is supported by DPaW.

The support of DPaW is noted.

Public Submissions

 

G. Herrera

Request for further information on:

·      How point 7 of the Land Use Concept Plan has been addressed. The application provides that this provision is not applicable to the proposal.

·      The amount of fill that is proposed on site and what level development will be built on.  

 

The application for the supermarket included an overall site concept for context but it does not form part of the application.  A number of public comments received are relevant to the overall site context.  The overall site concept follows the Land Use Concept Plan, the issues raised had been taken into account at the time of the Council approval of the Land Use Concept Plan.

Point 7 of the Land Use Concept Plan seeks to protect the amenity of the adjacent residential area.  The Site Works approval has followed the Land Use Concept Plan and conditioned a requirement for a construction management plan that will minimise the disturbance to the adjoining residential area during site works construction.  The proposed supermarket and showrooms however, are distant and will have no direct effect upon the amenity of the western residential area.

Point 7 of the Land Use Concept Plan

Is a set of development controls that will apply to the assessment of any land use and buildings adjacent to the western boundary.

Subject to the UWMP and final engineering the finished level of the site will be 2.0m.  The adjoining residential area has been built to that level.

 

H. Bowler

Concerns regarding:

·      The interface of commercial development on Lots 2 and 3 and impact on amenity of adjoining residential development;

·      Impact of pollution and carbon monoxide generated from development;

·      Noise from delivery trucks and industrial sized air conditioning;

·      Location of dual access road along the rear boundary of Lots 2 and 3 and connection to Prince Regent Drive becoming  a ‘rat run’ for cars to avoid the lights at West Street and Bussell Highway;

·      Request that if car park remains at the end of residential development that it be enclosed, and no through traffic allowed;

·      What measures will be in place to minimise the effect of noise, pollution, dirt, lights, security concerns on adjoining residences; and

·      Security and suggest that security gates be installed for use after hours to stop undesirable activity.

 

The application for the supermarket included an overall site concept for context but it does not form part of the application.  A number of public comments received are relevant to the overall site context.  The overall site concept follows the Land Use Concept Plan, the issues raised had been taken into account at the time of the Council approval of the Land Use Concept Plan.

The proposed development is distant to the western residential area and will not directly impact upon its amenity.

Point 7 of the Land Use Concept Plan will apply to the assessment of any land adjacent the residential area and its purpose is to ensure future development does not detract from the amenity of the adjoining residential area by way of light spill, noise, odour, and building scale.

The Site Works approval has a requirement for the applicant to prepare for City approval a construction management plan that will minimise the disturbance to the adjoining residential area during site works construction. 

The Site Works approval also requires that on an ongoing basis any area of bare earth (such as areas awaiting a building to be constructed) is to be managed to minimise dust/dirt escape.

The access from the western residential are through Prince Regent as indicated in the Land Use Concept Plan has been a long standing request of the community.

 

 

MPM Development Consultants on behalf of Amoeba Nominees Pty Ltd

In Principle support for the application, but have the following comments

·      No details of intended use of the lots are provided and informed submission cannot be provided. Request for details of land use to be provided and the proposal readvertised.

·      Access to the homemaker centre should be retained so adjoining businesses are not disadvantaged;

The application for the supermarket included an overall site concept for context but it does not form part of the application. 

These comments relate more to the overall concept and not the supermarket and showroom proposal, which is for a specific use at its Lot.

The remainder of the site is to accommodate land uses that are consistent with the provisions of the City’s Local Planning Scheme, mostly showrooms, bulk store/bulky goods and warehouses.

Access to the Homemaker Centre, and access to Bussell Highway was addressed at the Land Use Concept Plan.  Right turn into Lot 17 is to be restricted but only to the extent across the across the entrances to Lot 17.  This leaves the majority of the length along Bussell Highway available for right turns, including an existing access for the  Homemaker Centre .

 

 

D. Watts

No Objection, but request that the following be considered:

·      Stormwater to be retained on site and not impact adjoining Lot 16;

·      Retaining walls not to exceed 500mm above the Finished Floor Level of Lot 16 and request a 1.8m high colorbond fence above retaining be constructed at the full cost of the developer;

·      No information has been provided regarding lighting during construction and after development. Light should be designed to retain Lot 16’s amenity.

·      Concerns regarding dust and noise during construction and ongoing operation of commercial uses on Lot 17 including service vehicles, waste removal occurring at all hours;

·      No information is provided on rubbish and refuse disposal areas;

·      Consideration is to be given to impact on services to Lot 16 during construction;

·      Request that the City of Busselton ensure insurances are in place to account for any damage to land on Lot 16 as a result of construction;

 

The City has responded to Mr Watts concerns and these matters have been addressed as conditions in the Site Works approval. 

