Westerittittiltraft Pr Ailing Commission
METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME Amendment 1100/33
Canning Highway, between Petra Street and Canning Bridge
City of Melville
Report on Submissions
March 2009
Perth Western Australia
I ;f
r/11611/ Western Australian t I Planning GOVERNMENTdt Commission YVES fERN AUSTRALIA -± 0 1 0 0 0 0 METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME Amendment 1100/33
Canning Highway, between Petra Street and Canning bridge
Report on Submissions
City of Melville
Western Australian ,1Planning L-Commission
March 2009 O State of WesternAustralia
Published by the Western AustralianPlanning Commission, Albert Facey House, 469 Wellington Street, Perth Western Australia6000
MRS Amendment 1100/33 Report on Submissions File 809-2-17-6 Pt. 1 Published March 2009
ISBN 0 7309 9676 X
Internet: http://www.wapc.wa.gov.au e-mail: [email protected] Phone: (08) 9264 7777 Fax: (08)92647566 TTY: (08)92647535
Copies of this document areavailable in alternative formats onapplication to the disability services co-ordinator. Contents
1. Introduction 'I
2. The Proposed Amendment 2
3, Call For Submissions 2
4. Submissions and Hearings 2
5. Main issues in the amendment and raised inSubmissions 3
6. Determinations 11
7. Statutory issues 13
8. Recommendations 14
Schedule 1 Alphabetical Listing of Submissions
Schedule 2 Summary of Submissions and Determinations
Schedule 3 The Amendment Figure as Advertised
Schedule 4 The Amendment Figure as Modified
Appendix 1 List of Detail Plans as Advertised
Appendix 2 List of Detail Plans as Modified
Published under separate cover
Submissions 1-45
Submissions 46-Late
Transcript of Hearings » Introduction to Metropolitan Region Schememajor amendments
The Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC)is responsible for keeping the Metropolitan Region Scheme under review and initiating changeswhere they are seen as necessary.
The Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) sets out the broad patternof land use for the whole Perth metropolitan region. The MRS is constantly underreview to best reflect regional planning and development needs.
An amendment proposal to change land use reservationsand zones in the MRS is regulated by the Planning and Development Act 2005. That legislationprovides for public submissions to be made on proposed amendments.
For a substantial amendment, often referred to as a majoramendment (made under section 41of the Act), the WAPC considersall the submissions lodged, and publishesits recommendations in a report on submissions. This report is presented tothe Minister for Planning and Infrastructure and to the Governor for approval. BothHouses of Parliament must then scrutinise the amendment before it can takelegal 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 ofthe proposed amendment.Itsets out the purpose and scope of the proposal, explains why the amendment is considered necessary, and informs people how they can commentthrough the submission process.
Environmental review report The Environmental Protection Authority must consider the environmentalimpact 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 WAPC's recommendations 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.
Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment 1100/33 Canning Highway between Petra Street and Canning Bridge REPORT ON SUBMISSIONS
1 Introduction The Western Australian Planning Commission initiatedMetropolitan Region Scheme amendment 1100/33 for Canning Highway in the City of Melville in September2004, This amendment deals with the Primary Regional Road reserve for Canning Highway inthe City of Melville (between Petra Street and Canning Bridge).The location of the proposed amendment is shown below on Plan 1.
