development application site photographs · attachment 2 . development application site photographs...

The Town of Cambridge does not warrant the accuracy of information in this publication and any person using or relying upon such information does so on the basis that the Town of Cambridge shall bear no responsibility or liability whatsoever for any errors, faults, defects or omissions in the information. 1:1500

DV18.176 - ATTACHMENT 1: Lot 423 (No. 59) Marlow Street, Wembley

Attachment 2

Development application site photographs Property Lot 423 (No.59) Marlow Street, Wembley Proposal Industry - Light (Mechanical Workshop) and Motor Vehicle Wash DA reference 0240DA-2018 Date of photographs

21 November 2018

Photograph 1: Subject site

Photograph 2:

Photograph 3:

Photograph 4:

Photograph 5:

Photograph 6:

I, 13620 , 3365 0 . . .

3200H BRICK WALL WITH A 15 00 CANTILEVERED ROOF AT 30' TO THE HORIZONTAL !11 "j

TRAFFIC ISLAND

,.

l:• �

fER

P�� ROLLER DOORS ON GRAN T HAM STREET ELEVATION 16000 � � ENTRY & EXIT SIDES TO '-. .i

• ti'i BAYS 2 & 3- REFER � Nl\fl-J 3.M:3S

-'.:'�, ""'I l-·--·-

1.

ACOU�EPORT ·----:;-

--·--·--·--·--·-,--·--·--·--·--·--·-·--·--·--#-·----·--·--·--·--(�i�:�::�/

39

L_ - �� :s:·

Bl

��OP - _½:_ �

-=-

=--C::,��::"':_j �ir -= ---=-= --:::OF�=:OPY OVER__ <r�;��- --- -- -- -- --��

• �< CROSSOVER I 4 7.2 7 ', · .. , g ;z!

7,> g_ • ltJ D ' I f' w,lfl'l"' �-=� -�--, -- I ILJ(El ' i+ ,�i-J,, □RILL H� E ,. -

. .,,. "'1 !17- 801 • �:oll�rds0 0 !\ ,0.,

1200hbenches WORKSHOPl 200hbenches TEA �UAT0

' '.,_. ,_,o_u,_:'!/",_�··,%_~---+------+TOTAL BUILDING

�-_b=====,-=

•=15=ir-� ·· _ �� 0i !1�1��I

D c�

m OFFICE; i 19 \

� AREA - 336 M2TOTAL AREA OF

Q ii'!

IL a"/,\;S:l

µ_ WAITING BAYS I I 'cs'? O I � ,

��i�ASH BAYS " I� ···....... 1

1 �

2 n_ r.o:g �•, �

!18.2sl�

1

-".- § 1

1:: .

CAR w ;l SH '. L.. - c.,1�--1� LI ctt I I � I

-'t<-.'.::::======:;'.---'I�;,'!;��- - _, - i'""" ____ _,,.._ __ ,_...,,,�l--.

rFj--"4 - BAY 1 -

�,;;��:;;;;---1:gJ (�WA\1NGI r I

�

� I 1__

1

:: s- �. 2000 ,'· -

�------------

-.-3EQU� ROLL�R D()CJ_RS ;,c:---------�:K - ':�7/f;� 11 � I I

'

4> ELEVATION < ELEVATION 28 0

LOT 446 BITUMEN PARKING ,,, � ·1 !11. Y

BAY 2 I\ Y LJ<:

onc __ ,,

____ ROLLER DOOR ____ ROLLER DOOR ____ ROLLER�OO_ _,'-

con.;:., ·,1j, � I /·-tr ,- - !17.B0_ I _ 11---�= 11800 1 ,1.. ___ c,__.-..,;;__-'-1-' _

.,- ___. I';- . 3'· . l'�

.9

� t,:

l o. -

, 6j- k � � � I] \ j? � --------'--"'/ r/J:- , -"'l,,,!.-------7 ':I' -'1.--------------l...'l 4·�-

-.- ____ ...:J'_ -----...... rr, w :-i>I • · .. • ELEVATION 4 @ o-;

,. OUT>

·" ".ilinr ·:- · "' t-... C"-i iE S . ...Q_O 4300 •45 70 " ! 18.00 ! 0

1 0 I 0 I 0. CROSSOVER

� -==~-- ' - 117.801 � ' . LOT 423 ,�oo L J

• B --->\.---•-----;,vv � -+-'� :�

� i SEW�FNUN(JION ' "...,,� I / / 1/ 10 - 9 i(\ -8 7

0 6 -,, :: 5 ..----" 43 ' 2 rrr- 1

��LB�1�E��;_

A1_N

_1N

_G

_-lll � �:�•,r RL\¾�. V,A.CCUNI' B� // · .

/ / _,,'Al;l-.dl',.._,11,1� v- -1 � - � IA

lm;001 HE itl. , / :�1""��, -� � -'.:',,_ si � v -'1.------------'-c,=,J!:�

=l

•,::

O,:=$:,,=,,,

*,.

·&,-='====

·:!,�- n �-•

• a-<�[=- La s'o= L1;1- - ,-r

L...il-"< DI]QJ •

,. T

7->· ?.,>· � �

MARK NOT FOUND • if..>c,-�--+----� ·-¢, ·Oo ·

I TIN ROOF POOL

NEW ROOF AREA OVER VACCUM BAY AND ACCESS AREA TO CAR WASH AND CAR BAYS 4-10. ROOF OVER VACCCUM BAY AREA TO HAVE 30° TRANSLUCENT ROOF SHEETING

NEW BRICK RETAINING WALL & FENCE

9 BAYS, T 5 .4X 2 .4

A -

LOT 21 TWO-STOREY RENDERED BRICK & METAL ROOF

DWELLING

VACCUM CLEANER MOTOR WITH 2 X 90MM WIDE BRICK WALL ON 2 SIDES TO U/S OF ROOF OVER

F.L. 11.16

SITE & GROUND FLOOR PLAN

UNDER EAVES R.L. 23.02

RIOGER.L. 24.14

--

1: 200 @Al SHEET SIZE

-11/ 77 ... 1/ ,V bollard N

EW,/'i."'(C ,,j:1/ "I" II

DISA LED C CAR �A Y ,,' /,P'"'

/ ·: / i7o

BAY I 5 .4X4.8

< IN

""

I

m

0

,.

z 0 . a

f-w

w

� f-V)

�

0 _J

�

<( �

ADJ2STOREY RESIDENCE

FFL 17.78 �---

17. 00

SECTION A-A

. . . □ TUna

8 □ Servi l:ing CJ Brak js

N □ Rapa rs

§::::; ; � . ;;;;;;;;; ; ; ; ;;;; ;;;;;;; ;;;;;;; ;;; ; ;;;

0 0 A�- 0 N 0 "' '1,1 "IV

N . . .

-,,sm·,a=·••"'•�·-o,,�"' F"-- ,,_,,, �-"'"-"

I • CE&, _, -; ;;;; ; ; ; ;; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;; ; ; ; ;;;;;;;; ; ; ; ;

11 �if; IT ' "" ' ' ' " ' ' " '""""::::

; ;;;; ; ; ;;;; ; ;; ;;;;; ; ; ; ;;;;; ;; ; ;,; ; ;;

' ' � � �

PJ PJ PJ PJ

J 2

1REY IDENCE

17. 78 L __ _

NORTH E0

LEVATION

( SIGNAGE SHOWN IS INDICATIVE)

ROOF COVER BEYONu--�

DRIVEWAY & CAR PARKING

I..ST ELEVATION 2

;NAGE SHOWN IS INDICATIVE)

SOUTH ELEVATION


l I : 200 @ A I SHEET SIZE

@cANOPY FASCIA

Tune □

1: 200 @AI SHEET SIZE

©

4

1000

SHOWN WITHOUT ROOF FOR CLARITY

I : 200 @ A 1 SHEET SIZE

EVAPORATIVE COOLING UNITS

E >--+-+---

@ CANOPY FASCIA

�

;;;; ; ; ; ;;; ; ;; ;;;;; ; ; ; ;;;;; ;;;;;;; ;;;

PJ

' J PJ

CAR WASH SIGNAGE 15 00

tAN

;tEVER

r-f--�-- ---I ... � -,

� _J L---�-- ---; ; ; ; ; ;; ;;;; ;;; ;;;; ; ;; ;; ; ; ; ; ;;; I.i 3200H BRICK WALL WITH A

F L ' �:::�rmn :::::::::::

ROLLER DOOR ROLLER DOOR 15 00 CANTILEVERED ROO I\. _.-i,_ ---U:,i\ ' � '.1 .

PJ

GRANTHAM STREET

3200H BRICK WALL WITH A 15 00 CANTILEVERED ROOF AT 30° TO THE HORIZONTAL

. .'. . - -:� ·•·. l:��•• {

;.'_ �,,;

AT 30" TO THE HORIZONTA ;':.:,::r•:

LEGEND

© 1200W X 9TH HARDIES EXOTECWITH RECESSED JOINTS

E

0)

@

@

�

:��i�7G � I ,JI� I ,f I I _, I ' I

CONCRETE PANEL JOINT

CONCRETE PANEL WITH TEXTURE PAINT FINISH

HARDIES COMTEX ( FLUSH JOINTS )

@

ROOF BEHIND OVER CAR WASH ENTRY AND VACCUM BAY

1-:: :: : = : ::.::..:.::::..:..:.. :.::.::::::.·:::.:..--=i 1I II I ,1 I 11 I II I ,1

WEST ELEVATION 3

EXTEND WEST BOUNDARY FENCE 200 A BOVE HIGHEST POINT OF ROOF


E

@ CANOPY FASCIA

Tune □ Se icing □

·� □ pairs □

AUTOMASTERS SIGN OVER

DOOR - 2400 X 800

1: 200 @ A 1 SHEET SIZE

MARLOW STREET

3° METAL DECK ROOFPARAPET WALL BEYOND

® ON FURRINGCHANNELS

2100

WORKSHOP STREET CANOPY ALONG t--'1,-

--,,,.-'

o-_ ---BUILDING LENGTH

6000

40

5400 CAR BAY� CONCRETE-----+--+APRON RAMP UP

I: 100 @Al SHEET SIZE

ROLLER

DOOR

7 I I L __ ...J

Amended Plans Received:

13 November 2018

BAY I !18.2 5!

CONCRETE

FLOOR.......,,,

�------1C

REVISION

30.9.18

13.11.18

GRANTHAM

STREET

l. ROOF COVER ADDED TO VACCUM BAY AREA, CAR BAYSAND ENTRY TO CAR WASH.