This includes:

Stormwater will be managed on site by the UWMP, details are required for retaining walls and lighting. 

A construction management plan expressly addressing the avoidance of impacts upon Lot 16 is required including details of site offices, storage of materials and moments during construction. 

The dual use path separates the proposed development from Lot 16.  The City will pursue a high amenity through this area.  Details are required regarding building materials and landscaping through this area.

Lot 16 has direct access from West Street and a practical access to Lot 16 is expected to be maintained throughout the construction associated with the Site Works.

 

M & M Young

Objection to proposal:

·      Supermarket should not be approved outside of the town centre as it is contrary to the existing zoning and objectives and policies of the Restricted Business zone;

·      The Land Use Concept Plan does not identify a supermarket land use as being permissible, and the land use is not an unlisted use, as it falls within the definition of a ‘Shop’ which is a prohibited land use in this zone.

·      Car Parking calculations do not contemplate the more intensive retail uses.

·      Placement of the Aldi store outside of the CBD would be contrary to locating shops within the town centre and inconsistent with the intent of the Restricted Business Zone and Scheme, Busselton Town Centre Strategy, Land Use Concept Plan and contrary to orderly and proper planning.

A supermarket is listed in Schedule 1 of the Scheme but not on the zone table where it applies to the Restricted Business Zone. 

The supermarket and showrooms was a assessed as a use not listed and pursuant to cl 4.4.2(b) determined to be consistent with the objectives of policies of the zone having regard to Additional Use 64.

A supermarket is materially comparable with that of a Discount Department Store and the quantum of 8000sqm (AU64) will not be exceeded.

The carparking rate for a Shop, Supermarket and a Discount Department Store, is the same.

 

Not Sure Pty Ltd

Support for the proposal provided that public access easement between future Lot 6 and 300 Bussell is removed. Concerns that easement will promote antisocial behaviour.  

 

The application for the supermarket included an overall site concept for context but it does not form part of the application. 

This submission is not related to the proposed supermarket and showrooms.

 

E. Flurry

·      Plans do not show design of access to loading area of existing Lot 1 building;

·      Bussell Highway needs redesigning, power poles are located to close to roads and should be relocated underground;

·      Treatments to Bussell Highway restricting right turns from existing crossovers will result in traffic being forced westwards and onto High/Dorset/Kent and West Streets resulting in more traffic entering and existing the West Street Bussell highway intersection which is already dangerous.

The application for the supermarket included an overall site concept for context but it does not form part of the application. 

This submission is not related to the proposed supermarket and showrooms.

 

Squire Patton Boggs on behalf of Australian Unity Investments

Objection to proposal:

·      The Proposed Supermarket is not a permitted or discretionary use for Lot 17 West Street, West BusseIton (Site), which is zoned as 'Restricted Business' under the City's Local Planning Scheme No. 21. Disagree that the land use is consistent with a ‘convenience store’ which is defined as buildings that do exceed 300sqm. The size limit is a mandatory requirement, not discretionary and the land use cannot be classified as this. While convenience stores sell goods which are commonly sold in supermarkets, it does not logically follow that supermarkets are a type of convenience store. They differ in terms of NLA, trading hours, volume of customers, and parking requirements. A convenience store is not merely a smaller version of a supermarket. 

·      Previous case law supports that the use would not be considered a ‘Convenience Store’ (Warriewood Properties Pty Ltd v Pittwater Council [2010] NSWLEC 215). The main arguments include that the ‘neighbourhood shop’ definition bears resemblance to the convenience store definition and by applying the courts’ reasoning, the size of the proposed supermarket is essential to its use categorisation.

·      Disagree with the applications suggestion that the proposed use is consistent with the ‘Restricted Business’ zone objectives and complementary to the Busselton Town Centre. The reasons for this are that the use will generate high traffic, is a size that is better suited to the town centre, will detrimentally impact on existing supermarket sales in the town centre and will promote ribbon development beyond the town centre which will detrimentally impact the commercial integrity and vibrancy of the town centre. The Retail Location and Impact Assessment provided as supporting information in the application supports this stating that the supermarket will generate traffic beyond that expected for a convenience store, the assessment estimates a loss of 8.7 million or 6.7% in sales as a direct impact of the proposed supermarket. There is also no demographic requirement for an additional supermarket in Busselton in the assessment.

·      In Chambers v Maclean Shire Council (2003) 57 NSWLR 152, the Court found that the classification of a development as permissible or prohibited is jurisdictional and is to be determined objectively.