tr
FRE A TL
PRIMARY WNW. 110/1
OM R REGIONAL ROAD
PLANNED PRIOARY 0000101 ROAD 1 /101 MAI. NW NM? LOCAL 0000 tort( titarefli 80UNDARY 103T NOR1H CANNING HIGHWAY I 'RA STRELVFO KWINANA FREEWAY
SCALE 1:1 DO LOCAL Y PLAN
0 1
Kilo ra 2 The proposedamendment affected by thisamendment (PetraStreet For the majority ofthe length ofCanning Highway is still based upon reservation is some 80metres wide and to Glenelg Street),the existing the amendment Metropolitan RegionScheme. In this area, legal interpretationof the 1963 existing reservation. proposes tosubstantially reduce the Glenelg Street andCanning Bridge, the of CanningHighway between the advertised For the section 30 to 35 metreswide. In this section, existing reservationis generally some amendment generallywidens the reservation. considered in twosegments.From plans for thisamendment may be The carriageway with continuous buslanes in both Canning Bridge,plans were drawn but plans Rise ley Street to Street, there are nocontinuous bus lanes directions. From PetraStreet to Rise ley The proposed jump lanes onapproaches to keyintersections. allow for bus queue lanes at the intersectingstreets listed below. reservation allowed forbus queue jump
® Carrington Street Stock Road North Lake Road full length bus lanes.) Rise ley Street (Onthe approach without
3 Call for submissions Region SchemeAmendment 1100/33 was Following the Minister'sconsent, Metropolitan advertised from 17 May2005 to 19 August2005. inspection associated documents weremade available for Copies of theamendment and during ordinarybusiness hours at: and Infrastructure; ® Department for Planning The Bettye Library; The City ofMelville;
® The City of Perth;
O The City ofFremantle;
O The Town of EastFremantle;
® Main Roads WA. the amendment. Individual letters notifiedlandowners affected by
4 Submissions andhearings Submissions included a range submissions on theamendment were received. A brief A total of 55 modification of theproposed amendment. of opinion andvarious requests for content is set outbelow. summary oftypical submission reservation / residents supportedthe amendment because ® Submissions from owners was removedfrom their property. to or expressedconcern about Submissions from owners/ residents objected O properties, often becauseof impact upon reservation remaining orproposed on their improvements or reductionof redevelopmentpotential. to and egress from Submissions expressed concernabout more difficult access private property as aresult of CanningHighway upgrading.
2 Submissions fromcyclingand sustainable transportorientedgroups sought additional space in the proposed reservation for cycle lanes and additional space on verges suitable for off road cycling by novices or children.These submissions included a strong interpretation of the Activity Corridor concept in Network City documents. All submissions are summarised and issues are addressed in schedule 2 of this report. In September 2005 the Metropolitan Region Planning Committee resolved to establish a Hearings Committee with the membership set out below.
O Ms Verity Allan (chair) MemberoftheMetropolitanRegion Planning Committee
O Mr Richard Graham Chairpersonof the South West DistrictPlanning Committee
O Ms Susan Kreemer-PickfordIndependent Transport Engineer
All people or groups who made written submissions were invited to verbally present to the Hearings Committee. Presentations could be made either publicly or in private. The Hearings Committee met to receive verbal presentations on 5 October 2005. Eleven people (or groups) elected to make a verbal presentation to the Hearings Committee.
5 Main issues in the amendment and raised in submissions
5.1 Canning highway as an activity corridor In Network City, an Activity Corridor is defined along Canning Highway.The Activity Corridor concept is not clearly articulated in the Perth context, however this section attempts to develop the concept well enough for reasonably clear judgement in respect of Canning Highway. Each Activity Corridor may be unique. Principles developed and used for Canning Highway in this amendment are not necessarily transferable to other Activity Corridors. Canning Highway is defined as an Activity Corridor within Network City. This means that it is to be developed as a place that accommodates all modes of transport and allows for a mix of land uses that maximises the community's access to a variety of services and facilities, whilst minimising need for car travel.This isin order to ensure the creation of active, vibrant, safe and sustainable neighbourhoods. As an Activity Corridor, Canning Highway will comprise several activity centres that will feature a concentrated mix of land uses and public transport facilities catered to the needs of the local population within an area covered approximately by an 800m radius from public transport stops. These activity centres are intended to become the focal points of the local communities by becoming places where local services are concentrated and at which public transport interchange occurs. These high intensity, mixed use activity centres will create what can best be described as 'peaks and throughs' of activity along the corridors. The following are key objectives/targets that will ensure the successful development of Canning Highway as an Activity Corridor:
1. The provision of excellent public transport along the entire length of the corridor that is accessible, regular and efficient,in order to provide a viable transport alternative to private vehicles. 2. The provision of excellent pedestrian and cyclist facilities along the entire length of the corridorinorder to encourage walking and cycling as viable transport alternatives to vehicles.