2. FULL HEIGHT BRICK BOUNDARY WALLS ADDED.

3. A 3.2 HIGH WALL WITH A 1500 SLOPING CANTILEVER ROOFHAS BEEN ADDED TO THE WESTERN BOUNDARY.

4. STREET AWNING HAS BEEN TRUNCATED

l .ROLLER DOORS SHOWN ON ENTRY & EXIT SIDES TO CARWASHBAYS 2&3

0 en "'I- .: (.) "'

_J N N

I- �

0 a,

I 0

(.) �

a::: w

z z

<X: a_ w

�

...J w f-

00

w f-a::

t) w a_

=> w

�

w

a::

co w f-w C

w C

-"' ...J w

w ...J

CLIENTNIGEL & DONNA WARR

J 0 BNEW AUTO MASTERS CENTRE AND CAR WASH

S T E#59(LOT423) MARLOWE ST WEMBLEY

DRAWINGSITE / FLOOR PLAN ELEVATIONS & SECTION

JOB NO

18,07

SCALE

1 : 100 1 : 200

�

�

E]s

D A T E

AUG '18

�

�

All dimensions are to be verified on site bafore oommencemant of work or shop drawings

COPYRIGHT

Attachment 3

ATTACHMENT 4: Applicant's Justification

LOT 423 (NO. 59) MARLOW STREET, WEMBLEY APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION "The traditional Auto Master Building is generally setback off the street with a carpark between the front of the building (the façade containing the roller doors) and the street and in this configuration, the back wall is used for accommodating 1200h benches and other equipment. In this instance the Towns requirements is for the building to be positioned with nil setback to the streets and therefore the traditional orientation had to be reversed so that the parking and the workshop roller doors are orientated away from the street. The offices and reception now face the street intersection and the traditional blank wall which accommodates benches, has a series of windows facing Grantham Street so that there is visual interaction between the workshop and the street. … The workshop portion of the proposal is arranged so that there is a nil setback to the building as per the Towns requirements. The car wash portion of the development facing Grantham set is setback 7m to allow adequate manoeuvring of vehicles and restricting them to one 4m wide crossover exit. To position the car wash portion onto the street with a nil setback would not have been a practical solution. … In general this proposal conforms to the objectives of the Local Town Centre Policy and the level of traffic generated is considered to have no material impact under the WAPC Transport Assessment Guidelines for Developments - as detailed in the Traffic Statement. In all other respects, the amenity, privacy, bulk and scale of the proposal has been controlled so that the appropriate standards of amenity to the adjoining properties is not affected or compromised. Traffic • Pedestrian visibility for site traffic is provided due to the footpath adjacent to the building.

Although it is acknowledged that the 1.39m path is slightly under the standard requirement, it is considered that an additional 140mm would not make a significant difference. Furthermore, clear glazing is provided on the southern and eastern walls of the waiting area which will provide some sightlines through the building. Traffic visibility for the access is achieved by the verge which is in the order of 4.7m, being greater than the minimum 3m required by AS2890.1.

• As uninterrupted flow conditions are demonstrated, there would be no traffic capacity reason to restrict vehicles turning right out of the site. Also given the child care centre has full movement access, the requirement appears to be inconsistent with established surrounding development.

• Technically vehicles can exit via the car wash and it is therefore not a blind aisle. However, it is a reasonable point to raise as during busy times the car wash may preclude exit. As indicated in the report, the peak use of the car wash can be expected on Saturdays and Sundays when the other use on the site will be low. Also sufficient


LOT 423 (NO. 59) MARLOW STREET, WEMBLEY

space is available for vehicle to U-turn adjacent to the vacuum bays should they require to do so.

• Deliveries will occur within the general parking area and will take place outside of customer business hours to reduce conflict with customer parking. Deliveries will be from standard commercial utility vans (not trucks) which are capable of using the standard parking bays. With deliveries occurring outside of typical business hours, vans may use any parking bay onsite and are capable of reversing within the site and exiting in forward gear. A maximum of two deliveries per day is expected.

Vacuum Bays • There is only 1 vacuum bay. The adjacent “bay” is the access aisle for the car wash. Landscaping • Although is area is full shade, there are a wide number of plants available for every level

of shade around any garden area. For example Camellias 'Lady Gowrie' grows very successfully, producing bright pink flowers in these conditions. 'Mona Lavender' is another which grows to around 800mm high and in late summer produces pale grey-blue flowers. The Sweet Box (Sarcococca confusa) is another, which grows slowly to around about 1.5 metres and has tiny flowers that give off a perfume in late winter. Additionally the translucent sheeting over the vacuum bay, as stated on the drawings, can extend over the planting area to provide additional light source if need be. The garden bed will be fully reticulated.

Noise • Both the childcare centre and the (double storey) property at 57(B) Marlow Street are

included in the noise model. They are receivers R2 and R1 (east/west) respectively.

• As stated in the second paragraph below Table 2-4 of the noise report, it is acknowledge the assigned levels apply at a point at least 3 metres away from hard surfaces. This was written in the regulation to minimise reflected noise from various elements during measurements. Also stated in the report is that at some receivers (i.e. R1) this 3 m distance requirement cannot be achieved since the building itself is within 1 metre of a boundary face/wall. In such case, the noise levels are then predicted 1 m from the facade and the reflected noise contribution is taken into consideration by adjusting the predicted levels by -2 dB. This is a common approach used in the urban environment and especially in cases of multi-storey developments where there is potentially no 'land associated with the sensitive use' within 15 metres of a sensitive building.

• Based on previous assessments, we find that the short duration of a manual wash cycle

where noise is present (i.e. water connecting with the vehicle) combined with the fact that there are less users on a Sunday (and at night-time) and the length of the representative assessment period, we assessed noise on the basis of the one 'worst-case' wash bay, rather than all 3 contributing to the overall noise levels. In other words while all 3 wash bays may be open and 'usable', it is considered that noise from high pressure water would not be present for long enough to then trigger the



L10 criterion. However as requested, we have modelled noise emissions from all three bays, but then assessed against the LA1 criterion.

• As stipulated in Section 4, all scenarios include the vacuum cleaner noise already, and it

is this cumulative noise level that is assessed in section 5.1. The last paragraph of section 5.1 only points out that intrusive characteristics such as tonality would be present only if the vacuum is operated in isolation i.e. no other sources of noise from the site that would mask vacuum noise. If that was the case, then compliance is also achieved. Refer amended report with additional comments in last paragraph of section 5.1.

… • AutoMasters noise emissions included in the 'Normal Operations' scenario (refer section

4 our report) …

• AutoMasters noise emissions included in the 'Normal Operations' scenario (refer section 4 our report).

• Refer to 'West Elevation 3' showing new brick wall extent and height. The section of 3.2 metres high wall with a 1.5 m cantilevered roof on top (just north of bay 1) has been designed to mitigate noise from bay 1 so as to prevent using a roller door.

• Refer to 'West Elevation 3' showing new brick wall extent and height • From an acoustics point of view, any masonry construction will be more than adequate. • Refer to 'West Elevation 3' showing new brick wall extent and height. • As per section 3.5 of our report, the model includes all fences, walls and roof cover as

shown on plans in Appendix A. Plot Ratio This variation is acknowledged and is considered justifiable based on the following:

• The canopy is a necessary addition to mitigate acoustic impacts on adjoining properties.

• This additional plot ratio area does not increase the extent of usable commercial space within the site. Rather, it has been proposed to protect the amenity of adjoining properties.

• The canopy is lower than the existing brick wall on the southern side and will therefore have no impacts on the adjoining residential property in terms of building bulk.

• The canopy is set back from all street frontages and is largely screened from view from the public realm given that it is located over the rear parking area. The structure will therefore not increase the impacts of building bulk on the streetscape".

Environmental/ Contamination status.

• The site was reclassified earlier this year from ‘Contaminated – Remediation Required’ to ‘Remediated for Restricted Use’. There is a memorial on title notifying the current classification.

• Hydrocarbons are present in groundwater beneath the site, extending off site in a southerly direction.



• Remediation works commenced in 2001, and in 2016 testing showed the groundwater plume had attenuated. It is noted that 53 Marlow Street was previously classified and now is no longer classified.

• Under the Site Management Plan, if future testing continues to show attenuation, reclassification of the sites to ‘decontaminated’ will be sought.

• The client has access to the Basic Summary of Records from the Contaminated Sites Database and the Site Management Plan if needed.

• Based on current contamination classification, there is nothing that would prevent the redevelopment of the site as an AutoMasters. Indeed it will need to be a commercial/industrial use under the present classification and not a more sensitive use such a recreation, residential or childcare.

ATTACHMENT 5: Schedule of Submissions

LOT 423 (NO. 59) MARLOW STREET, WEMBLEY No. Position Comment 1 Objection 1. As the council will find easy to see, there is already a car workshop

corner Grantham/Panbourne St. This in its own right may offer the question about how many car workshops a small suburb actually requires. However, what can also be observed is that on many days, there are many more cars than just 12 (referring to the 12 bays in the proposal) on this property and next to it on the verge of surrounding streets. It appears that the newly proposed workshop would be, if anything, larger than the alrewady existing one. It is hence highly likely that 12 bays will not be sufficient for the expected no. of cars serviced. They may then start to clog of the Grantham Street end of Marlow Street and become a nuisance for residents in this part of the street. 2. Marlow Street, as is, is a reasonable quiet street within Wembley. Many children live here and play on the verge and, to a degree, the road. The proposal makes it extremely likely that the traffic through Marlow Street would significantly increase. This is specifically likely as the proposed 24/7 car wash facility would attract customers not only within daylight hours of the working week, but likely far beyond. Needless to say that 3 car wash facilities (both within about 1 km from the new proposal) already exist. I am rather puzzled by the assumed demand for vihecle wash facilities with a small area. 3. Marlow Street is a residential Street. A nil setback may be ok for Grantham Street, but its proposal for Marlow St, plus an actual overhang into the reserve is difficult to understand and would devaluate properties within the Street by simply being an eyesoar. Again, the question arises as to why the council seems to feel that this is of no specific concern. I assume no of the decision makers live in our street, correct? 4. Though this may be less of a concern for us in no. 39, the residents closer to the proposed facility would be strongly impacted on by the likely noise arising from a mechanical workshop. WE lived next to one some years ago and I can tell that the noise level is only tolerable, if you really like the "industrial feeling". THere is nothing such workshop could do to mitigate this. Its simply the nature of the business. Apart from this would the 24/7 carwash obviously create a certain level of noise and local disturbance.....and, as proposed, this could indeed be 24/7! Does Wembley need this kind of facility? If I lived next to it, I would certainly sue the council for the devaluation of my land.

2 Objection I am concerned in particular about the plans on your website showing that the building of the light mechanical workshop for AutoMasters will be built right up to the property boundary on the corner of Marlow and Grantham Streets, and therefore does not provide for a truncation on the corner of


LOT 423 (NO. 59) MARLOW STREET, WEMBLEY No. Position Comment

Marlow and Grantham Streets. 3 Objection

(LATE) This application for another completely inappropriate industrial activity is totally out of keeping with the residential nature of the vicinity. It will have bright lighting throughout the night impacting on the surrounding houses, parking in the streets during peak usage hours, noise at all hours, vacuum cleaners, high pressure cleaners, car doors slamming people talking and the inevitable gathering of groups of young people treating it as a meeting, drinking and drug exchange venue with shouting, smashing bottles, cars revving all in the small hours. I have received copies of the amended plans for this application:

• Preliminary Lighting Design Details, and • Environmental Noise Assessment

Which make the following changes: • An approximate 280m2 metal canopy/roof cover over the

entrance to the car wash stalls, the vacuum bays and carparking bays area.

