Metropolitan Region Scheme Major Amendment 1310/41

June 2017 Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment 1310/41

Guildford Road from East Parade to Tonkin Highway

Report on Submissions

Cities of Bayswater and Vincent

Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment 1310/41

Guildford Road from East Parade to Tonkin Highway

Report on Submissions

Cities of Bayswater and Vincent

June 2017

Disclaimer This document has been published by the Western Australian Planning Commission. Any representation, statement, opinion or advice expressed or implied in this publication is made in good faith and on the basis that the Government, its employees and agents are not liable for any damage or loss whatsoever which may occur as a result of action taken or not taken, as the case may be, in respect of any representation, statement, opinion or advice referred to herein. Professional advice should be obtained before applying the information contained in this document to particular circumstances.

Published by the Western Australian Planning Commission, 140 William Street, Perth Western Australia 6000

Locked Bag 2506 Perth WA 6001

MRS Amendment 1310/41 Report on Submissions File 809-2-14-3 Pt 1

Published June 2017

Internet: http://www.planning.wa.gov.au Email: [email protected] Phone: (08) 6551 9000 Fax: (08) 6551 9001 National Relay Service: 13 36 77 Infoline: 1800 626 477

This document is available in alternative formats on application to Communication Services. Introduction to Metropolitan Region Scheme major amendments

The Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) is responsible for keeping the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) under review and initiating changes where they are seen as necessary.

The MRS sets out the broad pattern of land use for the whole Perth metropolitan region. The MRS is constantly under review to best reflect regional planning and development needs.

A proposal to change land use reservations and zones in the MRS is regulated by the Planning and Development Act 2005. That legislation provides for public submissions to be made on proposed amendments.

For a substantial amendment, often referred to as a major amendment (made under section 41 of the Act), the WAPC considers all the submissions lodged, and publishes its recommendations in a report on submissions. This report is presented to the Minister for Planning and to the Governor for approval. Both Houses of Parliament must then scrutinise the amendment before it can take legal effect.

In the process of making a substantial amendment to the MRS, information is published as a public record under the following titles:

Amendment report This document is available from the start of the public advertising period of the proposed amendment. It sets out the purpose and scope of the proposal, explains why the amendment is considered necessary, and informs people how they can comment through the submission process.

Environmental review report The Environmental Protection Authority must consider the environmental impact of an amendment to the MRS before it can be advertised. Should it require formal assessment, an environmental review is undertaken and made available for information and comment at the same time as the amendment report.

Report on submissions The planning rationale, determination of submissions and the recommendations of the WAPC for final approval of the amendment, with or without modification, is documented in this report.

Submissions This document contains a reproduction of all written submissions received by the WAPC on the proposed amendment.

Transcript of hearings A person who has made a written submission may also choose to appear before a hearings committee to express their views. The hearings proceedings are recorded and transcribed, and the transcripts of all hearings are reproduced in this volume.

Contents

1 Introduction ...... 1

2 The proposed amendment ...... 1

3 Environmental Protection Authority advice ...... 2

4 Call for submissions ...... 3

5 Submissions ...... 3

6 Hearings ...... 4

7 Main issues raised in submissions ...... 4

8 Response and determinations ...... 2 0

9 Coordination of region and local scheme amendments ...... 20

10 Conclusion and recommendation ...... 20

Schedule 1 Alphabetical listing of submissions

Schedule 2 The amendment figure - Proposal 1 as advertised

Appendix 1 List of detail plans as advertised

Report on S ubmissions

Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment 1310/41

Guildford Road from East Parade to Tonkin Highway

Report on Submissions

1 Introduction

On 26 April 2016, the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) resolved to initiate this major amendment to the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) in accordance with provisions of Section 41 of the Planning and Development Act 2005.

2 The proposed amendment

The amendment proposal is detailed in the previously published Amendment Report (December 2016) and summarised below.

The purpose of this amendment is to modify the Primary Regional Road (PRR) reservation boundaries currently reserved in the MRS for the section of Guildford Road between East Parade and Tonkin Highway.

Amending the PRR reservation for this section of Guildford Road will provide clarity and certainty for future road planning/development and facilitate orderly land use planning to occur along this corridor.

The proposed amendment is located in the City of Bayswater and the City of Vincent local government boundaries.

Guildford Road, as a PRR, comes under the care and control of Main Roads Western Australia (MRWA). The current MRS reservation for Guildford Road was amended in 1994. It was based on carriageway concepts associated with a private motor vehicle transport corridor. This reservation width varied typically between 26 to 32 metres and was not developed around the intensified activity corridor which is now identified in the sub regional planning framework.

MRWA completed a planning review for Guildford Road in 2011 to update and more precisely define carriageway layout, and to prepare land protection plans suitable for amending the MRS. A locality plan is shown in Proposal 1 of the previously published Amendment Report.

The existing Guildford Road consists of a 4-lane undivided road with carriageway widths of generally 7.0 metres (two lanes) in each direction and has minimal verges. There are only limited locations where a median has been provided.

Most of the existing retail and commercial buildings along Guildford Road are built right to the boundary of the road reserve with minimal verge widths. This creates narrow pedestrian paths. It does not encourage a sense of pedestrian safety where pedestrians are close to the traffic. There are also no dedicated on-road or off-road cycling facilities, resulting in road safety concerns.

In regards to public transport facilities, bus shelters have been provided for some bus stops but many of the existing bus shelters are in poor condition and there are a limited number of

1 bus bays which allow buses to pick up passengers without obstructing motorists. Retrofitted bus bays further reduce the footpath area.

The study also examined the heritage buildings and properties along Guildford Road, seven sites are recorded at State or National level and are identified on the design concept. It should also be noted that the signalised intersection at Eighth Avenue has been significantly constrained by existing and proposed heritage sites in the north-east and south-east quadrants of the intersection. These constraints have been taken into account when designing this intersection.

The proposed design concept provides for a four lane divided road with median along the full length of Guildford Road, except at some intersections to allow for turning movements (see Appendix B of the previously published Amendment Report for the carriageway patterns). Proposed verges of 4.1 metres could accommodate shared paths, street trees and service infrastructure. Bus queue jump facilities are proposed at five of the eight signalised intersections, including Peninsula Road, Seventh Avenue, Caledonian Avenue, Garratt Road and King William Street. These facilities enable buses to bypass traffic by entering the bus queue jump lane, bypass the queue altogether and receive a ‘bus only’ signal to proceed through the intersection ahead of the main traffic flow. This allows buses to have priority at intersections.

In terms of cycling facilities, the design concept proposes on-road cycle lanes from Caledonian Avenue to Tonkin Highway. However due to the existing Principal Shared Path (PSP) which runs adjacent to the train line and almost parallel to Guildford Road, cyclists are proposed to share the road with general traffic between East Parade to Caledonian Avenue.

The proposed design concept aims to establish an efficient, safe and more comfortable balance between pedestrian, cyclists, vehicle based and public transport modes.

The proposed amendment will affect properties located on Guildford Road from East Parade to Tonkin Highway. The most significant increases in the reservation requirements are located at the following intersections with Guildford Road:

• Ellesmere Road; • Central Avenue; • Garratt Road; • Caledonian Avenue; • Roberts Street; and • King William Street.

The overall change proposed to the existing Guildford Road Primary Regional Roads reservation through this amendment is an increase of approximately 1.58 hectares.

