It seems as if ALH is keeping its options open in the hope of pursuing any deal that is most

profitable for the company's shareholders (Woolworth's Ltd has a 75% stake in this

business).

Other Reasons to Refuse the Application

A Dan Murphy's liquor store is not the right activity in the right location because the

business relies on road haulage, home deliveries, click and collect and attracts traffic from a

wide catchment area so the original reasons to refuse this development proposal still stand.

The development of a liquor warehouse on the site conflicts with State Planning Policy 4.2

Activity Centres for Perth and Peel (section 5.6.1 Bulky goods retailing and mixed business makes it

quite clear that:

The encroachment of bulky goods retail into residential and industrial zones should be

avoided

Furthermore, locating such development in an ad hoc manner or as ribbon development along regional roads is discouraged. Bulky goods retail should be developed with access and urban

design controls so as not to interfere with traffic flow and safety, or detract from the amenitv

of public transport or the localitvl.

Moreover, it conflicts with the study known as Canning Highway Road Reservation Review

10 Jan 2012 and the more recent Shape Your Place studies on Canning Hwy (see attached Appendix).

7

Appendix E: Canning Hwy -

History of Planning

City's submission on Draft Central Metropolitan Perth Sub-regional Strategy (Aug 2010) in Nov 2010

Council meeting Attachment 10.3.1:

Urban corridors occur where roads are designed to strongly favour public transport and the local

planning scheme allows for medium rise, higher-density development (not necessarily ribbon

commercial development).

Roads within urban corridors tend to carry traffic at slower speeds to balance the needs of

pedestrians, cyclists, public transport and private vehicles.

Figure 52 of the draft Strategy indicates that Mill Point Road, Mends Street, Judd Street,

Richardson Street, labouchere Road, Hayman Road, George Street, Canning Highway, Barker

Avenue, Henley Street-Jackson Road, Manning Road and Welwyn Avenue would be appropriate

as 'urban corridors' for higher density housing.

Canning Highway is in a unique situation due to its 'freight road' status. Confusingly, the draft

Strategy depicts Canning Highway as a 'secondary freight road' in Figure 52, and a 'primary freight road' in Figure 53.

The City has been informed that the 'primary freight road' status originates from Main Roads

WA's functional road hierarchy, which has not been comprehensively updated since the 1990s. If

Canning Highway is a 'primary freight road', this presents an obstacle because the Strategy's wording indicates that "primary freight routes are generally unsuitable as urban corridors", thus

compromising the Cit s ability to plan for more intensive development along the Highway.

Conversely, given that urban corridors favour slower speeds and more intensive development, the 'freight' status of the Highway would become compromised. The 'primary freight road' status

is considered to be outdated as Roe Highway and leach Highway have more merit as primary freight routes for the Kenwick, Welshpool, Cannington, Fremantle and Kwinana areas.

If Canning Highway classified as a 'secondary freight road', it may prove to be appropriate for

medium density residential or mixed use development to be planned at nodes along the

Highway.

These nodes could be around designated public transport stops along Canning Highway to further

to reduce the impacts of ribbon development.

It will be important as a component of a housing strategy to investigate, plan and establish

sufficient housing densities and population levels, particularly around road-based urban corridors

to justify bus rapid transit routes or improvements in public transport service capacity and

frequency.

The long-term pressures of traffic along Canning Highway and Canning Bridge are subject to

future studies.

Canning Highway is already a significant route for freight, public transport and private transport, and has been mooted for further upgrades. Assessment of the Highway as a multi-modal

transport corridor (buses/light rail, freight, private vehicles) should be subject to a high-order study that extends beyond the Cit s borders (i.e. a study of the entire length of the Highway).

The Council has been informed that the WA Department ofTransport will shortly be

commissioning a consultant to undertake a review of the future design requirements for Canning Highway. Canning Highway is identified in Appendices 5 and 6 of the draft Strategy for bus lanes,

potentially as a bus rapid transit system.

Between the Causeway and Canning Bridge, Transperth has 17 bus stops southbound and 19

stops northbound along Canning Highway. In future, this bus route could be upgraded as a light rail transit system (LRT). It would be likely that fewer stops would exist if Canning Highway was

upgraded to be capable for light rail.