• That canopy is to be of a skillion design and is to contain translucent sheets to provide natural sunlight to the areas underneath it.

• The canopy is to maintain a 2.4m headroom clearance at its lowest point on the subject site.

• The existing approximate 2.4m high masonry boundary wall (to abutting No.57B Marlow Street) is proposed to be increased to approximately 3.4m in height for noise attenuation purposes.

• The existing Colorbond boundary fence (to abutting Nos.58 and 57 Reserve Street) is proposed to be replaced with an approximate 3.2m high masonry fence for noise attenuation purposes.

• The Automasters signage on the south side will not be illuminated and the signage on the east side will be dimmable.

My objections to these amendments are: These changes are significant, and the proposed built structure will create a visual monstrosity at this intersection, rather like Fort Knox with 3.4-metre-high walls on the south side and 3.2metre on the westside and more roof area. This further imposition on the amenities of 57B is unreasonable. The owner had already made provision for a development at 59 Marlow St with a higher than average wall. This extra height in the proposal will overshadow the small rear outdoor area and create a prison like environment.



The footprint of this proposed development is huge and is completely out of sync with the surrounding businesses and residential developments that have made an effort to enhance the area aesthetically. The Preliminary lighting Design Details are just that, preliminary. They do not provide sufficient information or detail for residents to be confident that the impact of light emissions has been reduced to a liveable and reasonable level. The report says, page 1, ‘once progressed to the detailed design phase of the project these locations and fitting will be modelled”. Clearly, they are not able to verify or provide information yet on how they will limit ‘spill light’ as requested by the Town. Stating in their report that the ‘Visibility of obtrusive light sources is addressed through limiting the adjacent properties viewing angle….by Luminaires…mounted at heights lower than adjacent properties’ appears to be a false claim. The light signage on the building is higher than 3.2 metres. Lighting on the east side will impact on all residents even if it dimmable. It is not stated what level of light will be emitted from the ‘dimmed’ light or when it will be dimmed. Why is signage needed on the south side of the building? Surely Marlow St isn’t an important St to advertise the presence of Automasters! It is highly unlikely that Automasters will only operate two (2) hoist bays at this site in the long term. The purchase price and subsequent build will be expensive. A two hoist/bay workshop will not be viable even with the addition of the carwash and vacuum. The fact that there are two (2) car bays under cover adjacent to the hoists in the current design is concerning. It would not be surprising if Automasters after completion used them as work bays and even installed hoists, increasing noisy activity markedly. Has the Town any authority to ensure that only two (2) hoists/work bays are used/installed as any one time? The nearby Autocare mechanical workshop in Grantham St, has five (5) hoists and has approximately 20 cars each day on site to service. Drop offs are between 6.30 and 9am and pick ups between 4 and 5.30pm. There are many other vehicles that visit the site daily dropping off parts etc. Their staff are parking in nearby Pangbourne St as the site is fully occupied by customers cars. Even Autocare does not operate on Saturdays. The number of parking bays proposed for 59 Marlow St is insufficient for the number of cars to be serviced each day, staff parking, suppliers and users of the car wash and vacuum based on the information provided by the applicant. It is inevitable that there will be



spillage of vehicles into the surrounding streets. The Automasters brochure (page 11) also advises that local suppliers will supply the business on a daily basis with some suppliers delivering up to eight (8) times a day. This traffic does not appear to be factored in to the submission. In the Environmental Noise Assessment, page 4, it notes that there are vacant lots in the vicinity of the proposed development – 60 Marlow and Lot 2, 60 Reserve St, therefore ‘the most astringent applicable assigned noise level would be 60 dB La10 at all times….should these lots be developed more stringent assigned noise levels may be applicable’. It appears ludicrous that the applicant in the planning stages is not applying more stringent noise levels from the start. The Assessment notes that at “this stage ...compliance is achieved in all cases.” It is only a matter of time one would think before these properties are sold and built on so the noise levels would then be non-compliant. Indeed, the proposed development at 59 Marlow St may have the potential to prevent sale due to the noise and impact it will create. There are many assumptions in this assessment. Why is it assumed that there will only be one car wash in operation on a Sunday at any one time. It is unreasonable to make assessments on noise levels based on a minimum level of activity. Under Sunday Operation, page 12, the noise level increases from 42 db LA10 before 9am but after 9am on a Sunday and after 7pm on any day it increases to 47 dB LA10. LA10 is considered to represent an “intrusive” noise level. Why should a business be able to operate on Sundays with this level of noise when builders are not allowed to build on a Sunday to provide some respite to adjoining properties? The data used, page 3 for the transport factor has been calculated - MRWA traffic count west of Harbourne St in 2012/13. This is not current and there is no up to date information provided. How can data this old be used with confidence? The Overall dB(A) levels reported in Table 3-2, page 6 are concerning – ranging from 78 to 100, which is the equivalent of a busy road/factory floor to a rock band. How reasonable is this level of noise in a primarily residential area? It is compounded by traffic noise along Grantham St. There is limited information to indicate what effect the sound proofing outlined in the Conclusions, page 14 will have on the various sources of noise.


LOT 423 (NO. 59) MARLOW STREET, WEMBLEY No. Position Comment 4 Objection As a resident in Wembley, located on at 3 Reserve street, I would like

to place my objection on file regarding the proposal for Lot 423 (No.59) Marlow Street, Wembley. I personally do not believe it is required.

5 Objection I feel that it would be detrimental to the area. This is a family suburb, and the location is near a primary school and child care centre. The extra traffic would put extra strain on the already busy Grantham Street, with it being already difficult for residents to cross intersections, due to increasing volumes of traffic. (The extra traffic seems to be due to both the narrowing of Cambridge, and the extra residential infill to the west of Wembley.)

6 Support To whom it may concern. I support the proposed development of the businesses as outlined in application 0240DA-2018.

7 Objection Policy 5.1 - Parking: Minimum 14 bays required; 13 bays provided (including one bay within each of the three car wash stalls. The auto garage on the corner of Pangbourne has insufficient parking and staff are parking on residential streets, as well as customers cars being periodically moved on and off the street. 13 bays is not enough and will impact residential parking on Marlow street and surrounds. The 3 bays within the car wash stalls should not be included in the total parking numbers. I also oppose the 24 hour carwash due to the noise impact on nearby neighbours. Further to my email below, i wanted to highlight a couple of parking issues arising from the busy garage on Pangbourne Street. Suppliers have no where to park so regularly park across the footpaths, and on the residential Pangbourne Street (see attached photos from today) The limited 13 bays proposed for 59 Marlow is simply not enough and will impact heavily on Marlow street.

8 Objection • Additional cars exiting on Grantham street, the crossover is marked as bordering the boundary of the childcare centre car park, would be highly dangerous.

• Additional car traffic entering the neighbouring workshop whilst children are entering and leaving the facility throughout the day would also be highly dangerous.

• The noise associated with the car wash, which is located in the corner adjoining the child care centre and also a residential house, would provide a major health issue for both the children and residence. Throughout the day the children would be subjected to consistent loud noises that would clearly affect their



health whilst playing outside. These noises would also be heard clearly whilst the children are inside playing and sleeping. As the car wash is advertised as 24 hour the adjoining neighbour would be subject to this issue throughout the night.

Aside from the above, the application proposes further effects which I suspect would be outside council guidelines, these being: • Nil set backs to Marlow and Grantham Street. • Single use signage for illumination from ‘sunrise’ to ‘sunset’. I

would question the need to illuminate signage during day light hours?? No illumination is provide to other business along Grantham street.

9 Objection I'm worried the smell and chemical emissions from the vehicles at the workshop will discourage the children from playing outside of the existing daycare next door. Should't we be encouraging our children to play outside instead of creating an environment that discourages physical activity? Will the workshop have sound proofing/loud noise time restriction to reduce industrial noise? Or will the daycare have to retro-fit measures to their building, at their own cost at a later date?

10 Objection 1. We believe that there are already sufficient mechanical workshops and car wash options in this area and surrounding suburbs. With Wembley Autocare on Grantham Street and a number of car washes in close proximity there isn’t a need for more;

2. With Wembley Primary School so close there is a large number of children that walk and ride their bikes/scooters along Grantham to get home. Another business driveway will only increase the risk of children being potentially involved in accidents as it will also rest outside the 40km zoning we believe;

3. We feel there will be an increase in traffic and noise on an already busy main road. Given where we live, we have witnessed a number of near miss accidents and some car accidents on Grantham Street due to people stopping suddenly to turn off or turning in front of oncoming traffic, another business on this part of Grantham will only increase the chances of further delays and potential accidents;

4. With a Day Care Centre located close by I feel this business may be disruptive to their activities, in particular when the children need to rest/sleep and can’t due to the sounds of vacuums, drills etc. Being utilised by the proposed business.

11 Objection With the reduction in lanes on Cambridge st the traffic has moved to Grantham st and the last thing needed is to encourage yet more cars to travel along it. It is already dangerous in that area with a number of



accidents occurring near the school and having extra vehicles trying to turn right into Grantham St East to go into the city will be a nightmare. Even trying to turn out of my street into Grantham is difficult. I watch children walking to Wembley Primary school and crossing all the streets which intersect with Gratham st, so many drivers aren't looking and an increase in cars makes it more dangerous. The issue isnt just the direct traffic for their customers, but they haven't modelled in all the indirect traffic for deliveries. I already observe delivery drivers dropping things off at Wembley auto care and then speeding around to make their next deliver, this is frequently, not just once a day.

12 Objection The objection is mainly due to the increase of traffic which will occur at an intersection which is close to the Primary School and Day Care Centre. The proposed building will increase traffic to the area and make the area more dangerous to families, children on bikes etc, who use this intersection on a daily basis.

13 Objection TRAFFIC - The traffic statement predicts a traffic movement increase of an average 400 vehicles per day in Marlow St south which equates to more than 50% increase. This is promoted as acceptable based on Marlow St being a two lane road capable of 3000 vpd. This statistic ignores the fact of kerb parked vehicles which essentially reduces the pavement to single lane causing interrupted flow. - The traffic statement further states that vehicles exiting the facility to Marlow St will have good visibility to the south of some 80 metres. This may be the case if there are no cars (or worse case trucks) parked. - Vehicles exiting the facility to Marlow St and turning right into Marlow St will have inadequate sight of west bound vehicles turning left into Marlow St and subsequent lack of reaction time. - Parking of and movement of vehicles to the service bays potentially would stop vehicles entering from Marlow St with consequent safety concerns for those vehicles trying to enter the facility. - If the two vacuum bays are occupied there is access to only one car wash bay which potentially will cause a back up vehicles and consequent hazard to Marlow St. - It is of concern that the report indicates that at this time there has been no discussion with Transperth re moving the bus stop. To move the bus stop closer to Marlow St as has been suggested in the report would create numerous safety concerns. As it is now when a bus is at the stop, other traffic in that lane stops, banks up and sometimes blocks the intersection. At the very least visibility is compromised and this would be acerbated if the bus stop was moved closer to the corner. PARKING - Allowing for the 3 employees leaves 7 of the 10 boundary car parks



available to clients. Even allowing for 2 holding bays within the workshop does not provide parking for the estimated 10 client vehicles per day. The service bays can hardly considered parking bays as a vehicle has to be moved out and parked so that another vehicle can be brought in. Similarly car wash bays are operational areas and not parking. - None of the parking assessments make allowance for visitors seeking quotes, appointments etc.. SAFETY - Increasingly high numbers of children and parents have exposure to this intersection particularly in the morning and afternoons. Approval of this application would lead to increased and less predictable traffic patterns that inevitably establish a more hazardous situation. - Vehicle safety as outlined under traffic. NOISE - intrusive high noise levels from the vacuum bays and high pressure hoses of the car wash are not acceptable adjacent to a residence and child care facility - Associated with both facilities but particularly the car wash after hours there will be opening and closing of vehicle doors (with varying degrees of noise), possible loud music from vehicles and inevitably voices. ENVIRONMENT - A 24 hour operation provides a platform that could lead to a behavioural environment not compatible with a residential neighbourhood.