3 Environmental Protection Authority advice

The proposed amendment was referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) for advice on whether environmental assessment would be required. The EPA advised in pre- referral phase that the proposed amendment does not raise any environmental issue that are likely to be significant in terms of the EPA’s environmental objectives. Department of Environmental Regulation has no comments on the proposal with regards to its regulatory responsibilities under Environmental Protection Act 1986 or Contaminated Sites Act 2003. A copy of the notice from the EPA was included in Appendix B of the previously published Amendment Report.

4 Call for submissions

The amendment was advertised for public submissions from 13 December 2016 to 17 March 2017.

The amendment was made available for public inspection during normal business hours at the offices of the:

i) Western Australian Planning Commission, 140 William Street, Perth ii) Cities of Bayswater, Vincent, Perth and Fremantle; iii) Main Roads WA; iv) State Reference Library, Northbridge.

During the public inspection period, notice of the amendment was published in The West Australian, the Sunday Times and relevant local newspapers circulating in the locality of the amendment.

Full details of the amendment including detailed concept plans were accessible online at http://www.planning.wa.gov.au/ during and after public consultation (link: https://www.planning.wa.gov.au/publications/9892.aspx).

Written notification was sent to all landowners affected by the amendment based on local government rates records. Plans showing detailed reservation requirements were provided for land where the reservation is proposed to be increased or reduced.

Consultation activities included: two DoP Officers available for contact by telephone and designated DoP email address to assist with community and landowner enquiries and understanding of the amendment; information sheets; meetings among stakeholders, and community information displays at abovementioned locations.

5 Submissions

A total of 296 submissions (including four late submissions) were received on the amendment. A list of all persons and/or organisations that lodged submissions is provided in Schedule 1.

5.1 Source of submissions

Origin of Submissions Number of Submissions Percentage of Total Local government areas included in the amendment 262 88.51 % Rest of Perth metropolitan region 29 9.80 % Regional Western Australia 3 1.01 % Other states/territories of Australia 1 0.34 % Email address only 1 0.34 % TOTAL 296 100 %

Of the total number of submissions, 262 are from local government areas (including impacted landowners, local residents, local businesses, state agencies, interest groups and local government) and 29 are from the rest of the Perth metropolitan region. A total of 153

3 pro forma submissions (identical submission from more than one person) were received. Landowners of properties impacted by the amendment made 115 submissions and local residents (from the two local government areas) made 110 submissions.

Fifteen submissions are from State Government agencies; two from State utility providers (ATCO and Western Power); two from local government (Submission 6 - Bayswater; Submission 89 - Vincent) and six from special interest groups, including community, education establishments and Engineers Australia.

A total of 296 submissions (including four late submissions) were received on the amendment. Objections are made in 252 submissions (this includes suggesting changes to the reserve) with six submissions of support and the remaining 38 submissions contained comments and advice only.

6 Hearings

Section 46 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 provides the opportunity for each person making a submission to be heard on the submission by the WAPC or a committee established by the WAPC. The WAPC has discretion under Schedule 2, clause 12 of the Act, to determine the meeting procedures.

A total of 146 submitters requested to be heard on their submission. Approximately 90 nominated Mr Graeme Reany as spokesperson.

All submitters who requested to be heard were offered an opportunity to make a deputation to the WAPC at a special meeting held on 9 May 2017.

7 Main issues raised in submissions

7.1 Opposition to increasing the width of the road reservation

74% of submissions consider the proposed amendment is unnecessary and suggest components be removed or deleted.

Submissions observed the need for improvements to Guildford Road within the existing MRS road reserve, however the majority of submitters do not support the proposed amendment on the basis that it will have widespread negative impacts on the community.

Issues raised include:

• road widening will result in the loss of car parking. Providing one off-street car parking bay per dwelling is a minimum requirement under the provisions of the City of Bayswater town planning scheme. On-street car parking is neither feasible nor allowed along Guildford Road as it is classified as a PRR; • properties will lose vehicle access to Guildford Road over time due to a MRWA policy discouraging direct access to regional roads; • due to topography, retaining walls will need to be erected or reconstructed to align with the proposed amended PRR boundary; • increase in traffic noise and ground vibration due to the roadway being realigned closer to residences and higher road operation speeds; • loss of garden area and privacy;

4 • many properties abutting Guildford Road already have steep driveways due to the rising terrain to the north side and falling gradients to the south side. Additional road widening implies the need for even steeper driveways which are less safe. Some properties have rear laneways providing potential for vehicle access; however, this is not viable for all properties; • more regional traffic will use Guildford Road; and • proposed truncations at street corners are unnecessarily large.

MRWA Response:

The Guildford Road planning review that developed the proposed planning design concept and reservation was conducted in consultation with key stakeholders who include senior officers from the City of Bayswater, officers from Department of Transport, Department of Planning and Public Transport Authority.

The purpose of the planning review was to update the current planning design concept which supports the 1994 MRS reservation and assess its ability to respond to population growing towards 3.5 million people. As the population grows to the anticipated 3.5 million people, corridors such as Guildford Road will play a very import role in moving people.

It should be noted that the 1994 scheme amendment was based on carriageway concept associated with private motor vehicle transport corridor and not an intensified activity corridor as was usual in the 1990’s. Elements such as bus priority at major intersections, improved pedestrian safety measures such as wider footpaths, dedicated on-road cycling where Guildford Road significantly traverses away from existing regional PSP, streetscape beautification upgrades, and verge widths being substandard to accommodate appropriate service infrastructure, was not considered in the 1994 MRS amendment. The capacity of Guildford Road to accommodate future forecast traffic volumes and more importantly at major intersections is considered limited.

Without the opportunity to incorporate the improvements proposed in this amendment, the corridor will become more congested. One of the key areas of focus in the State Planning Strategy - Movement section is to address congestion.

This current MRS amendment process is the culmination of a long term road planning study to inform future land requirements. This study provides for future opportunity to improve public amenity and safety along the corridor.

Road Widening and Loss of Car Parking - At the planning review inception meeting with senior officers from the City of Bayswater, they explicitly stated it was timely that Main Roads commence this study as it aligns with their intention to undertake a land use study along the Guildford Road corridor. However, funding for the City of Bayswater assessment was not available at that time.

It was this land use study that was going to inform the ultimate development of a vehicle access strategy and car parking requirements along Guildford Road. At the time of the Guildford Road planning review, the City of Bayswater had undertaken a Local Housing Development Strategy that identified residential densities. The distribution of these densities is expected to occur in the wedge between railway line and Guildford Road.

Rather than waiting for council to develop a land use strategy, senior officers from Department of Planning clearly indicated their preference to pursue a MRS process for Guildford Road. Early MRS amendment process will provide certainty for future direction for development abutting Guildford Road.

5 Access to Guildford Road - Laneways are set aside to provide access to car parks and services to the rear of buildings. Most of the Eighth Avenue precincts have rear laneways for access to car parks. The access to these laneways is from Eighth Avenue with an exception of one laneway with access to Guildford Road. The majority of these laneways have less the desired width of 4.5 metres for access lanes and 6.0 metres for rear laneways.

Many properties have crossovers on Guildford Road, creating unfavourable environment for a major route between Perth and Midland where vehicles accessing these crossovers create delays to the traffic flow. It is recommended that the future redevelopments will see these properties to have access via side streets or rear laneways.