It is important to note that LRT stops are spaced further apart due to the size and weight of the

light rail vehicles and spacing requirements for vehicles to accelerate and decelerate. It is also

noteworthy that people tend to walk further (400-800m) to access LRT compared to buses

(400m). When the PTA's public transport strategy is released, the Council may commence

planning for intense mixed use development along the key public transport connection routes.

Canning Highway Road Reservation Review (Item 10.5.1 of June 2012 Council Agenda)

https:ljsouthperth.wa.gov.au/docs/default-source/minutes-and-agendas/2012/june/ordinary- council-meeting/agenda.pdf?sfvrsn=9c16fbbd 2

A Canning Highway/South Terrace Activity Centre? The Hames Sharley concept for an Activity

Centre in the area surrounding the Canning Highway / South Terrace intersection is new.

The question arises as to whether or not the establishment of an Activity Centre in this location

should be pursued.

Officers' Recommendation that was carried: That Council....

(a) supports in principle the Canning Highway Road Reservation Review as detailed in the Final

Planning Report dated 10 January 2012;

(b) requests the Department of Planning to expedite the purchase of all of the land required to

facilitate the proposed widening and upgrade to Canning Highway in line with the Canning Highway Road Reservation Review

-

Final Planning Report -

10 January 2012.

Such land purchases can be realised by taking a strategic and business case approach to land

management, with the ultimate benefits being improved character, streetscape aesthetics, and

rejuvenation of Canning Highway; and

(c) considers that additional right turn opportunities must be provided at Canning Highway in

order to facilitate better connectivity and traffic efficiency within the district. Providing limited

opportunities for motorists to exit Canning Highway via a side road or turn from a side road onto

Canning Highway will only lead to:

(i) the limited number of signalised intersections becoming congested and ineffective to the

free movement of traffic;

2

(ii) motorists becoming frustrated, thereby electing to use residential streets as thoroughfares to avoid inefficient traffic signals, perceived traffic delays, and difficulties experienced

accessing Canning Highway; and

(iii) Canning Highway becoming an impenetrable barrier for motorists wanting to travel in a

north-south direction (Le. crossing one side of Canning highway to the other).

Canning Highway is affected by a Metropolitan Region Scheme 'Primary Regional Road' Reservation

to facilitate road widening, which has a significant impact on properties abutting the highway, particularly on the southern side. The road reservation has the potential to include:

. Two lanes of traffic in each direction;

. A transit/bicycle lane in each direction; . Wider verges for pedestrians, shared use and

utilities/services; and

. A median strip.

The timeframe for the widening is not known, however the future urban form needs to be cognisant of the future road widening. It is recommended that the City continue to liaise with Main Roads WA

regarding the likely timing of widening of Canning Highway.

Currently, the City of South Perth is engaged in a study by consultants titled Canning Hwy Shape Our

Place study details of which are available on its website (Council Agenda 23/2/2016 is one example). It is being conducted in stages and takes in Canning Hwy from Berwick Street to Cale St.

The first part of the #ShapeOurPlace project was an overview of the entire study area. This was

completed in November 2015 and the final consultant's report was endorsed by Council in

March 2016. The project will progress in a number of smaller and more detailed projects to

investigate specific areas and develop planning controls.

GHD were engaged by the City of South Perth as a consultant to undertake the first part of the

project. GHD provided a report Canning Highway Residential Density and Built Form Study Final

Report November 2015 with recommendations to the City in 2015.

TPG Town Planning, Urban Design and Heritage (TPG) were engaged as a consultant to undertake

the second part of the project, focussing on Kensington and South Perth between Berwick Street

and Douglas Avenue.

TPG provided a report with recommendations to the City in two parts; Part A in October 2016

and Part B in May 2017.

Future parts of the project will be undertaken by City staff and consultants, as appropriate.

Report to Council on 23/2/2016: State Government stakeholders:

In addition to the provision and maintenance of infrastructure, the State Government owns

many properties adjacent to Canning Highway.

3

As a major landowner, the Government has a large influence on the built form adjacent to the

highway. Canning Highway is a major infrastructure asset for the State, therefore it was

important to engage with key State Government agencies early in the project.

Workshops were held with the Department of Planning, Department of Transport, Main Roads

WA, the Public Transport Authority and the Department of Housing.