3 land uses (including The creation of activity centresthat provide a range of mixed 3. people to satisfy theirneeds locally, thus residential)in order to encourage reducing travel demands. density development The provision of predominantlyresidential, medium to high 4. residential development, along the corridor, betweenactivity centres to consolidate variety of housing typeswithin protect existing traditionalsuburban areas, provide a public transport. local neighbourhoods andimprove the feasibility of street widths in order tominimise the divisive effect of 5. The creation of appropriate creation of active, vibrant the street and to ensure anappropriate setting for the and safe 'people-places'. this amendment, the followingprinciples In consideration ofsubmissions and hearings on are used. Activity Corridor in NetworkCity is an urban area centred on The Canning Highway The Canning Highway road Canning Highway andextending into the adjacent area. land uses. reserve should serveand interact with the adjacent around 1 km wide. It mayextend The Activity Corridordevelopment area may be around 500 metres wide oneach side of CanningHighway itself. have Development along an ActivityCorridor may vary.It would be expected to centres. lengths of lower developmentintensity between the activity variety of land uses. Development within anActivity Corridor should support a This would include:
o a variety housingstyles and densities; might range from homebased oa variety ofbusiness opportunities that businesses to significantcommercial centres; oa variety ofpublic activity areas. would normally exist ordevelop at A number of activitycentres of various sizes These need to have excellentbus discrete locations along anActivity Corridor. to have activity centresat Rise ley access.Canning Highway in Melville appears Street, Canning Bridge StockRoad and North Lake Road. growing local population Activity Corridors should supportbusinesses by combining a with movement economyopportunity. The Canning Highwayshould have:
o A low speed environment. modes, including bus, oCapability of offering transportby a variety of transport walk, cycle, and private car. oOpportunity for bus priority. oConnectivity with the abutting land use. o A significanttraffic volume. concept cannot be developed.Issues Within this amendment, thewhole Activity Corridor listed below. that cannot reasonably beaddressed in this amendment are This amendment does not setthe generic form of anActivity Corridor. Activity Corridor, except tothe This amendment cannotaddress land use along the extent that regional roadreservation might influencedevelopment. corridors. This amendment cannotaddress parallel movement facilities envisaged. This is This amendment cannotcommit to construction of the done by other agencies.
4 If the Activity Corridor concept reduces the averagedistance between trip origins and destinations then travel time can be saved even if travel speeds arereduced. 5.2 Bus priority and bus lanes Numerous government policy and strategy statements say thatpublic transport should be promoted and good quality facilities should be provided. Thesestatements include:
® Network city: community planning strategy for Perth and Peel; West Australian State Sustainability Strategy; West Australian State Planning Strategy; and Statement of Planning Policy No 2Environment and Natural Resources Policy. Identification of Canning Highway as an Activity Corridor inNetwork City makes its public transport function very important.From a passenger point of view, the bus service on Canning Highway primarily does 2 things. It allows people to make relatively short trips along CanningHighway to and between the activity centres. It provides a through service primarily to Central Perth,using Canning Highway as either a trip origin or part of the travel route. Bus lanes have been constructed in cities all over the world.They have been proven to reduce the journey times for public transport passengersin relation to private car users. Overall journey time is a particularly important issue for thetravelling public and a reduction in public transport journey times will encourage travellers to usepublic transport and lead to a reduction in car use. Public transportis particularly effective in assisting commuters travel to their workplace, which is at the time when private car useis at its heaviest. Public transport is encouraged by governments all over theworld as a more sustainable form of transport than private car use. A reduction inprivate car use will bring about a reduction in the use of fossil fuels, pollution, and congestion.It benefits the whole of the community not solely its users. Canning Bridge is the only river crossing point between Fremantle andMount Henry Bridge. Bus routes, like traffic, tend to accumulate on Canning Highwayclose to Canning Bridge to seek the river crossing. The quantity of buses and bus passengers onCanning Highway becomes larger towards Canning Bridge. The greatest opportunityfor road improvements to give the maximum benefit to bus passengers exists close toCanning Bridge. Full-length bus lanes are therefore proposed only between Riseley Street andCanning Bridge. There would be logic in staging construction to commence at theCanning Bridge end of this road segment. The Hearings Committee arranged a presentation by PublicTransport Authority bus planning professionals to seek an understanding of bus planningissues on Canning Highway. The presentation included the following information. The Public Transport Authority seeks to increase the use ofpublic transport by providing customer focused, safe and cost effective passengerservices.
a Government policies seek a more balanced transport system thancurrently exists in Metropolitan Perth.It is envisaged that this would include an elevated proportion of public transport trips.Combined with population growth, this would produce public transport patronage around 3 times current levels. Successful bus services are those that are perceived to be:
o Frequent Straight and direct
o Fast o Legible
5 oReliable oComfortable oSafe 3600 passengers per day ® Currently bus services on Canning Highway carry some (one way) on 238 buses per day and 25buses per hour at peak time. Increased bus services on Canning Highway are planned.By 2010 the expected figures are at least 4400 passengers per day on 312 buses perday with 36 buses per hour at peak time. Public Transport is a key feature of asustainable future Perth.Bus lanes on Canning Highway would contribute to this future.