One of the initiatives based on Directions 2031 & Beyond (and reinforced in the Draft Towards Perth & [email protected] Million) principles is that Guildford Road is a corridor that will accommodate increased medium-rise higher density residential development. This redevelopment should occur in accordance with WAPC Planning Policies in relation to road planning and in particular WAPC Development Control Policy 5.1 - Regional Roads (Vehicular Access) which seeks to minimise junctions or driveways along regional roads to improve road safety and network efficiency. Where existing laneways lead off directly from Guildford Road it is planned that they will be retained and widened where appropriate. Ultimately the access at the Guildford Road end of these laneways will be restricted to left turns only in the interest of road safety.

A vehicle access strategy was not developed as part of this scheme amendment.

Retaining Walls - This will be considered during the project development and detailed design.

Traffic Noise - Guildford Road speed will remain as it is today being 60 km/hr. Lower speed such as 50 km/hr could be considered through Maylands Activity Centre. Intersection improvements as indicated in this scheme amendment will improve congestion and will mitigate noise at these locations. Noise mitigation measures will be considered during project development and detailed design.

Vibration - This will be considered during the project development and detailed design.

Impacts on Gardens & Privacy - The MRS reservation changes as proposed by this scheme amendment will affect a number of lots along Guildford Road. Some lots will be less affected as the review is proposing to reduce or eliminate the MRS reservation from the lots. Other lots maintain the current reservation impact or have the existing reservation increased.

In accordance with Directions 2031 principles there is likely to be substantial redevelopment along the Guildford Road corridor which will change the type and form of residential development.

Impact on Driveways - This will be considered for existing driveways where there are no other options such as rear lane ways during the project development and detailed design. When land redevelopment occurs, rationalisation or removal of those steep driveways will be considered as part of the development application.

Traffic Growth - Currently Guildford Road is attracting some 26,000 to 32,000 vehicles per day (vpd). It is envisaged that this section of Guildford Road could increase to 32,000 vpd near Whatley Crescent and 40,000 vpd near Tonkin Highway for a design year of 2031. This increase in traffic is associated with the increase in land use surrounding

6 Guildford Road. The schemed amendment as advertised can facilitate the traffic demand as predicted.

WAPC Response:

The existing Guildford Road consists of a four lane undivided road with carriageway widths of generally 7.0 meters (two lanes) in each direction and has minimal verges. There are only limited locations where the median has been provided.

The current MRS reservation for Guildford Road was amended in 1994 and established a reservation width typically between 26 and 32 metres.

The current road reservation does not preclude MRWA from improving safety characteristics of Guildford Road by widening verges, intersection improvements and installing medians.

7.2 Opposition due to impacts on existing buildings and structures

68% of submissions raised opposition to the proposed amendment due to the impact on existing buildings and structures.

Issues raised include:

• landowners will lose their homes; • residents, who have been living here for quite a long time, may no longer be able to live within the Maylands community; • decreased development potential with the current zoning; and • relocation will be costly.

MRWA Response:

The MRS reservation changes as proposed by this scheme amendment will affect a number of lots along Guildford Road. Some lots will be less affected as the review has proposed to reduce or eliminate the MRS reservation from some lots. Other lots are likely to maintain the current reservation impact as defined in the 1994 MRS amendment or have the existing reservation as defined in the 1994 MRS amendment increased.

Where the proposed reservation does not impact on the existing structure, homes will be retained.

It is likely to take a significant period of time to complete the necessary land acquisition prior to road construction i.e. the widening of Guildford Road. This is a road planning study to define the ultimate road reservation based on a planning design concept which supports Directions 2031, but it is not intended to be a construction project.

It is benchmark practice to consider significant buildings as part of future road planning reviews - typically those protect by State Heritage listings. Many other structures and buildings are anticipated to undergo considerable renewal over time as outlined in other points above. This renewal can accommodate the road planning requirements through orderly and proper planning processes.

WAPC Response:

Proposed MRS reservation will impact additional and significant number of properties. The WAPC’s contingent liability is estimated at $13.86 million based on MRWA information. The

7 proposed road reservation width will range from 25.2 metres to 32.7 metres (according to MRWA Carriageway Pattern plans) in mid-block with additional widening at selected intersections.

The Department of Transport have advised that the recently released [email protected] Million transport plan does not show Guildford Road as a high priority route for Bus propriety measure. In addition the Department does not envisage on road cycle lanes for Guildford Road.

The exclusion of dedicated bus priority and cycling lanes will greatly reduce the land required to accommodate transport needs.

7.3 Opposition to a continuous central median strip due to restricted vehicle access

58% of submissions raised opposition to a continuous central median strip due to the restriction to vehicle access this would introduce.

Issues raised include:

• restriction of right turn movements to/from Guildford Road to properties and business; • increase in illegal U-turns; • use of side streets to ‘loop’ around to opposite side of Guildford Road; • an increase to traffic in surrounding streets will deteriorate quality community living; • increased travel time for access to properties or business; and • businesses will lose customers.

Submissions suggested inserting breaks into the proposed continuous central median to provide a better outcome for the community.

MRWA Response:

The inclusion of a central median strip is a feature of the existing 1994 concept design.

Crossing Guildford Road can be a complex task for pedestrians where there isn’t a median. Pedestrians must estimate vehicle speeds, adjust their own walking speeds, determine adequacy of gaps, predict vehicle paths, and time their crossings appropriately. Drivers must see pedestrians, estimate vehicle and pedestrian speeds, determine the need for action, and react.

Raised medians allow pedestrians to cross one direction of traffic at a time. This significantly reduces the complexity of the crossing. Under night-time conditions, the crossing task is even more complex for pedestrians. Pedestrians are watching car headlights and it is more difficult to correctly judge the speed of, and distance to, approaching motor vehicles when only headlights are visible. Valuable cues used by pedestrians to judge speed, e.g., change in the observed shape of the approaching car and relative location with respect to roadside objects, are more difficult to observe at night. Variations in motor vehicle travel speeds add to the complexity of judging adequate gaps in traffic.

The provision of a median will allow for protected turn pockets for vehicle wanting to turn right into side roads. These vehicle access arrangements for those intersections are in line with instructions provided by senior officers from the City of Bayswater. Main Roads did not digress from those instructions.

8 The proposed planning design concept provides for a median for the entire length of the study area. The median width varies from 2.0 metres to 5.5 metres. The minimum median value was adopted to minimise impact on existing European heritage as directed by senior officers from the City of Bayswater. As the result of discussions with senior officers from the City of Bayswater, Eighth Avenue will be reconfigured to disallow right turns from Guildford Road in to Eighth Avenue. Seventh Avenue will become a signalised intersection with full vehicle movements.

It has been found that the provision of a raised median will:

• improve pedestrian safety; • reduce motor vehicle crashes; • decrease delays for motorists; • increase in capacity of roadways; • reduce vehicle speeds on the roadway; • provide space for landscaping; and • provide space to install additional roadway lighting, further improving the safety of the roadway.

Main Roads acknowledge there will be a redistribution of traffic with the introduction of a solid median; however this is as a result of improving safety along the corridor for both the private vehicles and pedestrians/cyclist. Pedestrian interest, comfort and safety are the key factors in establishing a high quality pedestrian environment.

WAPC Response:

The provision of median islands will improve road safety.

Consultation with the business and community will be needed to determine the extent of lane separation prior to formal construction.

7.4 Concerns regarding the potential devaluation of properties

59% of submissions raised concerns regarding the potential devaluation of properties. Submissions cited contributing factors such as reduced land area, loss of development potential, lack of access, loss of car parking and loss of visual amenity.