14 Objection Hi I would like to oppose the suggested carwash and mechanic on Marlow St and Grantham St I think it is an unnecessary addition to the area- need more restaurants/ cafes which locals could enjoy rather than travel to other suburbs - not an eye sore of a garage and 24hr carwash of which there are already enough around!

15 Objection Traffic At present, the intersection in question deals with a lot of traffic congestion due to people using Marlow Street as a thoroughfare from Herdsman Parade to Cambridge Streets. It is often very difficult to cross, and often even a long wait to turn left out of Marlow onto Grantham Street. Likewise of Reserve Street, and others that intersect with Grantham. There is significant difficulty in getting safely in and out of the Jellybeans carpark adjacent to the site in question, and safe movement of pedestrians and traffic at the corner is made further



difficult by the timed Transperth bus stop at the same site which often results in one of the two west bound lanes of traffic being blocked. Add to this, that in my experience of both 24/7 and day use only carwashes, there is often a line up which would further congest the intersection and that the number of car bays proprosed would not suffice for both parking of an auto repair shop’s daily clientele, and the flow of cars being washed. The development application indicates that to this already busy intersection, it is proposed to add a double width crossover on Marlow Street and a 4 metre vehicle crossover to Grantham Street. Given what I have noted above regarding the egress of vehicles from Marlow and Reserve Streets and Jellybeans, adding such a high volume of traffic, and a further three crossovers in such a small area displays little understanding of the area, I consider that Council lacks of foresight in what this development would do to reduce the experience and safety of the community. Proximity to families Wembley Primary School is renowned for the quality of education offered, and is thus a major drawcard for young families seeking to join our community. The intersection is close to Wembley Primary school and is already a safety risk for young children travelling to school. Further to this, adding to traffic congestion close to an early childhood education and day care provider adds further risk through traffic interactions, and exposure to environmental pollutants through the proposed workshop. Environmental Council is under pressure to further increase housing density in the area, and has canvassed rezoning of an extended section of Grantham Street, including this site in question, for high density high rise residential development. The proposed use of electronic signage throughout the night lacks sensitivity to the very domestic use of property surrounding the site. Other commercial illuminated signage that is used in the area is either sensitive to its locale and / or only in use in areas like the Cambridge Street precinct which has always been a commercial hub. Likewise from experience of other commercial vacuum cleaners in petrol stations, the use of these 24/7 in a residential environment lacks consideration for the community in the vicinity. Further to this, having grown up in the area and watched the site be remediated following the demolition of the petrol station that used to be there, and knowing that the titles of the adjacent properties have



moratoriums relating to petroleum contamination, it seems very odd that Council would consider that a carwash and auto repairer, both of which have the potential to pollute groundwater. How can Council consider that such industry with such pollutant risks (traffic, light, noise, groundwater), and in what is proposed to be a built up area, is an appropriate use of this land? Existing facilities that provide like services We are fortunate in Wembley that we have similar facilities close by. Within 4 kilometres of the site in question, there are three car washes (corner Harborne and Cambridge, corner Jersey and Cambridge, and Homebase) and an auto repair shop (corner Pangbourne and Grantham) by that are sensitively and sensibly grouped with other industrial businesses.

16 Objection This is already a busy cross section of cars being so close to the Wembley Primary school and Jellybeans Daycare Centre and would create further danger to the existing pedestrian traffic with higher car volumes to the area. Grantham Street and Cambridge Street are already very high volume traffic areas, with general speed zones of 60km/hour, with the exception of the school zone marked between Simper and Jersey streets. I have a young family in the area and have lived in the area for most of my life. I find the two streets of Grantham and Cambridge to be very busy and dangerous at times with cars travelling very fast down these roads without much consideration of the local pedestrians. I am disappointed particularly that the section of Cambridge "cafe strip" does not follow the example set by other local councils with reduced speed zones. (eg. Scaroebough Beach Road 50km/hour, Beaufort Street 40-50km/hour, Leederville Oxford Street to name a few) These streets are already busy with foot and vehicle traffic, and especially in the section between Simper street and Jersey street, it would be wise and safe to reduce the speed limit to 40 or 50km per hour. Given the changing traffic conditions with the pub, shops and numerous parking bays, that rarely make this particular section of road a dual carriage way each side. A reduced speed limit in this section would make for much safer pedestrian crossing and driving conditions, and I feel that as a motorist, I would rarely be able to travel at 60km in this busy section of road. However some motorists seem to consider this speed limit a challenge.

17 Objection Safety hazards regarding the proposal



There is a large amount of pedestrian traffic around the proposed development area, particularly around peak times proposed for the development, as families walk, ride and scooter to school. This was not addressed in the Riley Consulting Report provided on traffic flow. An increase flow of traffic along both Grantham and Marlow Streets, with a large number of cars crossing pedestrian walkways on both streets, particularly with the proposed dual crossover on Marlow St, provides an increased risk to pedestrians, many of whom are children.

Increased traffic on Grantham St in particular

Grantham St is already a busy major road, and there have been several accidents recently around the area. A pedestrian was hit by a car a suffering a fractured leg outside the proposed development site approximately 2 years ago. Parking to the East of the proposed development may reduce visibility for cars exiting the site. Cars turning into Marlow St to enter the site are likely to cause congestion during peak hours, and there is also a likelihood of cars using other roads to by-pass Marlow St, increasing traffic density throughout other residential streets in Wembley.

Impact on residential development

The proposal contravenes the Town of Cambridge Statement that “Wembley will remain a residential area with the Non-residential development restricted to the Wembley Town Centre, along parts of Cambridge St, Salvado Road, and the Residential/Commercial zone along Herdsman Parade”. (Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual, Policy 6.4: Precinct P4: Wembley). Our community is a close local community, supporting local businesses and through initiatives such as “Buy Nothing/Sell Nothing Wembley” and “Share, Repair, Reduce, Recycle WL/Leederville” Facebook groups, and with the local school promoting walk to school days and “Nude Food” Tuesdays, we are aiming to become a greener, more unified community. The proposed facility of an illuminated 24 hour car wash and a large franchised car servicing facility adjacent to homes is in direct contrast with these ideals. There are already several car washing facilities in close proximity, we do not need another among our homes.

18 Objection Safety Hazards, Increased Traffic, Impact on Residential Development



21 Objection Safety Hazards, Increased Traffic, Impact on Residential



Development 22 Objection . -Car Wash/Vacuum Facility

The proposal to operate the Car Wash/Vacuum for 24 hours 7 days a week is such a ridiculous request for this residential area, that we can only assume that it is an ambit claim in order to extend normal operating hours whilst being seen to compromise. By its nature this activity generates noise and inconvenience to nearby residents. Car Washing/Cleaning before 7am and after 9pm is unreasonable and unnecessary. 2.-Marlow Street/Grantham Street Intersection The entry/exit on Marlow Street being positioned so close to the Grantham street intersection is a serious design fault. Vehicles turning left and right from Grantham Street into Marlow Street, to access this facility, conflicting with vehicles exiting the facility, and combined with the normal traffic in this area, will cause a dangerous situation on Grantham Street, especially at peak hours. We suggest that a left turn only from Marlow Street into the facility, and a left turn only at Grantham Street to exit the faciity, would go someway to addressing this issue. It is already difficult for residents on Marlow Street to cross Grantham Street at peak/school transfer periods. We wish to re-emphasise that the vehicular/pedestrian safety aspect of this intersection cannot be overstated. 3.-Mechanical Workshop Operation Whilst we have no objection to the workshop per se, the resultant movement and parking of numerous vehicles will exacerbate the traffic situation. One has only to observe the successful mechanical businesses in the area to appreciate the vehicle problems. We suggest that the number of parking bays for a facility such as this is inadequate, as these types of operations nearly always exceed the bays available, with a resultant annexation of street parking.






LOT 423 (NO. 59) MARLOW STREET, WEMBLEY No. Position Comment 27 Objection Safety Hazards, Increased Traffic, Impact on Residential

Development 28 Objection Safety Hazards, Increased Traffic, Impact on Residential


Development 30 Objection The surrounding area is predominantly residential and should remain

so

The proposed use will be detrimental to the amenity of the area and will de-value the adjoining properties

Whilst Council may desire to develop more commercial use along Grantham Street, Council must be mindful that the area is first and foremost residential and any commercial use should be restricted to low impact, both visual and with regard to noise

A 24-hour Motor Vehicle Wash is inappropriate directly adjoining residential properties, this should be in a light industrial estate, eg Osborne Park, not a residential area

The likelihood of noise pollution at all hours of the day and night is very high and inappropriate for the area

Illuminated signage throughout the night is inappropriate in a residential area

It is our understanding that the site is already the subject of remediation following the release of petroleum by a former petrol station – the potential to further pollute the groundwater is concerning to say the least

Consideration should firstly be given to existing residents and their rights to peaceful enjoyment of their property

Increased traffic from this development would be detrimental considering the proximity of a day care centre and primary school, the safety of our children is paramount

The proposed use is already excluded from the provisions of the Town Planning Scheme – “does not meet deemed-to-comply provisions” -- and as such is already deemed to be inappropriate

31 Objection I am 85 years of age. I object to the building of the Mechanical Workshop and the Motor Vehicle Wash as the Motor Vehicle Wash will be right opposite my



house and my bedroom window. The signs that will be lit up from sunset to sunrise will illuminate my house all night and make it difficult for me to sleep as all of my windows face onto Marlow Street. The accessway and the vehicle crossover from Marlow Street for 24 hours a day will mean the constant noise from cars and also the constant noise from the car wash and the vacuum will impact on my daily life. Also, I understand that the bus stop will be moved which will cause great inconvenience as that is my main form of transport.


33 Objection Traffic (parking), Lights and Noise, Planning Priorities 34 Objection Safety Hazards, Increased Traffic, Impact on Residential

Development 35 Objection Whilst we do not oppose a development on the existing site, we

strongly oppose the use of the land for a 24 hour car wash. Given the potential for disturbance from light and noise, we believe a 24 hour car wash is not in the best interests of any residents within a 500 metre radius. We wish to formally request that the Town of Cambridge does not approve this application.