5.3 Traffic standards on Canning highway General Canning Highway is a high volume traffic route.This is unlikely to change. While little traffic growth is expected, there is also no realprobability of significant traffic reduction.It is vital that facilities for vehicular traffic onCanning Highway be efficient and safe. that The need for protection of pedestriancrossings and right turn lanes means that it is rare the median width could be less than5 metres (including the right turn lane)for any significant distance. There is a need to provide for a good qualitypedestrian environment. The 3.5 metre verge width shown in the advertised amendmentis arguably inadequate.If anything, verges should be widened to improve the pedestrianenvironment. Lane widths As there is competition for space onCanning Highway, traffic lane widths come under scrutiny. The Standards Australia publication,Urban Road Design Guide to the Geometric Design of Major Urban Roads states (on page39): The lane width is to be 3.5 m. There is noevidence that wider lanes would improve the situation in terms of road safety. Austroads Guide to traffic Engineering Practice Part 5: Intersections at Grade (2005) states (on page 79) in respect of through lanes: Urban Roads 3.5 m general desirable width
e 3.0 m general minimum width for through trafficlanes where right-of-way is restricted. On the same page, in respect of Auxiliary(turn) lanes, it states: The same widths as for through lanesshould be applied. However when carriageway widths are restricted, the turn lane widthsshould be reduced before the through lane widths, and a width of 2.8 metres maybe acceptable in constrained situations.
Right turn protection Where practical, it is desirable to have right turnlanes embayed into the median. The effect of these lanes includes the following.
® Protected right turn lanes separate slow or stoppedturning vehicles from through traffic. This substantially reduces the probability of rearend crashes.
6 O Protected right turn lanes prevent the obstruction ofthrough traffic in the right hand lane. This enhances the capacity of the roadway,This is more significant at higher volume / capacity ratios. Sufficiently wide medians (including the right turn lane)allows motorists turning right from the side street to the major road to negotiatethis in two manoeuvres. This will have the following effects. In each manoeuvre (side street to median, andthen median to traffic stream) a driver has less information to interpret than in a singlemovement right turn.This should reduce complexity and improve safety. A driver turning right from the side street can accept a gapin one traffic stream. This will increase side street capacity and decrease vehicledelay. This may produce a flow on safety benefit of avoiding driver impatienceand subsequent acceptance of inappropriate gaps. The safety and efficiency issues above can be addressedby one of the options below, Providing sufficient reservation for protected right turnlanes. living with the consequent O Restricting access at minor streets to left in left out. (And access restrictions) A community accustomed to neither protectionfor, nor restrictions on right turns may find both of the above options unacceptable.
5.4 Cycling on Canning highway Numerous government policy and strategy statements saythat bicycle transport should be promoted and good quality facilities should be provided.These statements include: Peel; O Network city: community planning strategy for Perth and West Australian State Sustainability Strategy; West Australian State Planning Strategy; and Statement of Planning Policy No 2Environment and Natural Resources Policy. Identifying Canning Highway as an Activity Corridormight change previous priorities.Less emphasis might be given to its function as a higher speedthrough route. Greater priority to sustainable transport modes may be appropriate.The land use implications of Canning Highway being classified as an Activity Corridor would see moretrip ends on and close to Canning Highway.This may increase demand for short distance tripsthat could be well served by non-motorised modes. The plans advertised for Canning Highway include a 4.2metre wide kerbside lane and a 3.5 metre wide verge.It is appropriate for the Western AustralianPlanning Commission to consider whether these remain appropriate in thecontext of Canning Highway being classified as an Activity Corridor in Network City. The standard of cycling facilities that should be provided onCanning Highway is ambiguous. This ambiguity comes from several areas as listed below.
Itis unclear whether the width of Canning Highwayshould be considered as constrained. For much of its length, the Metropolitan RegionScheme reservation for Canning Highway is proposed to be reduced from 80 metreswide to less than 30 metres wide. A slightly lesser reduction is stillsubstantial, but for many properties, it would mean retaining some reservation rather thancompletely removing reservation from the property.