The widening of Canning Highway will have a major inftuence on many properties in the study area both directly for properties adjacent to the highway and indirectly via changes to access

arrangements and public transport in the future.

State Government stakeholders expressed a strong desire for access onto and from the highway to be reduced wherever possible (see page 93 of the study report) and Main Roads WAwili seek

to reduce direct access from properties onto Canning Highway over time.

The City will need to undertake further investigations to understand how the reduction of access

from the highway, and provision of rear access to those sites that abut the highway, can and will

be provided.

As the proposed development will fall away when the existing crossover to Canning Hwy is removed, and it will be in the future, there is no point in proceeding with this warehouse in a residential area.

Excerpts from GHD Woolhead study Nov 2015:

Reducing access onto and from the highway is strongly supported across both stakeholder and

community groups.

Suggested Development Controls

It is noted that there will need to be further investigation undertaken to understand how the

reduction of access from the highway, and provision of rear access to those sites that abut the

highway, can and will be provided. Properties that are only accessible directly from Canning Highway

are shown on Figure 10.

It is nominally suggested that gradually removing access from Canning Highway will best be

managed through making it a requirement of Development Approval that access is not permitted from the highway for all new development proposed.

The provisions for changing access arrangements will need to be managed through the scheme. Any changes to access arrangements should be discussed with Main Roads WA and the Public Transport

Authority to ensure a coordinated approach and response is taken.

Suggested development controls could include the following: Highway Streetscape For

developments within the highway streetscape, developments shall provide a 6 metre right of way to

enable vehicle access from the rear. Where access can be obtained from the secondary street,

a 6 metre right of way is not required, unless required to facilitate future access to adjacent highway lots.

4

Vehicle access hierarchy

The following hierarchy is suggested when considering vehicle access:

1. From a right of way

2. From the secondary street

3. From the primary street from a single point (access to more than one dwelling) and

4. From the primary street to an individual property

Ground floor commercial developments can have a nil setback in order to create an active urban

edge to the street. In locations where commercial development is permitted, developments should

form a relationship with the public realm.

Land uses will be determined in accordance with the land use permissibility under the local planning scheme. It is suggested that focus be placed on the ground floor treatments that will assist in

proving the relationship of the building interface with the street.

Suggested Development Controls: Commercial and mixed use developments should apply the

following design responses to add interest and activation to the public realm. . Large windows

(mandating a minimum percentage of glazing); . Alfresco dining, where appropriate; . Use of public art; . Use of varying materials; . Awnings; and. Street infrastructure

-

Planter boxes, benches, bike

racks.

The increasing importance of Canning Highway as a key transport corridor, located close to the Perth

CSD, means that the appropriate strategic planning needs to be put in place to ensure that its

function is preserved and that any future road widening is unhindered.

To this end and reflecting stakeholder feedback, access onto and from the highway needs to be

removed with redevelopment.

Reducing access to and from the highway will have a significant impact on those lots that currently abut the highway and have direct access. In order to address this removal of direct access from the

highway for these properties, Main Roads WA and the City will need to investigate ways and

mechanisms to ensure that those affected lots are afforded appropriate access from the rear.

Planning for and subsequent construction of rights of way (ROWs) to the rear of these properties will

need to be considered as the preferred option to address the restricted front access from the

highway. The creation of a ROW at the rear of those properties fronting the highway with no

alternative access will mean that 'bookend' properties that currently have access from a secondary street will also be affected. These lots will be instrumental in enabling the creation and ultimately

providing access to the ROW.

Other strategic mechanisms that could be employed to facilitate this include:

. Encouraging lot amalgamation to facilitate vehicle access from the secondary street.

. Encouraging lot amalgamation to facilitate vehicle access from an alternative street.

5

. Creating easements over the rear of properties to facilitate access from the secondary street.

These indicative scenarios are illustrated in Figure 34.

The interface with the highway will need to be carefully managed to ensure the street does not

become dominated by high solid walls and ground floor car parks. When undertaking more detailed

planning for each place it is recommended that the appropriate street setbacks are recommended

for specific areas, ensuring that this responds to the lot depth and the impacts of the road widening.

In addition, ground floor treatments such as fencing and entry ways should be further detailed.

Alternatively, the City may wish to consider the introduction of commercial uses on the ground floor

for certain areas. To ensure this does not detract from other centres, low intensity commercial uses

could be considered and the uses limited within the local planning scheme.