Some submissions also raised the prospect that reduced property values will also reduce council rates and thereby reduce the funds available for community improvement projects.

MRWA offered no response.

WAPC Response:

When land is acquired, the relevant legislation requires that for valuation purposes, the presence of a reservation be disregarded. Land is purchased at ‘fair market value’ which is established on the basis that the reservation does not exist and the highest and best alternative use or zone be assumed.

7.5 Opposition due to impacts on local businesses

68% of submission raised opposition to the proposed amendment due to the impact on local businesses and jobs.

9 Issues raised include:

• loss of suitable access due to relocation of driveways, introduction of a central median and cul-de-sacs on side streets; • loss of customer parking and off-street parking; • loss of income due to subsequent changes of the surrounding areas; • cost of relocation; • forced closures; • struggling small businesses are unlikely to survive due to the change in financial viability; • reduced access and parking for vulnerable people using the aged care facilities; • safety concerns for child drop-off and pick-up arising from the loss of car parking at Great Beginnings Child Care Centre; and • impacted local businesses include Maylands Vet, Rifo’s Café, The Chop Shop, Studio 281, Amore Mio, Mandy’s Convenience & Deli, Your Shout Liquor, Liquor Barons, Speedlite Cycles, Great Beginnings Child Care, The Garden Café and Pet Lovers Café.

MRWA offered no response.

WAPC Response:

The proposed amendment will have a significant impact on access and parking to residences and businesses.

7.6 Objection to on-road cycle lanes

63% of submissions raised concerns regarding the safety and necessity of providing new cycle lanes alongside heavy and fast moving traffic. Submissions drew attention to two existing cycle paths parallel to Guildford Road.

Issues raised include:

• the proposed bike path encourages users to share Guildford Road with trucks and cars which is a potential danger for cyclists; and • there are two existing dedicated bike paths along the train line and Swan River parallel to Guildford Road.

MRWA Response:

The current planning concept design which supports the 1994 scheme amendment and road geometry / operating speed on Guildford Road makes no provision for and is not desirable for on-road cycling. Currently there are two existing PSPs that run almost parallel to Guildford Road, including (this is consistent with the [email protected] Million cycling network):

• The one along the railway line provides convenient and direct access to activity centres such as the Perth Central Business District and Maylands (commuter route). • One along Riverside (recreational cycling route).

These provide good facilities for regional and recreational trips but do not provide a facility for cyclists wanting the access areas along the Guildford Road corridor. However, bike riders are legitimate users of our public roads and they need to use roads to reach daily destinations. On quiet roads with low speeds bikes can share the road space with motor

10 vehicles. But busier roads require separate space for bike riders in the form of bike lanes or separated paths.

The 2015 RAC Cycling Survey revealed that 46% of respondents are moderately or extremely dissatisfied with Perth’s on-road cycling infrastructure (e.g. cycle lanes) and that 71% believe the government should build more / improve on-road cycling infrastructure (i.e. cycle lanes).

In 2006, the WAPC Sustainable Transport Committee endorsed that on-road cycling should be planned on all regional roads, which includes Guildford Road. The Sustainable Transport Committee resolution came about from the planning for roads such as Canning Highway and Stirling Highway at that time. On-road cycling facilities have been planned on these routes and Guildford Road is of similar nature.

It is acknowledge that complete segregation (such as a PSP) of cyclists to vehicular traffic is an optimal outcome from a safety perspective and delivering cycling networks to meet the ‘8 to 80’ philosophy. However, where the PSP alignment deviate greater distances from Guildford Road, on-road cycling is provided to support the local catchment and facilitate multi-modal access to the Maylands Activity Centres and associated end of trip destinations. The deviation of the PSP can be a significant impediment to encouraging cycle use.

Distance measured from Guildford Road to existing PSP located along the railway:

• Caledonia Street (forms the eastern boundary to Maylands Activity Centre) is 400 metres • Garratt Road is 780 metres • King William Street is 870 metres

In addition, the local road network surrounding Guildford Road is a grid road network which offers no parallel road network for cycling.

The planning design concept which supports this scheme amendment includes on road cycling on the kerb side lanes of the dual carriageway. The desirable width of cycle path will be 1.5 metres wide from Caledonian Avenue to Tonkin Highway. However, between East Parade to Caledonian Avenue the kerb side traffic lane will have a width of 4.2 metres to 4.5 metres which will be shared with general traffic.

If no provision is made in the reservation for on-road cycling facilities then cyclists will have to either mix with traffic in the 3.5 metre traffic lane or ride along the footpaths which in the current reservation provided will be minimal and substandard.

WAPC Response:

The Department of Transport has advised that on road cycling provision is not required along Guildford Road.

7.7 Bus queue jump lanes and bus bays

46% of submissions opposed proposed road widening associated with bus queue jump lanes and bus bays, which will impact several properties at major intersections.

Submissions contend the bus queue jump lanes are unnecessary as there are no long queues of cars at signals and that bus bays have a negative impact rather than positive.

11 Submissions also suggested rationalising the number and locations of bus stops and bays.

MRWA Response:

One of the planning principles of Directions 2031 & Beyond (and reinforced in the Draft Towards Perth & [email protected] Million) is to deliver a safe, reliable and energy efficient transport system that will promote public transport options over private transport. Some initiatives include providing frequent bus services, time bus stops, and dedicated transit lanes or queue jump facilities.

Along Guildford Road at present there are a number half-width bus bays. These existing bus embayments are approximately 2.0 metres wide. At other stops, the buses stop on the road carriageway. The duration at these stops is short. Therefore delays to general traffic are minimal and the difficulties experienced by buses trying to re-enter the traffic stream are eliminated. There is currently no provision of bus priority at signalised intersections.

The existing number of bus journeys along Guildford Road is six journeys per hour and this is predicted to increase to some 16 - 20 journeys per hour in 2031 based on advice from the Public Transport Authority.

The concept which supports this scheme amendment provides for only two bus embayments for the provision of time bus stop locations. These embayments are located on both sides of Guildford Road located west of Peninsula Road and west of King William Street. All other bus stands no embayments are provided. The locations of the two embayments are in line with instructions provided by senior officers from the Public Transport Authority.

A queue jump is a type of roadway geometry used to provide preference to buses at intersections. It consists of an additional travel lane or a shared left turn pocket lane on the approach to a signalised intersection. This lane is often restricted to transit vehicles only. A queue jump lane is usually accompanied by a signal which provides a phase specifically for vehicles within the queue jump. Vehicles in the queue jump lane get a head-start over other queued vehicles and can therefore merge into the regular travel lanes immediately beyond the signal. The intent of the lane is to allow the higher-capacity vehicles to get to the front of the queue, reducing the delay caused by the signal and improving the operational efficiency of the transit system.

In the Guildford Road planning design concept, bus queue jump facilities are provided at a total of five signalised intersection locations, including: Peninsula Road, Seventh Avenue, Caledonian Avenue, Garratt Road and King William Street. Based on the traffic analysis conducted at these intersections, it is expected that in the year 2031, vehicle queues during the morning and afternoon peak hours at each of these intersections would often extend beyond the length of the left turn pockets which forms the bus queue jump lane. These forecast queues may then interrupt access to the queue jump lane at these intersections for buses travelling on Guildford Road (in both eastbound and westbound directions).