·      In Meyer Shircore and Associates Architects v Shire of Augusta-Margaret River [2011] WASAT 38 held that

a) a supermarket is a 'shop' under the relevant scheme which is a permitted use, however, permitted uses are not exempt from the need to obtain planning approval;

(b) the SAT has a wide discretion to have regard to 'orderly and proper planning' and "the amenities of the locality" in determining the application;

(c) the scale and nature of the supermarket, as a 'full-line' supermarket is in conflict with the objectives and vision for the Town Centre, it would result in a significant departure from the desired character of the area;

(d) the construction of the supermarket would be contrary to the orderly and proper planning of the locality; and

(e) approval for the supermarket was refused.

The facts in the Application are similar. Applying the Court's reasoning to the Application, the scale and nature of the Proposed Supermarket conflicts with the objective and policies of the 'Restricted Business' zone, which is intended to support and complement and not to detract from the commercial primacy of the Town Centre. The City seeks to maintain the primacy of the Town Centre, ensuring that retail and commercial opportunities exist primarily within it. The Proposed Supermarket would be contrary to the orderly and proper planning of the locality.

·      The application is inconsistent with the strategic planning framework of the Busselton Local Commercial Strategy (LCPS) which is to maintain the primacy of the Busselton and Dunsborough town centres and advises against fragmentation of the town centre. The RLI assessment summarises the type of higher level commercial facilities (which the LCPS says should be concentrated in the Busselton "town site") including 'discount department stores, supermarkets, specialty retail, bulk retail and tourist retail. The Proposed Supermarket fits squarely within these commercial uses and should properly be located in the Busselton Town Centre.

·      The application is inconsistent with previous decisions issued on the site. Amendment 181which proposed a rezoning from ‘Restricted Business’ to ‘Business’ was refused by the Minister for Planning. The amendment proposal on page 2 of A181 stated that a rezoning would allow for and would provide for a greater range of land uses such as a supermarket and shops. The minister refused AM181 for reasons including:

a)    that the rezoning and land uses it would permit would detract from the primacy of the Busselton CBD by creating a separate retail node and failed to capitalise on the significant state and local investment in the CBD and surrounds;

b)    the proposal would encourage retailers to relocate to the subject location, thus diminishing the sustainability and vibrancy of the existing BusseIton CBD;

c)     the proposal would reduce the amount of land available for `Restricted Business' purposes which are otherwise not sufficiently catered for;

d)    the proposal did not accord with the City's LCPS, which reflects the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC)'s position in respect to a retail hierarchy for the City;

e)    WAPC was of the view that the existing retail offer together with redevelopment opportunities and new planned centres, as detailed in the LCPS, were sufficient to meet the needs of the BusseIton community.

In order to approve the Proposed Supermarket, the City would be required to circumvent the Minister's previous decision regarding the Site.

·      Disagree with the conclusion that car parking for the use is required at the rate of a Showroom. The definition of a showroom specifically excludes the sale by retail of foodstuffs, liquor or beverages and suggest that a new parking analysis be undertaken on the appropriate rate.

·      The JDAP on 16 November 2015 approved a similar application for an expansion and upgrade to the Busselton Shopping Centre. The City should ensure that all of its planning decisions, including that in respect of the Application, are made in a consistent and orderly manner.

·      Submission of traffic and parking review prepared by Cardno. The review suggests that supermarkets generate car parking demand based on a rate of 1 bay per 25sqm NLA. The review suggests that the current overall rate of car parking will cater for demand but does not provide a contingency amount of car parking (10-15%) to provide a functional car park. The additional car parking is required to allow for parking turnover, reduction in search time and promotes an effective parking system without congestion. The actual amount of car parking provided at Lot 9 is not sufficient and has relied on the car parking to be constructed on the overall site.  Assuming that the car park can be maintained at 90-95% efficiency suggests that the overall parking supply for Lot 9 West Street should be in the order of 97-102 parking bays. The parking supply of 106 bays described in the Lot 9 DA documentation is considered to be sufficient to support the proposed uses, but would allow for very little additional supply to support the overall Lot 17 requirements.