Undertake detailed planning for the local centre at South Terrace.

. Investigate the feasibility of developing land along Canning Highway between South Terrace and

Hensman Street in light of access and site constraints.

6

file:///C:/usersC"""'1/Downloads/120S08-0CM-Agenda.pdf

Ordinary Council Meeting Town of Victoria Park 8 May 2012 at which the application for changing

use of building to a Dan Murphy's store was refused by the Council.

Excerpts from Officers' Report:

As the subject land abuts a portion of Orrong Road which is reserved as a Category 2 "Other Regional Roads" (ORR) under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS). in accordance with Part IV of the

Metropolitan Region Scheme and Instrument of Delegation DEL 2011/01- 'Powers of Local

Government (MRS)' (13 August 2010), the proposal was referred to the Department of Planning for

their comments on 19 July 2011. As the Department of Planning advised on 27 July 2011 that Orrong Road is under the control of Main Roads WA due to being reclassified as a 'Regional Road' the

proposal was also referred to Main Roads WA for their comments on 27 July 2011. A leiter from

Main Roads WA dated 9 August 2011 was received

As the advice provided by Main Roads WA is considered unreasonable and is not supported by Council's Street Life or Urban Planning Business Units, the Town is not delegated to determine the

application under the provisions of the Metropolitan Region Scheme on behalf of the Western

Australian Planning Commission. Accordingly, Council is required to refer the application to the

Western Australian Planning Commission for its determination under the Metropolitan Region Scheme. Therefore in this instance there will be two planning determinations made

- one by the

Town under the provisions of the Town of Victoria Park Town Planning Scheme NO.1, and the other

by the Western Australian Planning Commission under the Metropolitan Region Scheme. The

development cannot proceed without both planning approvals being obtained.

Approval being obtained from the Western Australian Planning Commission for retention of the one

vehicle crossover onto Orrong Road as indicated on the approved plans

As the subject land abuts Orrong Road, which is reserved 'Other Regional Road' (ORR) in

the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS), the respondent referred the application to the Department of Planning and to Main Roads WA (MRWA) for comments and recommendation.

Both authorities had no objection to the proposed development, subject to a number of conditions

being imposed, one of which required the closure of the existing crossovers onto Orrong Road and

limiting all vehicular access to Archer Street.

4 At its meeting on 8 May 2012, the Council received a report from its planning officers

recommending approval for the proposed development, subject to 22 conditions, one of which

required 'approval being obtained from the Western Australian Planning Commission for retention

of the one vehicle crossover onto Orrong Road'.

The Council, at that meeting refused the application under both the MRS and the Town of Victoria

Park Town Planning Scheme No 1 (TPS 1 or Scheme). stating the following reasons for refusal:

1. The Main Roads WA advice is that there should be no vehicular access to Orrong Road.

2. There is currently severe traffic congestion in Archer Street adjacent to the proposed facility caused by:

. Queuing for the traffic lights;

. Bus right turn movements; and

. Traffic exiting the BP service station

The advice from the Council's Street life Business Unit based on [its] traffic modelling is

that:lf there was to be no vehicular access to Orrong Road from this site then the traffic

implications upon Archer Street would be significant and additional safety issues would

arise to the extent that vehicular access to Archer Street would fail.

3. The Main Roads WA study, Orrong Road Project Review Community Reference Group of 2010/2011[.] established that there are major traffic problems at the Orrong Road

and Archer Street intersection.

4. The State Minister for Transport has identified that the congestion on Orrong Road

needs priority attention.

5. It could cause an adverse impact on the amenity of the area.

6. The considerable number of liquor outlets within the local area.

7. Council considers that the granting of a liquor licence for the premises may not be in

the public interest.

5 On 25 May 2012, the applicant made application under s 252(1) ofthe Planning and Development Act

2005 (WA) to have the decision reviewed.