Where bus queue jump lanes have been provided, the length of these lanes was determined by the land available at each of the intersection locations. In most cases, in order to provide a bus queue jump lane long enough to overcome vehicle queuing issues, significant additional land resumption along Guildford Road would be required. Providing bus queue jump lanes of this length would result in excessive impact on many properties along Guildford Road for minimal additional benefit. As such, the length of bus queue jump lanes was typically minimised in order to reduce the impact on nearby land.

While bus queue jumping facilities have been provided at five of the eight planned signalised intersections along Guildford Road, there are some locations where queue jump facilities

12 were not provided in the design. In some cases the benefit of providing bus queue jump facilities at minor signalised intersections (First Avenue, Thirimere Road) was minimal while at other intersections (such as Eighth Avenue) it was found that constraints restricted the ability for queue jump lanes to be provided.

If provision in the reservation is not provided for bus queue jump lanes then it will not be possible to provide any priority for Public Transport along Guildford Road. This is not consistent with the principles of strategic planning documents including Directions 2031 & Beyond.

WAPC Response:

The Department of Transport has advised that the [email protected] Million transport plan does not show Guildford Road as a high priority route for bus priority measures. The focus is instead on improving bus linkages and transfer facilities at train stations along the Perth to Midland rail line.

7.8 Opposition to cul-de-sacs on side roads

55% of submissions raised opposition to proposed cul-de-sacs on side roads, due to the restriction to vehicle access this would introduce and the potential for increased traffic on local roads abutting Guildford Road which will impact amenity.

MRWA Response:

Extensive consultation with senior officers from the City of Bayswater had occurred during life of this road planning study. The vehicle access arrangements as defined in this scheme amendment are in line with instructions provided by senior officers from the City of Bayswater. Main Roads did not digress from those instructions.

As note also noted in Section 7.1 the access arrangements are consistent with WAPC Policies including WAPC Development Control Policy 5.1 - Regional Roads (Vehicular Access) which seeks to minimise junctions or driveways along regional roads to improve road safety and network efficiency.

WAPC Response:

Any changes to property access from local roads will need further consultation with local government and the community by MRWA.

7.9 Concerns relating to acquisition of properties, compensation and timing

60% of submissions raised concerns regarding a lack of information being available relating to compensation of affected properties, the process for land acquisition and the timing of such processes.

Main Roads WA offered no response.

WAPC Response:

The Land Administration Act 1997 provides the statutory framework for compulsory acquisition instigated by the State for imminent public works. If the amendment proceeds, it will likely be the main method for acquiring or resuming this reserve. Part 11 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 provides provisions relevant to compensation and acquisition initiated by an affected landowner.

7.10 Concerns regarding the potential loss of local character and sense of community

66% of submissions raised concerns regarding the potential loss of local character due to increased traffic in local residential streets, a high speed road in the middle of the community and an increased presence of heavy vehicles on Guildford Road. Submissions also raised concerns regarding a loss of sense of community due to associated traffic noise, restricted use of and access to community places and impacts on local businesses.

MRWA Response:

• Main Roads acknowledge there will be a redistribution of traffic with the introduction of a solid median; however this is as a result of improving safety along the corridor for both the private vehicles and pedestrians/cyclist. Pedestrian interest, comfort and safety are the key factors in establishing a high quality pedestrian environment. • There will be no change to the current speed environment. • Type of vehicles that currently utilise Guildford Road will not change. It is necessary the existing and planned businesses to have access to these types of vehicles. • With the introduction of a central median, this will promote space for pedestrian/gopher crossings, landscaping and additional roadway lighting, further improving the safety of the roadway. Widen verges will promote safer pedestrians/gopher mobility and will allow space for street scape which offers a community sense of place. • Intersection improvements as indicated in this scheme amendment will improve congestion and will mitigate noise at these locations. Noise mitigation measures will be considered during project development when Guildford Road is a project.

WAPC Response:

The proposed increased road reservation will affect the character of local community and business due to additional property impacts.

7.11 Potential loss of buildings with local heritage significance

58% of submissions raised concerns the proposed amendment is unsympathetic to the heritage values of Maylands. Submissions identified 23 properties affected by the proposed amendment which are also included in the City of Bayswater’s Municipal Heritage Inventory. The City of Bayswater has advised that the proposed amendment would require modification to seven heritage buildings.

MRWA Response:

Through extensive consultation with officers from State Heritage Council, Main Roads engaged an external consultant to undertake a European Heritage Study. The brief for this project requires two different tasks:

• To undertake a desktop assessment with a brief physical inspection of heritage listed places of European heritage which may be affected by the proposed widening of Guildford Road and assess the severity of impact on their heritage values. • To identify through aerial analysis all buildings 60 years old or older that may be impacted by the road upgrade.

At the time of this study, the desk top assessment found a total of 28 known heritage places, the majority of which are located between the Mount Lawley Railway Subway and Ninth Avenue, Maylands.

Five places are listed on the state level Register of Heritage Places and two places are nominated for listing. Eleven places are protected under the City of Bayswater Town Planning Scheme (TPS) by being included on the TPS Heritage List. Most of these are afforded a low level of protection and demolition of these places would be supported by the City of Bayswater if required.

The Maylands Hall/Library Building has a Category 1 listing for which demolition would not be supported and any development would require City of Bayswater approval.

The Central Building, Baptist Church and Number 193 Guildford Road all have Category 2 protection where demolition would generally not be supported.

The remaining twelve known heritage places have no development or demolition protection under their level of listing.

The concept which supports this scheme amendment was found to have four levels of consequence for known heritage places on Guildford Road. These levels were:

• No impact; • Low impact affecting only front boundary walls and a small section of setback; • Medium impact which removes most of the front setback and affects amenity by removing noise and visual barriers to the busy road and in some cases removing current car parking provisions; • Total impact where Main Roads propose to demolish the building.

All state registered places and one nominated place will be impacted to some degree. Any impact within the curtilage of places on the State Register of Heritage Places requires development approval from the Heritage Council of Western Australia (HCWA). A heritage impact statement should be prepared for each place to accompany the development approval application.

Most impacts are low but moving the road closer to the Albany Bell Hatchery ruin may have longer term impacts which should be assessed.

The impact on Maylands Primary School is now low, as demolition has occurred for one of the outbuildings impacted by this scheme amendment which was listed as having heritage significance.

The impact on the heritage nominated Williamson’s Garage is proposed to be total removal. This scheme amendment proposes no change to the planned road reservation which was defined in the 1994 scheme amendment. Again this is likely to pose problems and a range of options have been provided.

Mayland’s Library which is listed in the TPS Category 1 has no impact by this scheme amendment.

Places protected under the City of Bayswater TPS Heritage List require development approval from the City of Bayswater.

Nine places listed on TPS Heritage Lists will be impacted and this requires approval from the City of Bayswater. Protection varies with level of classification with C1 being the highest protection level. The project has low impact on one C1 place and four C3 places. It has

15 medium impact on two C3 places and total impact on one place in this classification. It also has total impact on a C2 place nominated for state heritage listing.

A total of 137 buildings of pre-1960’s older housing stock were identified within the study area. This includes two building which were shops with house behind, which were counted as one place.

Seventy seven of these were confirmed by visual inspection and sixty were identified as being pre-1953 housing stock through aerial analysis.

WAPC Response:

An additional 23 properties with local heritage significance will be impacted by the proposed amendment.

7.12 Potential loss of buildings with State heritage significance

56% of submissions raised concerns over the potential impacts of the proposed amendment on State heritage sites.

The State Heritage Office has recommended modifications to the proposed amendment.