36 Objection The proposed development being car mechanical services has the potential to cause chemical, oil and petrol run off into the ground water. Considering the site was a former petrol station we understood that the site was under remediation due to the release of petroleum on the site. There is no acoustic assessment of the proposed development however the noise from the vacuum stations and workshop would be a concern as people on Marlow Street expect a certain standard of living including a quiet residential environment. The fact that the car wash is open 24/7 is a concern regarding noise. In the traffic impact report there is no consideration for traffic movement on the site itself. In relation to the plans the car wash and vacuum stations would create restrictive car movements for parking and queuing. Cars entering from Marlow street realizing the vacuum station or car wash is full and don’t want to wait would have to exit back onto Marlow Street; in reverse if necessary if there is no opportunity to turn around. The car exit location creates a hazard for cars wanting to turn right



onto Grantham Street; this road is especially busy at peak hours. Increase in traffic entering Marlow Street from Grantham Street would present problems for school children crossing Marlow Street. Grantham Street can be busy in morning peak hours Proposed signage facing Marlow Street would cause light pollution for neighbouring properties. In our view existing Automasters are located within commercial areas, not residential. Whilst we support the activation of Grantham Street for local businesses the proposed development does not lend itself to a residential area. The nearest Automasters in Osbourne Park is six minutes away which is convenient enough without an additional outlet in the area. For car maintenance/ services there is an existing Autocare further down on Grantham Street, approximately 450 metres from the proposed site. Local petrol stations in the area provide carwash and vacuum stations already. A car hand wash service on Harborne Street has just opened.



39 Objection On behalf of the residents of Marlow Street and surrounding streets in Wembley I would like to voice my concerns regarding a proposal for a 24 hour carwash and Automasters workshop. This is a residential suburb not light industrial so that is the first objection. Second traffic and noise 24/7 not acceptable Thirdly close to Wembley Primary School and a Daycare centre. Traffic congestion chaotic parking. The council must reject this proposal as unacceptable to the local community.


41 Objection The trend in Wembley over the past thirty years has been away this type of business. The number of service stations/mechanical workshops in Cambridge and Grantham Streets between Harborne and Selby Streets has gone from at least eight to two (cnr Pangbourne & Grantham and cnr Jersey & Cambridge) in that time.



In a time when there is an expansion of higher density residential living, one would expect the focus should be for development of entertainment and shopping precincts, not light industrial. Indeed, with the exception of a long established mechanical workshop, all businesses in Grantham Street are of a retail/medical nature. The proposed service centre is adjacent to a childcare centre, an area where there is already quite heavy traffic at drop-off and pick-up times. This would presumably be the same time as workshop patrons would be dropping off and picking up their vehicles. That amounts to a heavy concentration of traffic in a very small zone (Reserve to Marlow Streets) of little more than one hundred metres. I note that the entry/exit to the childcare centre is adjacent to the exit of the proposed workshop. The potential for problems here during busy times is self-evident. This traffic would occur in times of peak hour traffic along an already busy Grantham Street. Given the substantial pedestrian traffic of school children to the nearby Wembley Primary School at these times, the focus should be on maximising child safety by minimising traffic, not increasing it. (There appears to be minimal setback of the building from Grantham Street. This creates the potential for further problems for traffic leaving Marlow Street having a view of oncoming traffic in Grantham Street. Being a mechanical workshop, it is to be assumed that lubricants and solvents will be stored on the premises which could create the volatile risk of an industrial scale fire. . It can be reasonably assumed that the above mentioned materials will be used during the time the adjacent childcare centre is in full operation. Furthermore, has the potential for disruption to the routine of children in its care by the level of noise emanating from a fully operational mechanical workshop been considered? What safeguards are in place to prevent the escape of potentially toxic materials (eg. old style brake pad dust potentially containing asbestos fibres)? . The vehicle wash facility is to operate on a 24 hour basis. This means all-night lighting or unpredictable, irregular lighting and noise of machinery during the night. Coupled with the risk of anti-social behaviour of patrons, this poses an unacceptable intrusion into the rights of the nearby residents to the enjoyment of their property. I note in particular, the adjacent new residences which, so far as I am aware, have not even been occupied at this time. Whilst I have no care about the commercial viability or otherwise of this business, it should be noted that there are already two vehicle washing facilities and a highly regarded mechanical workshop within a two to three minute drive of this proposed development. I don’t think the local



residents are deprived of this kind of service. 42 Objection Safety Hazards, Increased Traffic, Impact on Residential

Development 43 Objection 1. Traffic congestion on Marlow Street due to customers of both

carwash and car workshop coming in and our of the business area 2. Noise level of having a light industrial activity 3. Possible accident for kids to go to school. We are so close to the school, I thought it would make so much more sense to make the area very safe for kids travelling to/from school 4. Possible security risk for having many parking bays and operating 24/7 carwash. The place could possible be used as a meeting point for car enthusiasts, although most of the time I am sure these will be good people, it might attract wrong kind of people who might start making unnecessary noises, drinking and drug dealing, car revving, hooning on the street nearby (burnouts is a very common practice among motor vehicle enthusiasts as a form of boasting or showing off), and worst of all, wrong crowd might think that it is a good idea to start hassling the neighbors around the business 5. I feel the most for number 57 Marlow Street who will live right next to the business as they will be the one who cope with the noise level the most


45 Objection 1) Having stood vacant for a considerable time to solve issues with ground water contamination following use as a petrol station, it sounds very ironic that reverting to a facility that would undoubtedly lead to further ground water contamination should be considered. This is particularly in an area targeted for infill housing. Would it not be more appropriate to develop this ground as a townhouse complex? 2) Increased traffic flow is being planned in an area where increased housing density is actively underway. I point to the two new houses being built opposite the proposed site, the two new houses having already been built and the likelihood that in the near future certain parts of the corner complex will be revised. In my opinion, this is yet another example of poor planning decisions that are prevalent in the area. 3) Doubling up of facilities – there is already a car service outlet in spitting distance of the proposal and others in Cambridge Street. Do we need more? 4) I debate the statement on your document 0240DA-2018 that the proposal will have A TOTAL OF 13 CARPARKING BAYS. This is deceptive. My appraisal of the plans indicates that the site has the potential to hold 18 vehicles at any one time – almost double the proposal. In my estimate I am including all those areas where vehicles may be left overnight, which is a common feature of



businesses of this kind. This has a major consequence for health and safety in this area.



LOT 423 (NO. 59) MARLOW STREET, WEMBLEY 47 Objection - Noises coming from the car wash and Mechanical Maintenance

Workshop. My bedroom faces Marlow Street. - Increase in parking on the street/council verge causing distraction and obscuring my view of vehicles passing by whilst I'm entering and exiting my property car port at 56 Marlow Street. - Increase in parking on the street/council verge causing distraction and obscuring my view of vehicles passing by whilst Im entering and exiting my property car port at 56 Marlow Street.

• Increased traffic noise. - The convenience of the bus stop I have been using to get off at on Grantham Street/Marlow Streets on my way home from work. Stop No. 17454, which is located at the front of the proposed site which could be subject to relocation. - Devaluation of my property and less home/street appeal for any would be home buyers should the sale of my home come about. - It is not practical to have this Industry too close proximity of the Child Care and Wembley Primary School. - As this is a self-sufficient car-wash, there will be no proper monitoring of the area which will lead to more rubbish, pollution, and unwanted stopovers in the premises which could potentially lead to issues on Marlow st. - Due to the increase of building/workmen in the area close by, I have found my front garden littered with rubbish either blown in by the workers or coming off their skips. -Increase in noise and traffic in an area that is already under pressure from increased housing density -Proximity to primary school and child day-care centre -Marlow/Grantham intersection already a problem, especially for kids who walk to work -Potential to further pollute groundwater -Wembley already has two car wash facilities on Cambridge Street -How does industrialising the neighbourhood contribute to increased housing density Since moving into my property in February 1997 I have noticed an



increase in traffic along Marlow Street and Grantham Street. The intersection there is hazardous as I have to very carefully navigate may way across the road every morning to catch the public transport. Additional traffic would only hinder the situation. Marlow Street has been a lovely place to live. It has already been subjected to traffic calming with tree planting down the centre of the road between Cambridge Street and Ruslip Street, together with a speed bump before Grantham Street to try and slow the traffic down. It would be a great shame to have an Industry-Light Mechanical Workshop and Motor Vehicle Wash built on the site as it would totally spoil the atmosphere of a homely street in a thriving family orientated neighbourhood and this is why I am putting in my objection to you.



50 Objection We have experienced an increase in traffic in Marlow Street with drivers trying to avoid the light and also people parking in Marlow Street to catch the bus, sees Marlow Street as very congested. I believe this situation would only increase with the proposed development. Land value - with the zoning in the area to accommodate more housing and the potential of a development such as proposed seems incompatible. I do feel for the residence who has recently built loving new homes close to 59 Marlow Street. I am surprised that a development of this kind is proposed for Lot 423 as it has been vacant for many years trying to remedy the pollution caused by the previous fuel station on that site. I feel no consideration has been given the child care facility next door, with the noise that would be generated from a propos d workshop. Policy 5.1 - Minimum 14 bays. I could only count 10 on the plan. Even as your letter stated there would be 13 car bays (including 3 in the car wash stalls?) Bending the rules I suggest. There are already two car wash facilities in Wembley.

51 Objection In summary we hope this letter highlights to the Town of Cambridge and relevant parties there are lots of evidence that this proposed development violates legislation and policies of the Town of Cambridge. As evidenced, the violations are mostly around safety concerns that cannot be addressed adequately with this development, regardless of what the developers may put down in writing. The mechanical workshop and 24 hour car wash are definitely not examples of “local centre” zoning. Residents have not wanted this in the past and will continue to fight against any suggestions of this in the future. The local community of Wembley is strong, community orientated and dedicated to the safety of its residents including families and young children who will be mostly



affected. The proposed development goes against the Vision, Mission, Values and Business Philosophy of the Town of Cambridge. We are very interested in local engagement and supporting businesses which do reflect “local centre” business and / or facilities which fully support the Vision and Mission of the Town. We are very happy to engage in any further discussion about our concerns.

52 Objection My husband Neil Dearn and I, Alison Dearn have been living at 52a Marlow Street, Wembley for 21 years and I cannot believe that you have the audacity to propose once again a six days per week Mechanical Workshop and a 24hrs, 7 days per week self-serve Motor Vehicle Wash. This is exactly what you tried to propose to the residents of Marlow Street and Grantham Street a number of years ago !!!!! As you would be aware the proposal was quashed and therefore did not go ahead . Hallelujah someone on the Council at that time had some sense and integrity. You may not be aware but Marlow Street has altered dramatically over the years . Whereas there used to be many elderly people living in the area, as life moves on so do the elderly and now we have many young families residing here in Marlow Street. Where we are located is ideal for families with young children as there are a variety of primary schools in the area not forgetting the Child Care Centre adjacent to the vacant block where you, the Council are suggesting the above proposal !!!! The plans of the proposal show entrances in and out from Marlow Street and exit only from Grantham Street I can just see what chaos there will be when children are walking or push biking to school and the same chaos at schools end of day. The capacity of traffic along Grantham and Marlow Streets has increased significantly since your first previous effort of the above proposal, due to high density housing and general influx of population in and around the area. We know, we live here . Hence, myself and my husband strongly oppose with every bone in our body to the above named proposal. For heaven sake just a little further up on Grantham Street in the direction of Jersey Street there is Wembley Auto Services and on Cambridge Street at the corner of Jersey and Cambridge there is a car wash next to Coles Express. I believe further up on Cambridge Street towards Harborne Street there is also a car wash. Excuse me for repeating myself, even if in other words but truly this proposal is unacceptable ........ null and void.