UNIVERSAL ENTERPRISES PTY L TO and TOWN OF VICTORIA PARK [2013] WASAT 62

Heard:

Coram:

No of pages:

29,30 AND 31 JANUARY 2013

MS M CONNOR (MEMBER) 29

Delivered: 5/3/13

Excerpts

Archer Street is classified as a District Distributor B road under MRWA's Functional Road Hierarchy. This classification is applied to roads which 'carry traffic between industrial, commercial and

residential areas and generally connect to Primary Distributors. Unlike [District Distributor A] roads these roads have a reduce capacity due to flow restrictions from access to and roadside parking

alongside adjoining property'. Archer Street is managed by the Town of Victoria Park. The traffic data

contained in the Transport Impact Assessment (July 2012) (TIAJuly 2012) estimates that Archer

Street, adjacent to the site, carries in the order of 13,540 vehicles per weekday, with approximately 1,259 and 1,138 vehicles during the am and pm peak hours, respectively. Archer Street is generally

constructed to a two lane divided single carriageway standard with one traffic and one cycling lane

in each direction. The eastbound traffic towards Orrong Road is marked with two lanes for

approximately 42m.

Planning framework

State

11 The subject land, for the most part, is zoned Urban in the MRS. There is, however, a small portion of the lot abutting Orrong Road that is reserved for 'ORR' in the MRS. Clause 30 of the MRS requires

the decision-maker, in determining an application to commence development, to have regard to the

purpose for which the land is zoned or reserved under the Scheme, the orderly and proper planning of the locality and the preservation of the amenities of the locality. 12 Relevant State planning policies referred to by the parties include:

. State Planning Policy No 4.2 -

Activity Centres for Perth ond Peel (SPP 4.2); . Development Control Policy 1.4 Functional Road Classification for Planning (DC1.4); and

. Development Control Policy 5.1 Regional Roads (Vehicular Access) (DC5.1).

Local

13 The subject land is primarily zoned Local Centre under TPS 1. The small portion of the lot abutting Orrong Road reserved 'ORR' in the MRS is neither zoned nor reserved under

TPS 1. For the purposes ofTPS 1, the subject land is also included in cI 11 of Precinct Plan PB

-

Carlisle (Precinct Plan P8). The main provisions contained in TPS 1 that are relevant to the determination of this matter are:

. clause 6 -

Objectives and Intentions;

. clause 15 -

Use of Land in a Scheme Zone; . clause 16

-

Unlisted Uses; . clause 30

-

Need for Planning Approval; . clause 31

-

Exemption from Planning Approval; . clause 36

-

Determination of Application General Provisions; . clause 37

-

Determination of Application for an Unlisted Use; . clause 41

-

Term of Planning Approval; . Zoning Table; . Schedule 1- Definitions; and

. Precinct Plan P8.

3) Whether the development is consistent with the orderly and proper planning of the locality and

the preservation of the amenities of the locality, having regard to:

i) the planning framework; and

ii) traffic management and safety issues.

The Tribunal will address each of these issues in turn.

'retail' means the sale or hire of products, goods or services to the public generally in small

quantities and from a shop, showroom or fast food outlet.

16 The respondent argued that the sale of goods by retail from a Dan Murphy's liquor store could

not be described as the sale of goods to the public 'generally in small quantities', as the operational characteristics of Dan Murphy liquor stores promote the sale of goods in larger rather than smaller

quantities. The respondent asserted the use could not reasonably be determined as falling within

the classification of 'Shop' or any other use class category contained in the Scheme and therefore

should be classified as an 'Unlisted Use'. The respondent went on to say that if the Tribunal were to

find that the use was properly characterised as an Unlisted Use, then the proposed development was incapable of approval at present, as the Scheme requires an application involving an Unlisted

Use to be advertised before planning approval can be granted, and advertising has not occurred in

this instance: cI 35 and cl37 ofTPS 1.

17 The planning experts, Mr David Caddy, town planning consultant called on behalf of the

applicant, and Mr Stephen Allerding, town planning consultant called on behalf of the respondent, agreed that Dan Murphy's liquor stores typically displayed the following common characteristics:

. 'destination' stores with large catchment areas;

. substantially large floor areas for the display of liquor products;

. sale of liquor in bulk;

. sale of liquor at discount prices promoting lowest price guarantee; and

. purchases tend to be weekly or fortnightly.

Mr Caddy, based on his general observations, agreed that customers at a Dan Murphy's liquor store

generally buy liquor in larger rather than smaller quantities.

Mr Donald Veal, a traffic consultant engaged by the applicant to undertake, amongst other things, a

Transport Impact Assessment (April 2012) (TIA April 2012), carried out, as part of the assessment, an

observational parking survey of the Midland Dan Murphy's liquor store to assess parking demand.