MRWA Response:

Albany Bell Castle - the impact is low, will require State Heritage Council approval. Reinstate front wall and plumbago hedge to restore view lines.

Albany Bell Hatchery - the impact is medium, will require State Heritage Council approval. Get advice on vibration impact from structural engineer. Archaeological monitoring may be required.

John Gregory's former farm - No impact. Archaeological site at rear of lots will not be affected.

Maylands Primary School - the impact is now low as demolition has occurred for one of the outbuildings impacted by this scheme amendment which was listed as having heritage significance. Both HCWA and Local Government Authority approval required. For the low impact on the Senior Primary School site replacing the fencing will be required. Archaeological watching brief may be required.

Maylands Police Station - No impact.

Williamson’s Garage - Nominated for State Heritage. The impact is total removal. This scheme amendment proposes no change to the planned road reservation which was defined in the 1994 scheme amendment. Both State Heritage Council and Local Government Authority approval required. Four alternative suggestions given with differing heritage and cost outcomes to enable negotiation.

WAPC Response:

An additional seven properties with State heritage significance will be impacted by the prosed amendment.

16 7.13 Potential loss of trees

53% of submissions raised concerns regarding the loss of established trees and native habitat due to future road widening, particularly large native trees near Sixth and Seventh Avenue, adjacent the Constable Care site (150 Guilford Road, Maylands).

MRWA Response:

In relation to the existing giant fig tree, the previous scheme amendment back in 1994 impacts on this particular tree and adjacent trees. Comparisons between the adopted 1994 scheme amendment and the current proposal, no further trees are impacted.

WAPC Response:

Both the current and proposed MRS amendment reserve will impact on some existing trees along the Guildford Road, primarily along the south side between Sixth and Seventh Avenue.

7.14 Concerns regarding the consultation process

60% of submissions raised concerns regarding the public consultation process, specifically that no prior community consultation had been undertaken during the development of the proposed concept design. Submitters felt that local residents, businesses and tenants impacted by the proposed amendment and proposed closure of side streets had not been considered or consulted.

MRWA Response:

At the meeting held at the City of Bayswater office dated 8 April 2011, senior officers from the Department of Planning clearly indicated the preference to an MRS amendment rather than a PCA or Clause 32. This is considered a proactive process and it will provide certainty to land development and clearer direction to council and key stakeholders.

Benchmark practice has been to conduct community consultation as part of the MRS Amendment process. Prior to this, key stakeholder engagement with Department of Planning, Department of Transport, Public Transport Authority, Local Government Authorities were engaged to develop a holistic planning design concept. The region scheme amendment process has been established to ensure a significant level of scrutiny was applied to any changes to this high level statutory planning document. To undertake community consultation during this stage would be to double up on the Department of Planning process. During the MRS amendment comment period, senior Main Roads officers have made themselves available for onsite one-on-one consultation with any tenants, local business, and local residents as requested.

WAPC Response:

No direct community consultation was undertaken by MRWA prior to advertising this amendment.

Consultation has been confined to MRWA officer level discussions with affected local and State Government agencies and the pre-referral stakeholder process prior to public advertising of the amendment.

17 7.15 Concerns regarding content and timing of consultation report

45% of submissions raised concerns over the content of the accompanying amendment report and a lack of justification and traffic assessment. Concerns were also raised regarding the inappropriate scale of mapping and consultation being conducted during the Christmas period.

Main Roads WA offered no response.

WAPC Response:

Information made available to the public has been in accordance with WAPC practice. Additional MRWA traffic information is available but has not been released by the proponent.

7.16 Consideration of alternatives

65% of submissions suggested alternative solutions, including:

• upgrading of signal coordination; • greater emphasis on use of public transport; • improvements and widening of the existing pedestrian pathway; • rationalising of the central median; • rationalising bus stops and bus bays; and • encouraging regional traffic to use alternative regional road routes.

MRWA Response:

This study addresses the concerns raised in this question.

Guildford Road is the major link between Perth and Midland on the northern side of the Swan River and is the most direct route between these two centres. From a planning perspective Guildford Road is classified as a PRR by the WAPC through the MRS. Given Guildford Roads importance as a PRR it is impractical to redirect regional traffic to alternative route as a PRR.

As part of Directions 2031 & Beyond, Maylands has been identified as an important activity centre in the State Government’s planning strategy. The vision for how the Maylands activity centre will grow will be at the centre of the vision to establish a place that:

• Provides a diverse range of housing opportunities. • Respect and enhances local character and heritage. • Promotes Maylands as a centre for comparison retail, convenience shopping, office accommodation and civic uses. • Improves access for pedestrian, cyclists and those using public transport.

The planning design concepts key objectives for movement networks within the Maylands activity centre is to establish an efficient, safe and more comfortable balance between pedestrian, cyclists, vehicle based and public transport modes.

The planning design concept makes provision for two 3.5 metre traffic lanes (3.3 metre lanes from East Parade to Caledonian Avenue) in each direction, a central median varying from 2.0 metres (minimising impact on existing European Heritage) to 5.5 metres wide (to accommodate right turn lanes at signalised and non-signalised intersections), on-road

18 cycling in both directions with 1.5 metre lanes from Caledonian Avenue to Tonkin Highway, and road verges between 4.1 and 5.1 metres wide to accommodate pedestrians, street trees and utility services. Bus queue jumping lanes are included at a number of the signalised intersections along the road to allow buses to have priority at intersections.

WAPC Response:

Department of Transport has raised the need for a review of the road design based upon the [email protected] Million transport plan aspirations.

7.17 Other issues raised in submissions

The following concerns were also raised in submissions:

• there is no emphasis on public transport (especially train) use; • concerns over road safety issues for community and vulnerable road users; • no cost benefit analysis has been provided; • stress on mental health for senior citizens; and • use of taxpayers money.

MRWA Response:

Emphasis on Public Transport - Given the study area focuses on the Guildford Road corridor, it is natural the focus was on road using public transport modes (i.e. buses). The location of the train line (400 metres to 870 metres to the north) excludes it from the study area. All transport analysis along Guildford Road considered the Perth to Midland Railway Line patronage.

Please refer to item 7.7 above.

Community and Vulnerable Road Users - Wider verges improve pedestrian safety and sense of place. Central median provides pedestrian refuge at crossing points. The planning design concept will accommodate pedestrian movements at all signalised intersections. Other facilities such as pram ramp and grab rails for pedestrian crossing the road would be included at appropriate locations between the signalised intersections, including at unsignalised intersections. These facilities do not affect the road reserve width required and would be determined at the detailed design stage.

Able bodied vulnerable road users such as pedestrians and cyclists safety is improved as previously discussed: through wide verges, a central median, and on on-road cycle lane. Vulnerable road users who may have visual, audible, mobility or other impairments will also benefit from the improvements to verge and median improvements but can also be catered to via road side furniture/management techniques (i.e. tactile paving on approach to pedestrian crossing ramps). These are features that do not affect the reservation width and are considered at a detailed design stage.

Justification and Cost Benefit Analysis - This is a long term planning study. Such studies are undertaken to predict future needs and ensure sufficient land is reserved to meet those needs in accordance with the government planning and transport policies of the time. Cost benefit analysis is not undertaken at this stage. This is applicable when the demand for the project warrants further detailed design. Cost benefit considerations can then be undertaken to consider all factors including design alternatives, and applications for funding. There is insufficient detail at the planning design concept phase to undertake a cost benefit with sufficient rigour.