7 Austroads Guide to Traffic EngineeringPractice Part 14 - Bicycles is written as a guideline for practitioners whonormally work within constraints of space,time and cost. A Metropolitan RegionScheme amendment proposal is adifferent situation because it may create or removefuture constraints. A different point of viewfrom that taken by AustroadsGuide to Traffic Engineering Practice Part14 Bicycles, may be appropriate. whether Canning Highway is or shouldbe a ® There is no established definition of "strategic bicycle route." Canning Highway is continuous, direct, servesmany destinations and is easyto navigate. This makes Canning Highway a strategicroute for motorised traffic. The samefactors make Canning Highway a strategic route for manyother modes, including cycling.Alternative close to routes to Canning Highway areless direct and may not serve destinations on or Canning Highway. Canning Highway is not listed as a PerthBicycle Network route and is marked onPerth Bike maps as a high stress route.It would not be recommended fornovice cyclists. The reason for this appears to be the harsh cyclingenvironment, on what could be a direct andattractive route. Austroads Guide to Traffic EngineeringPractice Part 14 Bicycles Table 4-4 lists a 4.2 metre wide kerbside lane as thedesirable width for a widened kerbside lanewhere the road speed is 60 km/hr. There is ambiguity asto whether Canning Highway roadspeed is 60 km/h or 70 km/h because of the following. The existing speed limit along thissection of Canning Highway is 60 km/hr. Guide to the O The Standards Australia publication,Urban Road Design Geometric Design of Major Urban Roadsstates (on page 10) ...geometric design of major urban roads,for cars, should be based on operating (851h percentile) speeds 10 km/habove the legal speed limit. The following statement from AustroadsGuide to Traffic Engineering Practice Part14 Bicycles, section 4.4.1 (page 20)describes when cycle lanes should beprovided over widened kerbside lanes. An exclusive bicycle lane may beappropriate where: bicycle traffic is concentrated, e.g. nearschools or along major routes near city or town centres,' an existing or potentialsignificant demand for bicycletravel can be demonstrated e.g. where traffic volumes andspeeds deter cyclists from using an otherwise favourable route; it is needed to provide continuity within abicycle route network; and a road is carrying or likelyto carry more than 3000 vehicles perday and/ or a significant percentage of heavy vehicles. Austroads Guide to Traffic EngineeringPractice Part 14Bicycles Figure 4.1 (Page 18) suggests that the appropriate treatment onCanning Highway is exclusive bicycle lanes ifthe following are accepted. bicycle route; and O Canning Highway is a section of a strategic Exclusive bicycle lanes can be provided giventhe physical constraints of the site. The Commission is making a fundamentaldecision in respect of cycling facilities considering the following critical factors. The 4.2 metre wide kerbside lanes in theproposed amendment are less than the appropriate standard.
8 Increasing the standard of cycling facilitiesto exclusive cycle lanes, without compromising other traffic provisions, would necessitateincreasing the reservation to more than was advertised in this amendment. There is a small section length of Canning Highwaywhere some space can be taken from the median, which is 3 m wide, or more withoutright turn lanes. Cycling on Canning highway - conclusion The 4.2 metre wide kerbside lanes provide abasic servicefor on roadcyclists. Exclusive cycle lanes are the appropriate standardin terms of Austroads Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice Part 14Bicycles. If cycle facilities are upgraded provide to exclusivecycle lanes, and no further compromise to traffic, median, or verge standards isacceptable then a wider reservation than that proposed in this amendment would be necessary.
5.5 Alternative cross sections and land cost estimates The Committee discussed the issue of financialliability relating to reservation of land for Canning Highway. Property valuers were engaged tovalue three reservation alternatives. The alternatives were based upon the crosssections below.