The parking survey also revealed that 'the vast majority of customers entered the store and left with

one or two bottles of wine or a carton of beer within 5 minutes'. Mr Veal considered the survey

provided a clear understanding of how the store operates and concluded that 'customers tend to be

very focussed on their purchase and the majority buy only one or two items, spending little if any

time browsing'.

78 The applicant failed to demonstrate that measures could be implemented that would improve the existing environment and reduce the existing unacceptable/undesirable level of risk. The fact

that the existing situation is unacceptable does not provide justification for approving a new

development that will have an equally bad or worse outcome. The Tribunal does not need to

determine whether the Orrong Road crossovers should be closed and access restricted to Archer

Street, as the resultant impacts of the proposed development are sufficient to warrant refusal of this

application.

The consideration of the potential traffic that could be generated by the existing site does not

advance the applicant's case for the following reasons. Given the current poor road environment

and without further evidence as to why the current store is underperforming, the Tribunal cannot

assume in favour of the applicant that under different management arrangements, the current

approved use would generate greater traffic for the supermarket.

As suggested by the respondent, the existing poor road environment could very well be a factor

affecting the performance of the site. Any change to the current use is a matter of speculation and

should not be a consideration in the determination of this matter. Further, the consideration of the

potential traffic that could be generated if the restaurant was operating does not assist, as a

restaurant has different operational characteristics to a liquor store and a supermarket. The peak hour for the restaurant would likely be beyond the peak hour for the road network and, as such,

would have little impact on traffic movements during the pm peak hour.

82 The applicant also argued that the estimated increase in traffic for the proposed development is

less than the fluctuation between traffic volumes measured on weekdays on the road network. This

argument does not assist the applicant's case, as all the variation suggests is that the level of risk for

one day may be better than another day, but as articulated by Mr Shaw, 'the fact that you are

putting more vehicles on the adjacent network does by virtue of increasing the exposure theoretically increase the risk'.

Conclusion

83 Due to the traffic and safety issues discussed at [37] [82], approval of the application would, therefore, be contrary to the orderly and proper planning of the locality and the preservation of the

amenities of the locality. Consequently, the proposed development warrants refusal.

Submission 23 I D-1 -1029 6 Abjornson Street, Manning

Cameron Howell

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

-::J Sunday, 3 December 2017 4:43 AM

Cameron Howell

FW: Proposed Dan Murphy's Como Hotel site LC 30/01/390

FYI Would it be prudent to ask Western Power if it's response back in 2014 has changed and what conditions would

apply to removal of its transformer and switching unit governing underground power? It's seems unwise to leave it

until the building permit application stage when the response was so adamant.

JDAP Agenda 15/8/2014 page 443 of 600: "The City has enquired of Western Power as to the possibility of the

power infrastructure eventually being relocated from lot 6 to another site. Western Power has advised that there is

no intention to ever remove the equipment."

A condition of the (now lapsed) development approval granted by the JDAP on 17/4/2015 is:

7. The approved drawings show that the proposed crossover onto South Terrace will interfere with the location

of a Western Power electrical transformer. The Applicant is required to obtain the written agreement from

Western Power to undertake the relocation of this infrastructure, prior to the submission of a building permit.

From: ' [mailto:' ~_

_

~

J Sent: Sunday, 3 De m r 20174:01 AM

To: 'mayordoherty@Southperth.wa.gov.au'; 'L ---/@southperth.wa.gov.au'; 'CrCala@southperth.wa.gov.au'; 'cn:ridland@southperth.wa.gov .au'; 'crburrows@Southperth.wa.gov.au'; 'crmcdougall@southperth.wa.gov.au'

Subject: fIN: Proposed Dan Murphy's Corm Hotel site LC 30/01/390

FYI (see email below) In the covering letter to the application it's also stated "The Applicant understands that the

DRGL delayed progressing the Liquor Application until delivery of the Supreme Court judgment decision referred to

at paragraph 1.3 above."

This would seem to indicate that Senior Counsel Marcus Solomon advised the Liquor Commission incorrectly or

perhaps he was right?