53 Objection -Increase in noise and traffic in an area that is already under pressure from increased housing density -Proximity to primary school and child day-care centre



-Marlow/Grantham intersection already a problem, especially for kids who walk to work -Potential to further pollute groundwater -Wembley already has two car wash facilities on Cambridge Street -How does industrialising the neighbourhood contribute to increased housing density

54 Objection Marlow Street (between Ruislip and Grantham) is currently undergoing a renaissance and there are 3 properties under construction with another 6 that have recently been completed. All homes are for families with children who are wanting to move into Wembley and are looking to send their children to good schools. Of the three new houses under construction, once completed, there will be an additional 6 children living in Marlow Street, all under the age of 8. We see the proposal as a detriment to having children playing on Marlow Street, due to the increased motor vehicle activity and resulting safety concerns. As the streets are very narrow people who are waiting to use the carwash will park along the street and congest the neighbourhood, all hours of the day and night, as the carwash is 24/7. There will also be noises disturbances at all hours of the day and night and this will not be ideal for residents. The council must always put resident’s safety, peace and quiet first and most items that will disturb residents cannot be measured until after the fact. At this point in time, it will be most difficult to make any changes, hence we strongly oppose the application. Our house at 60B Marlow Street, as mentioned earlier, is under construction, it has been brought to our attention that used syringes have been found on the rear of our block. As our northern boundary borders with a carpark there appears to be activities after hours in the carpark that are also proving to be of a safety concern to us. We have applied and been granted a building permit to construct a 2-metre-high brick fence to protect our house. This has come at a considerable cost to us, but we understand, as we live adjacent to a commercial premises, this was the only way to provide additional protection to our home. The additional 13 bays for this proposal may attract undesirables to our location and similar activities may result in such carpark. When we received your letter regarding the Application for the Industry-Light (Mechanical Workshop) and Motor Vehicle Wash we were mortified, shocked and angry that the council would entertain such ideas of these types of business virtually next door to residential areas, especially in the Western Suburbs. After we endured an 11-month protracted approval process to get our



residential home approved and then this application is presented it is very disappointing that council would even consider such applications, directly next door to residential properties. The intersection of Grantham and Marlow is also a safety concern. Currently, when heading north on Marlow with the intention to turn right onto Grantham, to head in a eastly direction, it is very difficult to see in either direction, let alone to the right along Grantham. The commercials units’ awnings protrude over the street and make it very difficult to see. We believe there is a risk of accidents if we congest the intersection even further. Vehicles travelling at 60kmph, on Grantham, pose a real threat to other vehicles trying to cross or enter Grantham and we believe this intersection will become more dangerous when there are commercial units that’s main purpose is to provide service for vehicles. After reading your letter, this has put considerable stress on my husband and I especially during the constructions of our new home. As you can imagine this is not great timing as we have a lot of decisions to make and challenges to overcome in building our very first home. The additional anxiety over what is to become of Marlow Street, in the future, is also proving to be a challenge. We are questioning if it was the right decision to buy in Wembley for the betterment of our family’s future, especially if this proposal gets approved.

55 Objection • the increased noise and disturbance from the mechanic and car wash machinery

• the air quality • the delivery, storage, use and disposal of chemicals and

wastewater • the increased traffic from vehicles moving in and out of the

premises. The proposed exit for the mechanic is next to the existing bus stop which is heavily used by parents that are dropping off and picking up children from the day care centre as well as school children from near-by schools.




59 Objection 1. I have lived in Wembley since I was 10. For me, the best parts of growing up here were the opportunities I had to go on my own adventures: to the parks, the local shops, to the city by public transport. These were things I was only able to do because I knew I lived in an area that was quiet, safe and



supportive of children learning to be independent. Allowing light industry will reduce the freedom children currently have to be adventurous, take calculated risks and be connected to their friends and neighbours. In a world where we are regularly reminded of how technology disconnects us, these opportunities are more important than ever.

2. This application 0240DA-2018 does not comply with the Town’s Policy 6.4 (Precinct P4: Wembley) because it would amount to the developing of light industry in an area that is zoned for local businesses. It will impact on the amenity of the area and is not in keeping with the Town’s vision for Wembley.

3. Wembley residents have not been fairly considered, nor the impact on their safety and amenity properly assessed, in the planning stages of this proposal.

4. The traffic impact/transport assessment completed for the

planning application was not properly or accurately completed and is misleading. It has not addressed core safety concerns and has overlooked key parts of the Transport Impact Assessment Guidelines – Volume 4 – Individual Developments, which it says inform its methodology.

5. The lack of detail and care that has gone into this planning

application means the evaluated impact on Marlow and Grantham Streets is unrealistic and significantly underestimated. This application is not consistent with Lot 423/59 Marlow Street’s zoning as ‘Local Centre Zone’ and should not be approved by the Town.



62 Objection • Safety:

This intersection and Marlow St are key pedestrian zones for families and children to and from Wembley Primary School and the nearby childcare facility. The peak times proposed for the development coincide with the times children are walking and riding to school. I am concerned that this was not addressed in the Riley Consulting Report on traffic flow, and suggest it calls into question the usefulness of that report. There have already been accidents around this site with current traffic levels. The development poses an increased risk to pedestrian and cyclist safety in the area, noting particularly that many are children.

• Noise and light



The 24 hour nature of the business and the sunset to sunrise lighting will generate noise and light at antisocial hours, with a significant impact on neighbouring properties.

• Traffic flow

The proposed Marlow St entry to the development will increase traffic along Marlow St and surrounding streets, and increase congestion on Cambridge St, which is already a busy road.

• Inappropriate development mix

The Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual (Policy 6.4: Precinct P4: Wembley) states “Wembley will remain a residential area with the Non-residential development restricted to the Wembley Town Centre, along parts of Cambridge St, Salvado Rd, and the Residential/Commercial zone along Herdsman Pde”. This development directly goes against this intent. Light industrial development diminishes the residential nature of the area, reduces the liveability of the suburb and detracts significantly from the streetscape. It is a backwards step and inconsistent with best practice urban planning. Development in the area should be focussed on increasing the appropriate mix of residential dwellings with walking destination commercial usage, enhancing the vibrancy of the local area and the appeal of the Town of Cambridge.

• Existing service

There is already one service and repair centre within a few blocks of the proposed development, and a number of car washes in nearby area. Wembley is already well serviced in this regard and the proposed development does not address a service gap.

• Local opposition

Every person I have spoken with about the proposal has voiced their strong opposition to it, and I have not encountered anyone in favour of it. I have not sought out these opinions; the subject is being discussed extensively in the local community. Not everyone has the time or capacity to put in a formal submission, but community sentiment appears to be universally against this development.

63 Objection I love walking around the corner to my hairdresser, my beautician, and the occasional longer walk to the local shopping complex on Cambridge St to pick up groceries. Along with walking up to Monstarella for pizza, Captain Peters for Fish and Chips, and even Yellow Pancake for take away Vietnamese (the first time I did this I ran there, and my husband



didn’t believe I hadn’t taken the car - it was such a quick trip!). I walk to Lake Monger, ride down and around Herdsman Lake with my kids, often stopping at The Pearfect Pantry for a milkshake reward on the way home. Our suburb is amazing, and after living here for 2 years, my husband and I still regularly comment on how lucky we were to end up here. The idea that at the end of our road, there has been a proposal to build a light industry on an already contaminated site, along with a 24 hour carwash business that will have illuminated signage from "sunset to sunrise" along with the noise generated from vacuum bays, high pressure hoses and simply cars coming through at all hours of the night and doors opening and closing right next door to homes is so disappointing.

64 Objection I love walking around the corner to my hairdresser, my beautician, and the occasional longer walk to the local shopping complex on Cambridge St to pick up groceries. Along with walking up to Monstarella for pizza, Captain Peters for Fish and Chips, and even Yellow Pancake for take away Vietnamese (the first time I did this I ran there, and my husband didn’t believe I hadn’t taken the car - it was such a quick trip!). I walk to Lake Monger, ride down and around Herdsman Lake with my kids, often stopping at The Pearfect Pantry for a milkshake reward on the way home. Our suburb is amazing, and after living here for 2 years, my husband and I still regularly comment on how lucky we were to end up here. The idea that at the end of our road, there has been a proposal to build a light industry on an already contaminated site, along with a 24 hour carwash business that will have illuminated signage from "sunset to sunrise" along with the noise generated from vacuum bays, high pressure hoses and simply cars coming through at all hours of the night and doors opening and closing right next door to homes is so disappointing.

65 Objection 1. This is a Family First community First and foremost, I am proud of the “family first” nature of the community and Council clearly encourages this culture. It supports: - the considerable growth of Wembley Primary School, situated one block away from the proposed development; - the Jellybeans Child Care facility, situated right next door the proposed development; - the annual family Christmas event at Lake Monger, in close proximity to the proposed development; and - the many community activities aimed at families and young people. Marlow Street’s residential density has steadily increased inline with local planning strategies and as a result there is a very high proportion of families in the street who have young and pre-school aged children.



Council clearly supports our vibrant, family-friendly community. It would therefore be incongruent to support the approval of a light industrial development in an environment that is clearly a designated residential zone. 2. Traffic issues arising Marlow is already a busy street. Anyone spending time on the street will notice the:

• thoroughfare of school traffic (pushed to Marlow St because Simper St is so highly congested);

• direct route utilised by the police accessing Grantham St from their station on Cambridge St;

• overflow of parking utilised by operators running businesses on Grantham St;

And this is before we even consider how busy Grantham St is, particularly following the redevelopments on Cambridge St that has pushed more traffic to Grantham. Turning east onto Grantham from Marlow St is not easy (at all); it’s already a busy intersection. There is no question that these proposed light-industrial businesses will add pressure to Marlow St, Grantham St and the intersection thereof. There is no acknowledgement in the provided report that the proposed development is just on the other side of the 40km / hour school zone. Cars travelling west on Grantham will come through the 40 zone, increase speed toward Marlow St, turn left on to Marlow and then wait until it’s clear to turn right into the Auto Masters / car wash cross over. If the existing bus stop on Grantham is pushed further eastward, that will no doubt add even more pressure on this intersection and the general area. Clearly there is a large number of young children utilising the roads and footpaths around the proposed development sites and naturally safety is of primary concern. An increase in traffic, as well as the brick wall lining the western exit of the car wash onto Grantham is problematic and unsafe. Notably, there is no inclusion in the traffic report demonstrating data from other similar environments, such as the intersection of Pangbourne St and Grantham St, where there is the existing



(restricted hours) Wembley Auto business incorporating a car park that is regularly overflowing with vehicles. And similarly, there is no information provided relating to the similar density of the Grantham and Jersey St corner, which is well known for it’s difficult and dangerous situations, including several accidents. 3. Other issues arising If there are other 24-hour (light industrial) car washes operating in residential environments, it would be reasonable to expect further information of other issues arising, such as the noise generated by high-pressure hoses and vacuum cleaners. And given that the proposed application does not comply with the Council’s own requirements for car parking, no doubt this will generate overflow parking in the street. Mr Munyard, it appears that the information we have been offered with this proposal is painted in a light to support this development. However, there is a lack of transparency around the true nature of the existing traffic, safety and other implications this development would bring. Furthermore, in some circumstances the data is confusing and in particular the data does not properly cover the 24/7 nature of the proposal.