Stress to Senior Citizens - Main Roads WA offered no response.

Cost to Taxpayers - There has been a plethora of research on the cost of congestion to road users, businesses, the economy, the environment, etc. Not to mention the cost to taxpayers for road crashes and road crash trauma. Again, this is a long term planning study and it is not typical for a cost benefit analysis to occur at this stage. However all these factors contribute to a cost benefit assessment to justify the cost of a project.

WAPC Response:

Note Main Roads WA response.

8 Responses and determinations

The summary of all submissions are listed in Schedule 1 "List of submissions". Where a large number of submissions were received on particular issues, these have been discussed in part 7 - Main Issues raised in submissions. It is recommended that the amendment should not proceed to finalisation.

9 Coordination of region and local scheme amendments

Section 126(3) of the Planning and Development Act 2005 allows for concurrent amendment of a local planning scheme as part of an MRS amendment proposal. Planning Bulletin 105/2010 states that, in practice, land to be transferred to an Urban zone in the MRS may be automatically rezoned if the local zone proposed is an ‘Urban Development’ or an equivalent zoning. As the amendment is not being finalised, section 126(3) is not applicable.

10 Conclusion and recommendation

This report summarises the background to MRS major amendment 1310/41 and examines the main issues raised in submissions.

The WAPC, after considering written submissions and hearing deputations made at a Special Meeting on 9 May 2017, is satisfied that the amendment as shown generally on Proposal 1 in Schedule 2, and in detail on the MRS amending plans listed in Appendix 1 (as advertised), should not proceed to finalisation.

Significant concerns have been raised through the consultation process. Further work is required to assess the concerns raised and investigate any future requirements for the upgrade of this section of Guildford Road, including consideration of what improvements could be provided for within the existing reservation.

Having regard to the above, the WAPC recommends that the Minister for Planning withdraw the amendment.

Schedule 1

Alphabetical listing of submissions Alphabetical Listing of Submissions

MRS Amendment 1310/41

Guildford Road from East Parade to Tonkin Highway

Submission Name Number 212 Abeyaratne, Thilan 3 Aboriginal Affairs, Department of 158 Ahearn, Bernard & Paul 85 Ailbhe, Unknown 54 Albert, Sylvan 145 Althuizen, John 255 Amos, David & Michelle 57 Anastasia Eveson 268 Anderson, Chenoa 206 Angwin, Phillip 7 ATCO Gas Australia 190 Augustine, Pius & Pius Kulakkattolickal, Susy 243 Bagale, Saroj 195 Baker, Stephen 286 Ballantyne, Ann 234 Barbuto, Steven 287 Barlow , Shelley 221 Barnett, John 144 Barnett, Regina 45 Bassett, Darren & Katina 6 Bayswater, City of 217 Beaton, Sally 272 Bell, Sean 10 Beltrame, Eufelia 157 Benson, Kira 47 Berry, Simon 274 Bethell, Andrew 244 Bhandari, Sarmila 231 Bilsby, Ian 282 Bilston, Shae 254 Blanco, Steven 112 Borcich, Anton 209 Borshoff, Juliet 48 Botman, Chris 227 Boyd, Sandra 246 Bradford, John 33 Bradley, Bernadette 280 Bradley, David 62 Bridgeman, Tia 61 Bridgeman, Todd 161 Brown, Natalie 106 Brown, Natalie & Marc 76 Brusegan, Maria 24 Burns, Tim 181 Caldwell, Philip & McFadden, Marion 113 Campana, Michelle 14 Cann, Graham 173 Capelli, Callan 176 Catanzaro, Joseph 77 CF Town Planning & Development on behalf of Antonio Vitale 172 Chege, Michael 63 Cheung, Lydia 105 Chitty, Jeremy 27 Ciffolilli, Anna 99 Clarke, Anna 170 Cleary, Rodney 29 Constable Care Child Safety Foundation 91 Cornell, Quenton 108 Corscadden, Siobhan 20 Coulson, Harry 133 Cox, Andrew & Catherine 120 Crabtree, Joan 17 Cracknell, Dean 104 Crockford, Dave 34 Cuscuna, Sam 16 Davidson, Fay 92 Dearl, Chris 241 Deiana, Francesco 37 Delaney, Ingrid 184 Dias, Colin 185 Dias, Michelle 38 Doeglas, Caroline 230 Doherty, Suzanne 52 Doran, Carina 36 Dowson, Antony 146 Dudley, Kayne 284 Dugandzic, Jana 134 Dunn, Alexandra 13 Dutton, Michelle & Smith, Alistair 117 Dynamic Planning and Developments Pty Ltd on behalf of the proprietors of Lots 227, 228, 229, 230, 50 & 292 Guildford Rd, Bayswater 156 Eastwick, Maria & Wiltshire, William 28 Education, Department of 97 Edwards, Louise 265 Ehrhardt, Andrew 152 Ellen Holdings WA Pty Ltd 208 Ellis, Michael 240 Elmendorp Aurelia 19 Emblton, Sonny 88 Emery, Stephen 5 Environmental Regulation, Department of 224 Evans, Janis 39 Evans, Mark 192 Exclusive Strata Management on behalf of the owner Maylands Commercial Centre) 31 Fanly Holdings Pty Ltd 191 Feast, Rob 252 Field, Rebecca 107 Field, Wendy 162 Filsell, Paul 237 Fitzpatrick, Justine & Mary 56 Flavel, Ambika 201 Flavel, Leonardo 214 Fletcher, Hannah 276 Ford, Matthew 169 Foster, Louise 205 Franzinelli-Ehrhardt, Flora 250 Freeburn, Michael 168 Freedman, Linda 87 Fucile, Julie 245 Fugl, Joanna 119 Fuller, Jarrod 179 Fyson, Jonathan 174 Fyson, Terri 148 Galende, Kylie 216 Gardner, Barry 215 Gardner, Elizabeth 233 Garvey, Benjamin 111 Gaunt, Anne 141 George, Damien 165 Gervas, Digby 249 Gevaux, Dee 70 Giang, Van Trong 271 Giebeler, Alexandra 163 Giles, Ian 40 Giles-Evans, Lynne 187 Golden, Susan 150 Goodrick, Russell 263 Gordon, Kathryn and Les 225 Gregory, Anthony 223 Gresley, Phil 207 Grida, Phil 30 Griffiths, A P & Lamu, S 200 Grimshaw, Lousie 267 Halfpenny, Paul 262 Hardison, Jay 180 Harper, Peter 238 Health, Department of 253 Heap, Michael 128 Henney, Alma 166 Hill, Christopher 75 Honeybun, Wayne 50 Housing Authority 9 Huska, Anna 98 Hyman, Claire International Buddhist Association of WA Inc (Fo Guang Shau Buddhist 55 Temple Western Australia) 155 Iozzo, Armanda 23 Jackson, Dinah 26 James, Adam 261 Johnston, Matt 260 Jonker, Riaan & Leana 58 Joshua Eveson 167 Kamaee, Amir 142 Kennedy, Georgia 211 King, Cecil 73 Kopec, Irene 151 Lands, Department of 154 Lazaridis, Dimitrios 68 Le, Quang Huynh 129 Le, Quyet Hung 100 Lee Lynette 102 Lewis, Abigail 46 Li, Gary 257 Li, Shu Xian 218 Lien, Kham 219 Lim, Shien Yiang 15 Lowater, Travis 69 Mack, Andrew & Mercy, Rachael 269 Maher, Angie 2 Main Roads Western Australia 124 Mako Holdings Pty Limited 160 Marsigalia, Lisa 196 Maylands Business Association Inc. 103 Maylands Ratepayers and Residents Association 59 McCann, Pauline & Brian 66 McElroy, Luke 164 McEvoy, Lucy 285 Medley, Annie 159 Mills, Ray 4 Mines and Petroleum, Department of 203 Minter Ellison on behalf of G8 Education Ltd 25 Mirabella, Leanne 43 Moir, Lois 213 Montgomery, James 41 Morgan, Faye & Ward, Glen 291 Morgan, Robert & Matthews, Anthony 281 Mount Lawley Society Inc. 132 Nathan Ross Fuller 232 Ng, Kevin Wan Lung 93 Ngo, Huy 94 Ngo, Truong 264 Nguyen, Bao 21 Nguyen, Thi Tu-Uyen 220 O'Callaghan, Merrellyn 143 O'Driscoll, Terence & Helena and Family 22 O'Neill, Rebecca 125 Ong, Samuel 270 O'Rourke, Nicole 96 Owens, Charles 12 Painter, Ernest 273 Parker, Suellen 199 Pham, Cindy 18 Philippe, Anton 204 Pickford, Susan on behalf of Engineers Australia 83 Pickles, Marc 275 Planning Solutions on behalf of McDonald's Australia Ltd and Collins Foods Ltd 130 Plater, Kenneth 266 Power, Morgan 121 Pryor, Christopher 64 Public Transport Authority 186 Purnell, Maranne 171 Purwadi, Ferdinand 290 Quarry, Michael 122 Rawlings, Julian 123 Rawlings, Linda 189 Reany, Graeme 53 Rechichi, Frank 247 Reilly, Liam & Remkes, Natalie 248 Remkes, Jan, Pam, Jonathan, Tayler & Anthony 78 Richard, Marc & Logan, Andrew 193 Rodgers, Katherine 60 Roljic, Lucian 194 Romanian Baptist Church Western Australia 236 Rose, Pamela 65 Rowe Group on behalf of Buckeridge and Associates Pty Ltd 278 Russell, Blair 82 Sanderson, Krista 116 Sandra Sharpe 178 Sands, Jasmine 242 Sara, Ganoui 44 Saraullo, Natasha 140 Scimgeour, Ryan 86 Semenluk, Alison 67 Shaw, Katherine 258 Shaw, Peter 259 Shaw, R 222 Shepherd, Mark & Monica 135 Sheralee Tamaliunas 239 Simonetti, Felice 72 Sloan, Richard 226 Smith, Paul 127 South, Peter 229 Speechley, Keri 149 Spence, Stephanie 283 Srndic, Nermin 228 St Quintin, Margo 126 Stansbury, Teneque 292 State Development, Department of 288 State Heritage Office 35 Stewart, Ross 74 Summerfield, Heather 177 Swale, Brendan 183 Sylvestre, Roland & Allison 32 Tan, Mui Hiang & Hoe, Wah Liang 153 Tarry, Jackie & Dave 101 Ten Raa, Emily Jane 95 Thach, Kim 188 Tham, Bandet & Muy, Kimsokdalin 197 Thomson, Glen 279 Thomson, Jill 79 Thomson, Kate 198 Thomson, Rebecca 80 Thomson, Rocky 147 Thornton, Suzette 71 TPG + Place Match on behalf of Spine and Limb Foundation 277 TPG Place Match on behalf of Dirk Kluck, Bayswater Car Rental Pty Ltd) 256 Transcore on behalf of Collins Foods Ltd and McDonald's Australia Ltd 182 Transport, Department of 251 Tucker, John 175 Turketo, Kelly 90 Unknown, Georgia 51 Van Der Weyden, Irene 115 Vanderzwan, Joanne 89 Vincent, City of 235 Vogl, Gerda 139 Wall, Edmund 138 Wall, Lilia 137 Wall, Sarina 289 Wang, William & Peter and Ly, Thuc Kiem 1 Water Corporation 8 Water, Department of 42 Waugh, Brian 118 Weighell, Jayne 131 Welch, Rachael 114 Western Power 202 Wilson, Fawzia 110 Wodcke, Neil 49 Wu, Ken 11 Yong, Chee Ong 210 Young, Martin 81 Yozzi, Phil 84 Yozzi, Tony 109 Ziino, Immacolata 136 Zondervan, Lynton