From: ' [mailto:. I] Sent: Sunday, 3.D~ber2017~3 3 Aft

To: 'RGL-Executive Liquor Commission' Subject: Proposed Dan Murphy's Como Hotel site LC 30/01/390

Executive Director

Would the Liquor Commission please clarify two conflicting views expressed by the applicant's lawyers:

At the Liquor Commission Hearing on 27 Oct 2017, my notes show that Mr Solomon said that the liquor licence

application could be granted on condition that development approval renewal is obtained within 3 to 6

months. ALH has or is making an application for extension of time to substantially commence the redevelopment.

Whereas, in its covering letter dated 19 Oct 2017 to the City of South Perth with the above application, Squire PB

states:

"There is no statutory timeframe for determination of a liquor licence application. Although to some extent the

processes run concurrently, the determination must occur sequentially after a planning approval is obtained."

This statement in Squire PB's application to extend the time for substantial commencement seems to indicate that

planning approval must be renewed before the Liquor Commission can make its determination.

Sincerely

-"Manning WA 6152

Tl s email has been scalmed by the Symantec Email Secm y.cloud selvice. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com

Submission 241 D-1 -101 42 Comer Street, Como

Cameron Howell

From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

, .

--:::J Wednesday, 29 November 201711:38 AM

enquiries Mayor Susanne Doherty

Submission on Extension of Validity Approval for Como Hotel Redevelopment

The Chief Executive Officer

City of South Perth

Cnr Sandgate Street and South Terrace

SOUTH PERTH WA 6151

Att: Cameron Howell

Dear Cameron Howell,

Submission on Extension of Validity Approval for Como Hotel Redevelopment

We write to object to the above proposed redevelopment of the Como Hotel/construction of a Dan Murphy's on the following grounds:

1. Amenity -

big box liquor outlets do not align with or fit in to established residential areas such

as Como or South Perth -

while they may be well accommodated in newly developed or

greenfield sites, they are aesthetically discordant with well-established domestic environments and depreciate the valued amenity and suburban qualities that attracted residents to this area in the first place.

2. Traffic -

the traffic in nearby Comer Street, Como (where we live) has increased markedly in the past five years and to encourage traffic is contrary to principles of community and residential

safety. Street parking in Comer Street between Coode Street and Labouchere Road is now

controlled by identified parking bays that have eased the traffic danger in this section. The same

has not been done in Comer Street between Canning Highway and Coode Street, which has the

same problem. To exit from our strata complex is increasingly dangerous with cars parked close to the driveway exit so that you cannot see the road clearly, nor see approaching cars. This is

dangerous enough -

and to increase traffic in the street even further, as would predictably occur

with a big box liquor outlet a few streets away, presents an unwelcome heightened danger to an

already-risky experience.

We request you to consider our views on the proposed big box liquor outlet and reject such an ill- conceived proposal, which does not consider either the qualities of the area or the traffic safety concerns of nearby residents.

Yours faithfully,

Unit _ Comer Street COMO WA 6152

Cc: Mayor Sue Doherty

Tins email has been sCaJmed by the Symantec Email Secmity.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com

Submission 25 I D-1 -101 56 Norton Street, South Perth

Cameron Howell

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

, -:J

Wednesday, 29 November 201711:55 AM

enquiries Fwd: Re: Council Submission

-

Proposed Dan Murphy Development, 243 Canning Highway

Sent from SamstUlg tablet

Sent from SamslUlg tablet

The Chief Executive Officer, City of South Perth Cm Sandgate Street and South Tce

SOUTH PERTH 6151

Attn: Cameron Howell

Dear Cameron, Further to our recent meeting wi th you to discuss the very conceming issues we have for

our street -

I have detailed in tius submission

We are the owner occupiers of. Norton Street and are extremely concemed the proposed Dan Murphy development at 243 CaJU ng Highway will have dangerous and negative social impacts on our street.

The vohune of traffic in NOlton Street will be increased enormously due to tile proposed enuy and exits of tile proposed development. This increased u'affic will add to tile existing "rat nUl" liOln and to tile lughway

with chivers avoiding tile traffic lights on tile SOUtil Tenace Canning Highway intersection we experience in tile su'eet. Tlus u'affic is not limited to cars, we also have many senli-u'ailers using our su'eet as a shOlt cut.