66 Objection As residence of Marlow Street, Wembley we advise the council that we oppose the approval of the Mechanical Workshops & Motor Vehicle Wash on the corner of Marlow and Grantham Streets, Wembley. I have viewed the plans at the council office in Floreat. Our first concern is for the school children who walk along Grantham Street and the proximity to the childcare facility next door. We oppose any Industry-light development on the vacant property located in a residential area already under traffic and parking pressure. We trust you understand and note our genuine concern.

67 Objection I am writing to advise you that I strongly object to the proposal for the above development. I live on the corner of Pangbourne and Grantham Streets opposite Wembley auto care. We have constant problems with coming home and having our driveway blocked, parking problems for our visitors (even with parking restrictions in place) and cars being dropped off at all hours of the night by tow trucks. This is a residential area and the noise from his development can only be detrimental to the area and its existing residents. Please take my comments into consideration when deciding whether to approve this application.

68 Objection 1) Traffic and Safety 2) Signage 3) Noise level and acoustic reporting 4) Waste management



5) Previous DA for carwash 69 Objection The Application for an Auto Masters workshop and Motor Vehicle

Wash complex to be built and operated at 59 Marlow Street (Lot 423) should not approved for a number of reasons: It is in breach of stated Town policy –

• Service entry to the complex is adjacent to an adjoining residence.

• Insufficient parking/space to allow queueing without spill into Marlow Street.

• Parking/traffic to be separate from pedestrians – pedestrians have to negotiate two new cross-overs with 324-358 car movements.

• No buffer between Light Industrial and Residential and Child Care.


71 Objection First and foremost, the establishment of workshops and car wash would definitely lead to an increase in traffic. As you know, the location is quite close to the Jelly Bean day care center and the Wembley Primary School, so it would be a great issue for the children, especially the students who walk to school. Such a development may also deter the young families who would like to join our community because of the primary school.

Secondly, such a development will increase the noise in that area that is already under pressure from the increased housing density. Additionally, the increased noise can exert a negative influence on the study and the activities of the children in the day care and the primary school.

Thirdly, the motor vehicle wash business has the potential to pollute the groundwater. Indeed, that area is still recovering from petroleum pollution caused by a former petrol station. If the car wash is established, it may have a long-run effect on the groundwater and the environment.

Fourthly, according to Local Planning Strategy 2017, Corridor B, the council has an intention to develop high-rise buildings. But if the proposed development is approved, it may reduce the value of the buildings.

Finally, there are already two car wash facilities on the Cambridge Street not far away from the planned location, which can definitely meet our needs in the daily life. Therefore, there is no need for the same kind facilities.

72 Objection Entry/access to this proposed site will be available ONLY via Marlow Street, a designated “Local Access Road”. According



to the Road Hierarchy for Western Australia, an access road is designed for a “low degree of connectivity for Primary and or Distributor roads; its predominant purpose is to provide access to property (in this case, residential), and “provide access to abutting properties with amenity, safety and aesthetic aspects having priority over the vehicle movement function. These roads are bicycle and pedestrian friendly.”

According to the Traffic Statement provided by Auto Masters, the proposed development is “forecast to generate about 358 vehicle movements per day, this is on top of the already existing traffic conservatively quoted at 700p/day. They then suggest that this is only a 2.5% increase?? I am unsure as to what math’s they are using, as from any reasonable person’s perspective, this is actually more than a 50% increase.

Regardless of their creative mathematics, even if you consider their opinion that during evening peak hours, there will be up to 29 vehicle movements expected. They assure us that this considered to have “no material impact” under WAPC transport assessment guidelines. Perhaps we were reading different documents? According to the TIA guidelines I have accessed, a MODERATE impact is anywhere between 10 -100 vehicles during a developments peak hour (Vol 4 Part B)

Since as far back as December 2000, the council has documented numerous traffic issues surrounding the intersection of Marlow and Grantham Street and have even received and allocated State funding to the “Black Spot” reports. In the 5 years prior to Black spot works being completed on this intersection, of the 17 recorded accidents there, 5 required hospitalization for injuries sustained.

The report also documented an increase in traffic on Marlow Street of over 31% as the result of ill planned works on Herdsman Parade.

A subsequent report tabled to council in May 2001 (TS01.36 April 2001) stated that “…Local Access roads should be for local residents to access their homes. Local Access roads are not designed as throughways. Through traffic should be directed to Distributor Roads.” Given that the ONLY access to this development will be via Marlow Street, it is incomprehensible to believe that customers will not use the residential street as a means of avoiding the congestion on



Grantham Street or the lights at Selby Street.

I refer back to the traffic report provided by Auto Masters and suggest that they have conveniently left this aspect of their report out when taking into consideration the increased traffic that will occur on Marlow Street as a direct result of the ONLY entrance being located on our street.

I also did not read in their report the current issues Marlow Street already has from April to September – the increased on street parking due to the netball season and limited parking at nearby Mathews / State netball centre. Where does that factor into their calculations.

The occupiers of both the residential properties directly next door/opposite (58, - 60 Marlow Street) and other immediate residences that will be affected in various ways and to varying degrees as a result of this development. I have been informed that they too are objecting to this proposal.

Wembley Primary school children who use Marlow street to get to and from school each weekday.

Over the years that we have lived in this beautiful suburb, we have seen it transform from an aging population, to an area that young families are attracted to in droves. On our section of Marlow Street alone there have been up to 10 young families move in in the past few years, most of whom are sending/will send their children to the local primary school, and later the local high schools. Many of these children walk to school along Marlow Street or take the bus from Grantham Street. The safety of these young people should be paramount – increasing traffic flow through an already busy area not zoned for commercial traffic, is not conducive to this.

The neighbourhood.

According to your Mission “Our inner-city charm, character laden suburbs, extensive parkland and quality streetscapes reflect who we are, what we value and what we offer” - a large, potentially disruptive industrial development doesn’t fit with this picture. Not to mentions the local business already providing similar services – Multiple car wash facilities at surrounding service stations & the Wembley Autocare. This business will undoubtedly be affected by a large, national company moving in 500m from it’s long standing



location.

Future resale potential of properties on Marlow Street – living next to an industrial site such as a machine workshop is hardly conducive to the marketplace. What will council to do offset the potential loss in value to its ratepayers’ properties?

We residents are also yet to receive any reports with regards to noise or light pollution as a result of this development. It would be my assumption, and expectation, that no approval for any works will be given until such a time as affected residents are provided with all of the facts.

73 Objection 1. Increased traffic on Marlow Street. Forecasts Traffic Movements of +358 cars per day on a daily basis and +424 cars per day on Saturdays. It then goes on in Table 4 to suggest that of those 358 cars per day, only 75 of these would be using Marlow St, creating 2.5% capacity, and suggesting therefore that there would not normally likely to have any material impact on Marlow St. The only entry to the facility is on Marlow Street. The proposed median strip on Marlow Street (which is a very good idea) will only increase the number of cars driving up Marlow Street to reach the only entrance ON MARLOW STREET.

2. Increased noise from 24 hour car wash. It is clear that a 24 hour car wash will have an impact on the adjacent residential blocks through noise and illumination alone.

3. Destruction of the community high street developing along Grantham Street. Town of Cambridge manual, Policy 6.4:Precint P4: “Non-residential development is restricted to the Wembley Town Centre, along parts of Cambridge Street and Salvado Road, and the Residential/Commercial zone along Herdsman Parade” and looking into the Residential zone, statement of intent 1.1 “A limited number of non-residential uses such as local shops, child care facilities, recreation areas and primary schools are also appropriate where they serve the immediate day to day needs of local residents and are an integral part of the residential environment. These uses will only be supported by Council where they are small in scale, and are not likely to cause any significant disturbance to adjacent residences or the residential character of the



area.”. The proposed development is entirely inconsistent with this policy.

4. Marlow Street is a residential street. It is not appropriate to have a semi-industrial development in a residential street. The site has not been semi-industrial site (I remember the service station as a child) for 20+ years.

74 Objection Regardless of the fact that it would only have 13 parking bays instead of the minimum of 14 bays required by Policy 5.1 it is going to increase the amount of traffic in the immediate area. I believe it will lead to more cars parking in Marlow Street next to the proposed Mechanical Workshop & Motor Vehicle Wash which will create another bottle neck and traffic hazard in Marlow Street. Every morning a number of parents and school children walk past the site before and after school. In addition to watching out for the usual car traffic from Marlow & Grantham Street they will now have to watch out for motor vehicles going into and leaving the proposed development. Most residents have paid a lot of money to buy houses in Wembley and would not be expecting to put up with the Motor Vehicle Wash noise and increased traffic 24 hours a day x 7 days per week not to mention the illuminated signs switched on from sunrise to sunset. I believe this development will reduce the value of some of the houses just built within the last 12 months on subdivided land close to the site. People will think twice before paying over a million dollars for a house near Grantham street if the Town of Cambridge allows such a development next door to a new family home. The final point is that Wembley already has an established mechanical workshop in Grantham Street and two carwash facilities along Cambridge Street so why approve another business offering the same service that is going to cause unnecessary traffic & parking problems.