·      The proposed Lot 9 uses, which include a 1,482sq.m supermarket, generate in themselves a substantial increase in traffic when compared with a similar component of showroom development. For reference, when considered as part of a shopping centre or precinct, standard showroom generation tends to be in the order of 1.1-3.8 trips per 100sq.m. This can be compared with 13.8-15.5 trips per 100sq.m for supermarket generation (according to the RTA Guide to Traffic Generating Development). Therefore, it is considered likely that Lot 9 would contribute between 3 and 8 times as much traffic during the peak hour in its proposed configuration, when compared to showroom alone. The City of BusseIton have commissioned a strategic study to determine the potential impact of future population and employment growth, and the requirements for upgrade of the local road network. This study concluded that traffic would substantially increase along West Street and BusseII Highway, with volumes at the intersection of these streets exceeding 36,000 vehicles per day. It is unclear whether the 2026 model included the development at Lot 17 West Street in its forward projections. Given that the function of the West Street/Bussell Highway intersection has been modelled for the future scenario and found to be inadequate in its existing configuration, there is a significant risk that the imposition of a high-traffic generating development immediately adjacent to this critical point will exacerbate this problem.

·      The proposed access locations are via left-in/left-out intersections from BusseII Highway and via a roundabout access on West Street. Of these access points, it is expected that the vast majority of traffic will enter the site via the West Street roundabout. This will greatly increase the volume of traffic passing through the BusseII Highway signals, to an extent that the ongoing function of this intersection is likely to be compromised. Egress movements from the development will also largely be via the West Street roundabout, with some additional traffic flowing directly onto BusseII Highway. However, the legibility of the easements is significantly lower than the Main Street and drivers would be expected to disproportionately favour the West Street egress.

·      To accommodate the volume of traffic generated by the development, the developer proposes to control the Main Street intersection with a large roundabout. This roundabout would need to be modified to a dual-circulating roundabout in the future to accommodate the duplication of West Street. It is important to consider the function of a roundabout in the context of the adjacent signals, located 150m to the north. Roundabouts work best when in locations where there is consistent demand from all directions, and where traffic arrives in a random distribution. In this case, the roundabout operation will be governed by the BusseII Highway signals to a significant degree. Therefore, the assessment of the access roundabout cannot be done in isolation, it must be considered as part of a system. This would generally require more detailed analysis in the form of a small-scale micro-simulation. The construction of a roundabout access also detracts from the safety and function of the proposed on-street bicycle facilities along West Street, to the extent that we would recommend alternative arrangements. Multi-lane roundabouts pose a serious safety risk to cyclists due to high speeds and poor lane compliance.

 

A Supermarket is listed in Schedule 1 of the Scheme but not on the zone table where it applies to the Restricted Business Zone.  

This distinguishes required approach from that of the case law cited in the comment.

The supermarket and Showrooms was assessed as a use not listed and pursuant to cl 4.4.2(b) determined to be consistent with the objectives of policies of the zone having regard to Additional Use 64.

The City obtained independent legal advice, to objectively examine the issue of an appropriate classification for the proposed development.  The City’s approach is supported by that advice.

The comments do not acknowledge that an additional use (AU64) provides a Discount Department Store up to 8000sqm is provided by the Scheme at this location.  It compared the proposal to a Showroom rather than a Discount Department Store.

A supermarket is materially comparable with that of a discount department store and the quantum of 8000sqm (AU64) will not be exceeded by this proposal.

Amendment 181 on the other hand, would have expanded the development potential, and the intensity of development beyond, that contemplated and provided by Additional Use 64 and the 8000sqm.

The carparking rate for a Shop, is the same for a Supermarket and a Discount Department Store,

The comments on the subject of traffic relate to the overall development at Lot17 and were addressed by the City at the Land Use Concept Plan.

 

R. Lloyd and P Semmons.

Objection to the proposal:

1.     That the proposal will create a separate retail precinct and detract from the primacy of the Busselton CBD.

2.     The proximity of a large amount of car parking in proximity to a supermarket is likely to be a more attractive option than entering the CBD and detrimentally impact on similar retailers in the CBD.

3.     Aldi notes on their website that they are a ‘Supermarket’.

4.     A decision by the Minister for Planning was partly on the basis to exclude land uses such as Supermarkets on this site;

5.     The location of Supermarket in this location will have a flow on effect with other retailers locating in proximity, creating vacant shops that are currently rented in the CBD and detracting from the primacy of Busselton CBD.

6.     Trip chaining and expenditure is an important part of the viability of the CBD, and location out of this area will reduce expenditure from retailers in the CBD.

 

The supermarket and Showrooms was a assessed as a use not listed and pursuant to cl 4.4.2(b) determined to be consistent with the objectives of policies of the zone having regard to Additional Use 64.

A supermarket is materially comparable with that of a Discount Department Store and the quantum of 8000sqm (AU64) will not be exceeded.

Amendment 181 would have expanded the development potential and the intensity of development beyond that contemplated by Additional Use 64 and the 8000sqm.

There are a number of destinations outside of the City that could accommodate a supermarket.

Supermarkets are not strong contributors to trip chaining, they are car dependant, goods are taken home immediately and not a leisure retail experience.