On one occasion I was on tile verge at tile liont of om propelty and I was faced witil a senu- u'ai1er loaded witil eartil moving equipment u'ying to negotiate tile zig-zag traffic calnling formation and whilst he was

passing, I called out "WHY" and his reply was "BECAUSE I CAN", he tilen had great difficl ty enteIing Sandgate Su'eet.

The additional traffic that would be generated by the Dan Mmphy development will compolUld the impact in the street of parking generated whenever there is an event at the South Perth Civic Centre, Attendees of

these events park where they are able on the street, including the verge, reducing om street to one lane, causing safety hazards for other street users and impeding access for residents

In smnmary we are strongly opposed to the proposed development for the following reasons;

* inappropllate commercial/retail development in a residential area

* increased and inappropllate traffic voltunes in Norton Street * increased safety 11sks to local families * reduced accessibility by emergency services vehicles, ambl ance, fire and police because of increased

traffic and parking in the street * negative impacts on access by local residents

Whilst the negative social impacts on safety and access will be the direct resl ts of the proposed development, they will in tum have a negative impact on the livability and therefore value of the properties

in the street, including om property,

Please ensme that opposition to this development is noted in the council records,

We WOl d be happy to discuss this issues with South Perth City COlUlCil at any time,

Yom sincerely

Concerned Residents ~Olton Street

South Perth

.=J

Sent from SamStUlg tablet

Tl s email has been scalUled by the Symantec Email Secmity,cloud selvice, For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com

Submission 261 D-1 -101957 Gardner Street, Como

Cameron Howell

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

] Wednesday, 29 November 2017 3:55 PM

enquiries Extension of Validity of Approval for Como Hotel Redevelopment

To: The Chief Executive Officer, City of South Perth, Cameron Howell

Dear Sir, re Submission on Extension of Validity of Approval for Como Hotel Redevelopment

I write to oppose the Extension of Validity of Approval for Como Hotel Redevelopment.

I have examined the diagrams of the proposal and find no indication of the traffic lights at the intersection of South Tenace and Canning Highway. Also the hmnng crossovers liOln and into South Tenace and Norton Street are incompletely shown and do not fully show how the traffic flows.

COIning from Perth the traffic can either: a) hUll into NOlton Street by crossing the two traffic lanes from Fremantle. This often holds up one lane of

tile traffic from Per til. Tins is already a problem.

b) hun into Soutll Tenace at tile lights. There is a hUll lane at tile lights but visibility can be obscured by huning velncles fi.om tile opposite direction as tile lights are at the top of fue hill.

Then to hun into tile Hotel car park velncles have to cross two lanes coming iiom tile fi.eeway directiorl These lanes are often busy as tlley cany traffic between tile freeway and, for example, ClUtin

Urnversity.

Velncles leaving tile hotel carparks can eifuer: c) leave via SOUtil Tenace. If they hun right tlley cross two lanes fi.om tile freeway. As tlley leave tlley

cross \vitll tile vehicles entering as described in b).

d) leave onto Canning Highway but or y by MIring towards Pelth.

e) leave via Ol y one of tile two crossovers into NOlton Street (tile otller is 'in' OI y). Ifvehicles hun right and tllen light again into the Canning Highway tlley have to cross two lanes connng from Fremantle and

join a busy lane winch may have traffic huIring into NOIton Street as described in a).

On NOlton Street tile Proposed Dan MlUphys Liquor Bam has a solid wall facing residential dwellings across fue street. These will have tlleir views adversely impacted. In addition to extra traffic flow to the hotal tllere is an indication of one or more median strips which may impede residential access.

On SOUtil Terrace tllere are medical establishments and residential appaltments winch will be impacted by any increase in tr.affic in tile road.

In social telms fuere may be otller lUldesirable impacts of tile proposed development.

There are a lllUnber of small liquor outlets nearby, on tile Camnng Highway, in Preston Street, and Angelo Street. The addition of a big Dan MlUphys liquor bam wOl d add little to fue area amelnties and is likely to have an adverse impact on tile existing businesses. (The opelnng of Coles in Angelo Str.eet was followed by tile closure of tllree grocery stores tllere.)

One may suggest that a resl t of cheap alcohol cOl d resl t in increased chinking in public areas such as the nearby cOlmcil sports grolmds.

I hope these comments may be of assistance in yom deliberations.

Yours sincerely

~Gardner Street, Como 6152

Tl s email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Secmity.cloud selvice. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com