75 Objection • Existing Coles Express car wash in the area (cnr Cambridge St and Jersey St Wembley)

• Coles Express has only 1 wash bay, whereas Wembley Car Wash will have 3 wash bays, hence 3 times louder and 3 times the traffic volume

• Coles Express operates 6am to 10pm Mon – Sun, whereas Wembley Car Wash will operate 24 hours 7 days a week

• No need for a car wash at night! • Lights on all night (please consider 57B Marlow St)



• Possible anti-social disturbances through the night, especially on weekends, including vandalism, break and enter, disposing of used syringes, especially in respect of Jellybeans Child Care

• Coles Express is 22m from the nearest resident (150B Jersey), whereas Wembley Car Wash will be only 10m from the nearest resident (57B Marlow St)

• Increased traffic north up Marlow St/Reserve St will become a thoroughfare for exiting vehicles needing to head south. Jellybeans Child Care access is on Grantham St to avoid excess traffic on Reserve St. Why isn’t the same courtesy being shown for Marlow St residents? This is also contrary to the Town’s policy of diverting traffic away from Access Roads like Marlow and Reserve to Distributor A Roads like Grantham

• Increased congestion on Grantham St turning right into Marlow St

• Bus stop (Grantham St) pedestrian dangers increased, especially school children, and pedestrians will avoid south side of Grantham just as they avoid south side of Cambridge (adjacent to Coles Express)

• Disturbance of sleeping children at Jellybeans Child Care due to industrial drying fan noise

• Pollution from car exhaust fumes affecting children at play • Devaluing of 57B Marlow St in particular, but also 57A, 62

and 64, as well as other nearby dwellings • No data on existing 24 hour car wash facilities, problems,

complaints etc. • No mention of any study or survey showing a need for

another car wash in the area • No mention of EPA regulations • No mention of proposed noise or air pollution levels • No mention of water usage or disposal of chemicals • No mention of car volume statistics for Coles Express for

comparison • No mention of narrowing of Marlow St due to proposed traffic

islands, resulting in the loss of 2 car bays on west side Marlow St servicing All Perth Plumbing and Gas and residents

76 Objection I am a resident of Marlow St, Wembley, and I write to join my neighbours in strongly opposing the development proposed at Lot



423 Marlow St, Wembley. 1. This is a Family First community First and foremost, I am proud of the “family first” nature of the community and Council clearly encourages this culture. It supports: - the considerable growth of Wembley Primary School, situated one block away from the proposed development; - the Jellybeans Child Care facility, situated right next door the proposed development; - the annual family Christmas event at Lake Monger, in close proximity to the proposed development; and - the many community activities aimed at families and young people. Marlow Street’s residential density has steadily increased inline with local planning strategies and as a result there is a very high proportion of families in the street who have young and pre-school aged children. Council clearly supports our vibrant, family-friendly community. It would therefore be incongruent to support the approval of a light industrial development in an environment that is clearly a designated residential zone. 2. Traffic issues arising Marlow is already a busy street. Anyone spending time on the street will notice the:

• thoroughfare of school traffic (pushed to Marlow St because Simper St is so highly congested);

• direct route utilised by the police accessing Grantham St from their station on Cambridge St;

• overflow of parking utilised by operators running businesses on Grantham St;

And this is before we even consider how busy Grantham St is, particularly following the redevelopments on Cambridge St that has pushed more traffic to Grantham. Turning east onto Grantham from Marlow St is not easy (at all); it’s already a busy intersection. There is no question that these proposed light-industrial businesses will add pressure to Marlow St, Grantham St and the intersection



thereof. There is no acknowledgement in the provided report that the proposed development is just on the other side of the 40km / hour school zone. Cars travelling west on Grantham will come through the 40 zone, increase speed toward Marlow St, turn left on to Marlow and then wait until it’s clear to turn right into the Auto Masters / car wash cross over. If the existing bus stop on Grantham is pushed further eastward, that will no doubt add even more pressure on this intersection and the general area. Clearly there is a large number of young children utilising the roads and footpaths around the proposed development sites and naturally safety is of primary concern. An increase in traffic, as well as the brick wall lining the western exit of the car wash onto Grantham is problematic and unsafe. Notably, there is no inclusion in the traffic report demonstrating data from other similar environments, such as the intersection of Pangbourne St and Grantham St, where there is the existing (restricted hours) Wembley Auto business incorporating a car park that is regularly overflowing with vehicles. And similarly, there is no information provided relating to the similar density of the Grantham and Jersey St corner, which is well known for it’s difficult and dangerous situations, including several accidents. 3. Other issues arising If there are other 24-hour (light industrial) car washes operating in residential environments, it would be reasonable to expect further information of other issues arising, such as the noise generated by high-pressure hoses and vacuum cleaners. And given that the proposed application does not comply with the Council’s own requirements for car parking, no doubt this will generate overflow parking in the street. Mr Munyard, it appears that the information we have been offered with this proposal is painted in a light to support this development. However, there is a lack of transparency around the true nature of the existing traffic, safety and other implications this development would bring. Furthermore, in some circumstances the data is confusing and in particular the data does not properly cover the 24/7 nature of the proposal. Clearly I am concerned by and opposing this proposal. There is no precedent for any 24-hour business on Grantham St of a light-industrial or any other nature. It is alarming that this proposal is being considered.



Furthermore I would like to raise inadequacies of the traffic report as I cannot believe that they are trying to quote and then retort American results. The report writers have stated they have had site visits???? but there is NO reference in regards to a similar business( Wembley Auto ) that is no more than 1KM down the road. I would suggest Councillors go and visit that site during Peak Hour and also request a TRAFFIC study before proceeding. Although you may classify the proposed site as light industrial please address the concerns of the RATE PAYERS about TOXICITY to the local families and environment with the introduction of the OILS and Chemicals involved in these proposed operations. OPEN wash bays not only allow for overspray, overuse of chemicals but can the operators GUARANTEE no air pollutants to the surrounding environment. IT is well document that the existing land site has been subject to chemical treatment for its prior use and as a resident for over 10 YEARS I would like to view a report on WHAT chemicals and what volumes have been poured into the site to even try to make it Saleable. HAS the site had a FULL EPA sign off? As a Local Land Holder and local Business person I wish to advise that I will support and commit to all endeavours to ensure that this suburb and community is not muscled by National businesses to encroach on suburban living because they struggle to pay OSBORNE PARK rates. This Business is Not Needed in our community.

77 Objection (LATE)

Safety Hazards, Increased Traffic, Impact on Residential Development

78 Objection (LATE)

Safety Hazards, Increased Traffic, Impact on Residential Development








86 Objection Safety Hazards, Increased Traffic, Impact on Residential


























Development


LOT 423 (NO. 59) MARLOW STREET, WEMBLEY 110 Objection Safety Hazards, Increased Traffic, Impact on Residential
















Development 126 Objection The Local Planning Strategy nominates the area where this is

proposed as a local centre. The development of an Automasters appears at odds with the precinct vision: The Local Centre precincts are envisioned to redevelop over time as small scale mixed use centres which accommodate land uses that cater for the local community’s daily needs. The existing commercial precincts are anticipated to provide commercial and retail opportunities at ground level with apartment living above. Development will need to be sensitive to adjacent suburban residential areas both in terms of the building bulk and scale proposed and the impact of commercial uses on residential amenity. Approving this development will sterilise this area for some time as I don’t imagine this is a short term development. The City’s vision



won’t be realised if this development is approved. Further to the comment “which accommodate land uses that cater for the local community’s daily needs” this wont be realised either given there is already a mechanics at the corner of Grantham and Pangbourne and a car wash at the Shell on the corner of Jersey and Cambridge. I’m not in support of the application and would implore you to reject the application on the basis that it is not in keeping with the Local Planning Strategy.

127 DPLH Suggestion

Although the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage has no objection to the proposal in principle, the following elements should be addressed prior to development approval: -Please note that the Commission's Regional Roads (Vehicular Access) Policy D.C. 5.1 states: 'Where alternative access is or could be made available from side streets, no access shall be permitted to the regional road' It is unclear how sightlines will be maintained when the Grantham Street bus stop is relocated or whether this will lead to safety conflicts between buses and vehicles exiting the site. It is considered that a safer approach is to ban movements from Grantham Street and provide all access from Marlow Street, a local road; -The Department supports the decommissioning of all redundant crossovers to the site.

128 Objection (LATE)

1. We object to the proposed Motor Vehicle Wash in its entirety and the proposed 24 hour 7 day per week operation due to the significant failures in the proposal detailed in Section 1 and the expectation of significantly increased noise due to these failures. The high levels of noise pollution will have significant negative impacts on our ability to enjoy our indoor and outdoor living spaces. The 24/7 nature of the car wash will further impact our sleep with negative health consequences. 2. We object to the illuminated signage and bright paint on the West facing side of the building as this will create light and visual pollution into our family room and backyard (56 Reserve St) as detailed in Section 2. The high levels of visual and light pollution will have significant negative impacts on our ability to enjoy our indoor and outdoor living spaces. 3. We object to the parking proposed as it is non-compliant, insufficient based on comparison to a “like” business (Wembley Autocare on Grantham St) and erroneous in the determination of required parking in accordance with Town of Cambridge Policy. There are already traffic issues generated by Jellybeans Child Care (58 Reserve St) on the neighbouring properties on Reserve St and this would be exacerbated by the proposed development. This will create issues with accessing our property and increased accident risks due to poorly parked vehicles obstructing vision to other



vehicles and pedestrians (especially school children). 129 Objection

(LATE) 1. Increase in Wall Height I am strongly opposed to the proposal to increase the height of the boundary wall for the following reasons: a) Aesthetics A substantial amount of money and time went into the design and construction of the existing double brick 2.5m fully rendered boundary wall. This was supported and partially funded by the previous owners, Caltex. The original fence was damaged asbestos hence is needed replacing. Its height and design allowed Caltex to sell a presentable site and my property to still enjoy the northern sun and the treetops that Wembley affords. It was also constructed in the knowledge that the site would be sold for some type of commercial tenancy thereby not compromising my privacy. At no time did I ever expect a Light Industrial development to be proposed. I vehemently do not want this wall increased. It is already large in stature and increasing it would dominate my architecturally designed backyard. I have included below a photo of my backyard showing the proximity of my pool and gazebo to the proposed car wash and vacuum bay!! 2 b) Overshadowing and Energy Rating Increasing the boundary wall will ensure my swimming pool and spa are overshadowed. I didn’t install a pool for it to be in the shade!! My northern windows (dining room, ensuite and master bedroom) will also be light compromised. Will an increase in wall height impact on the thermal performance of my home as per Energy Ratings enforced during construction? 3 c) Structural Footings The structural footings installed were engineered for the correct height of the wall that has been built. This was approved by the Town of Cambridge and will unlikely permit additional load. This is a safety hazard for not only my family and friends, but that of the customers using the proposed facility. 2. Preliminary Lighting Design Details – Wood & Grieve Engineers This preliminary report prepared by Wood & Grieve indicates that there will be no light spill into my property provided all light sources are mounted at heights lower that the adjacent property. This is obviously based on the canopies (housing the luminary) being at a minimum height of 2.4m. Given the natural ground level on the owners land is higher, I believe in order to achieve this the owners will need to raise the wall in excess of 1.5m – further contributing to



both above and below! Translucent sheeting proposed for the canopies will also emit light. 3. Environmental Noise Assessment – Lloyd George Acoustics I refer to item 3.5 of the report provided “The model includes existing boundary fences as well as the proposed walls and roof cover, as specified in the site plan in Appendix A. “ Can it be assumed that if the boundary wall is not increased , the roof cover cannot be installed and this report really holds no weight? Is there a report available showing the existing wall remaining at its current height? Other comments on the report include: - The report shows no range of distribution for testing purposes. - The report focuses on EPA Regulations - what about Council Regulations? - There is no mention of noise associated with high pressure wash hoses? - Would it not seem appropriate for noise attenuation purposes to put the vacuum motors underground rather that have only two sides bricked in? I believe there is still substantial research and supporting data needed to support the development in its current form and hope the Council functions in the best interests of the Community that is strongly opposing it.

development application site photographs · attachment 2 . development application site photographs...

Documents