Late Name Submissions 293 Bolitho, Rebecca 294 Favory, Corey 296 Ludva, Alain and residents on Whatley Crescent 295 Parks and Wildlife, Department of

Schedule 2

The amending figure as advertised Proposal 1 B S I H E R A D MORLEY EMBLETON C/|\ K F W EMBLETON DIANELLA E T

T E A C/|\ H 40875 | T R T

C/\ S D C/|\ 35009 B U

U C/|\ 33283 24176 R O BASSENDEAN

T T C/|\

E R 49569 E E

O L A H

F A D P

IL | V C | U C/\ E E /\ G N R 39524 S H U 24708 235 O UB E A C/|\ R O E 313 D O J RT 9002 314 K A 24209 I G R D RO KH A 64 R A D A WSD M C/|\ 29051 N C/|\ C/|\ D 803 S H E ACE T MOUNT 30676 I T RR 45744 A LL 234 N LAWLEY C/|\ 51199 D C | 45197 R E /\ C/|\ O A C | 233 C/|\ 302 A/\ 9 48633 D A | 50614 R C/\ 34262 R | 231 Y C/|\ E 48325 C/\ 33202 A T W 45069 R C/|\ 52200 E C/|\ 45535 T C/|\ 100 A

W ASCOT

211 E D

L I E 43459 102 C/|\ 48525 T O J 500 C/|\ 35112 5 C | SEC C/|\ 642 /\ A | /\ 5986 T BURSWOOD 46177 L EAST T A E 33966 R H E 9101 P R 13839 A C/|\ E A T PERTH N A/|\ H G S B IR E Y 48463 S 600 46532 S T T R R E R E E Y O E T A C | R B T 9103 /\ A E R W 363 D K E N 28185 R N A C/|\ 9104 C/|\ 46293 | A N C | C/\ B 3 /\ C/|\ 51939 C/|\ 51940 C/|\ 46310 49027 44968 SU A/|\ 9323 46640 BELMONT Guildford Road (East Parade to Tonkin Highway) Proposed Major Amendment as advertised 26 April 2016 Proposal 1

Proposed Amendment: Existing Region Scheme: Industrial SEC Public purposes - State Energy Commission Primary regional roads reservation Other regional roads WSD Public purposes - Water Authority of WA Urban zone Parks and recreation Railways R Parks and recreation - restricted public access Urban

Primary regional roads Waterways

Private recreation (Site No) Bush forever areas

SU Public purposes - special uses

Oracle reference no: 2724 File number: 809/02/14/0003 Version number: 1

N 0 230 460 690 920 Date: 14/06/2016 Produced by GeoSpatial Research and Modelling, Department of Planning, Perth WA Base information supplied by Western Australian Land Information Authority LI 782-2015-1 metres

Appendix 1

List of detail plans as advertised Guildford Road from East Parade to Tonkin Highway

Proposed Major Amendment

Amendment 1310/41

As Advertised

3.2492

Detail Plan

Proposal 1 1.6236, 1.6260 – 1.6262, 1.6275 - Guildford Road