RESERVE 25-27m
20.0m
7.5m 7.5m TRAFFIC LANES MEOIAN TRAFFIC LANES VERGE I
2m 3 0-5 Om 3.5m
o
PETRA STREET TO RISELEY STREET (WITHOUT FULL LENGTH BUS LANES)
RESERVE 33 6m
10 8m 10.8m MEOW! TRAI I IL LANES WW1 TRAFFIC LANES
35m 42m i 3.3w I 3.3w 5.0m 3.3m 3.3m
RISELEY STREET TO CANNING BRIDGE (WITH FULL LENGTH BUS LANES)
Plan 2General mid-block format of advertised proposal RESERVE 25-27m
1B- 20m
7.5m 7.5m TRAFFIC LANES MEDIAN TRAFFIC LANES
3.0-5,0m 4.2m 3.5m
- I -(= PETRA STREET TO RISELEY STREET (WITHOUT FULL LENGTH BUS LANES) *NO (MANGE FROM ADVERTISED PROPOSAL IN TIIIS SECTION
RESERVE 35/m
11.6m 114m MEDIAN TRAFFIC LANES TRAFFIC LANES
3.3m 5.0m 3.3m
MAY REDUCE IF NO UNCONTROLLED RICA IT (URNS
- _ [11 I r'*-1- I /1 111 -II-J RISELEY STREET TO CANNING BRIDGE (WITH FULL LENGTH BUS LANES)
Figure 3Alternative 1 Kerbside Cycle lanes added eastof Riseley Street
RESERVE 32Im B/m 0.2m MEDIAN VERGE TRAFFIC LAN TRANI LANES
5.1m 5.5m 3,5m 3.5m
r [ -74-0
PETRA STREET TO RISELEY STREET (WITHOUT FULL LENGTH BUS LANES)
RYE39,
11.7m 11.2m MEDIAN TRAFFIC LANES VERGE VERGE TRAFFIC LANES
5,1m 5.5m 3,5m 3,5m 2mL. 15m 3SEI PR-
MAY REDUCEIF NO UNCONTROLLED RIGHT TURNS
L.L-1
RISELEY STREET TO CANNING BRIDGE (WITH FULL LENGTH BUS LANES) Figure 4Alternative 2 Reservation suggested by theMain Roads WA Submission
10 The estimates indicated the contingent liabilityassociated with the original proposal and each alternative is significant, but reasonable in thecontext of the contingent liability normally carried by the Western Australian PlanningCommission and its annual acquisition program. For the majority of the routethe reservation is being substantially reduced by all alternatives. The liability associated with any alternative istherefore a reduction from that of the existing reservation for the majority of the route. The conclusion of consideration of land cost and liabilityissues is summarised below. Western Australians are fortunate that in these(and many other) circumstances achievement of valuable planning, transport, and urbandesign outcomes can take priority over financial constraints. The Commission hasthe view that while financial prudence is important; the primary focus should be onachieving the best outcome for the community.
6 Determinations The Commission has determined the following in respectof the advertised proposal. The reservation shall be modified to provide for exclusivekerbside cycle lanes at 1.5 metres wide, adjacent to 3.5 metre wide outertraffic lanes. The reservation shall be modified to provide for vergesthat are 4.1 metres wide for acceptable service of pedestrians, novice orchildcyclists,location of appropriate street furniture and street trees. The reservation shall be modified to provide for protectedright turn lanes in the median at alllocations where the concept plans show that right turns are permitted without traffic signal control.
O Where splitter islands for left turn movements underGive Way control cannot meet standards, they shall be removed in favourof the left turn movements under traffic signal control.
o For some specific minor intersecting streets, corner truncationsshall be reduced. Reductions shall be considered individually. West of Williams Road, where 5 lots access a service road,the Canning Highway reservation shall exclude the service road, as long asdesign confirms that this is consistent with the determinations above. The section of Canning Highway between Glenelg Streetand Canning Bridge shall be deleted from this amendment. The determinations above clearly indicate that the crosssection used in the design of Canning Highway for the advertised amendment is inadequate.It is appropriate to upgrade the design cross section for Canning Highway to that shownin Figures 5 and 6.
11 30.1m
4.1m 4.1m 8.3m 5.3m 83m TRAFFIC LANES VERGE VERGE TRAFFIC LANES MEDIAN 35m 35m Mo. 4,5m AT 45m AT WITH JAM RIGHT BUS BAYS BUS BAYS TURN LANES
II;
3.5m WIDE LEFT TURN LANES AND 3.0m WIDE BUSEMBAYMENTS WITH ADDITIONAL RESERVATION NOT SHOWN
NOMINAL CROSS SECTION USED INREDRAWING PLANS (BUS IN MIXED TRAFFICI
Figure 5 Cross section that modification to the amendmentshall be based upon where buses run in mixed traffic.
RESERVATION 1DTH 37 1m
0.3m 110m TRAFFIC LANES TRAFFIC LANES 1501 3.5m 3.5m WITH 33m RIGHT TURN LANES
3.5m WIDE LEFT TURN LANES AND 3.0m WIDE BUS EMBAYMENTS WITH ADDITIONAL RESERVATION NOT SHOWN
NOMINAL CROSS SECTION USED IN REDRAWING PLANS (BUS IN EXCLUSIVE LANES)
Figure 6 Cross section that modification to the amendment shall be based upon where buses run in exclusive lanes.
12 7 Statutory Issues The Western Australian Planning Commissionbelieves that it is reasonable to uphold (at least in part) submissions that seek a widerreservation to accommodate better cycling, pedestrian and turning facilities than the advertised proposalallowed. This means that the final Primary Regional Road reserve would be widerthan that shown in the advertised proposal.For a substantial length of the subject road reserve,this modification would still give a substantial reduction in the Primary RegionalRoad reservation. For a shorter length of the subject road reserve, (Glenelg Street toCanning Bridge) this modification would increase the Primary Regional Road reserve ontoprivate property beyond both its existing and advertised extent.This is illustrated on Figure 7 entitled "SchematicDiagram of Existing, Advertised and Modified Reservation." Section 48 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 empowersthe Commission to modify this amendment before submittingit to the Minister. Section 51of the Planning and Development Act 2005 requires the Minister to form anopinion as to whether modifications to the scheme are so substantial as to requirereadvertising. For the section of Canning Highway from Petra Streetto Glenelg Street, the Commission submits that the modifications made to thisamendment do not warrant readvertising because:
o The Amendment isretainingits basic form, which is a substantial reduction in Primary Regional Road reservation from the existing 80metres width. A slightly lesser reservation reduction is not a substantialmodification to the amendment.
o The modified amendment does not affect any newproperties that were not affected by the advertised amendment.
® In addressing landowner enquiries staff have beenforthright in advising that this amendment is expected to attract submissions fromroad users seeking a wider Primary Regional Road reservation than the advertised proposal.
a The modified amendment would be unlikely to attract anyreal change in the content of submissions. The modifications bring the amendment into line withpublished Government policies and strategies noted in submissions and listed below. oState Planning Policy No 2Environment and Natural Resources Policy. The Western Australian State Sustainability Strategy.
oThe Western Australian State Planning Strategy.
o Network City. In the Section of Canning Highway betweenGlenelg Street and Canning Bridge, the large (80 metre wide) reservation for Canning Highway does notexist. Upholding submissions (at least partially) to widen the Primary RegionalRoad reservation would place reservation on private property that hasneither existing nor advertised reservation.This would be unreasonable to do as a modification to this amendmentunless landowners were notified and given the opportunity to comment. Accordingly,this section of the Canning Highway reservation has been deleted from the amendment. The Issues in this section are illustrated in Figure 7.
13 CANNING ORIDGE
WITH CONTINUOUS BUS LANES WITHOUT CONTINUOUS BUS LAN Om+ MODIFIED WOULD PLACE NEW RESERVATION WHERE THERE IS NO XISTING OR ADVERTISED RESERVATION RESERVATION SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCED Y BOTH ADVERFSED AND PROPOSED
Figure 7 - Schematic diagram of existing,advertised, and modified reservation
8 Recommendations This report summarises the history and backgroundof this amendment and examines the various submissions made. The Western AustralianPlanning Commission thanks all those who made submissions and those who attendedhearings. The Western Australian Planning Commissionrecommends that:
® The proposed amendment be modified inaccordance with the determinations above. The portion of the amendment between Glenelg Streetand Canning Bridge be deleted from this amendment. The portion of the modified amendment between PetraStreet and Glenelg Street proceed without re-advertising.
14 Schedule 1
Alphabetical listing of submissions
Alphabetical Listing of Submissions
MRS Amendment 1100/33
Canning Highway, between Petra Street and Canning Bridge
SubmissionName SubmissionName Number Number 12Alinta 3 Greig, Thomas 40Allinson, Michelle 26H & P Yeo Pty Ltd 53Andrade, Orlando & 18 Heritage Council of Susana Western Australia 21 Antunovich, Jeanie 42Heron, Robert 32 Barclay-Monet-Gadd, 4 Indigenous Affairs, Sylvia & Ronald Department of 52Bond, Lewis 33 Industry and Resources, 7Caltex Australia Department of Petroleum Pty Ltd 11 Landcorp 27Cambert Nominees Pty 13 Macey, David Ltd & Clearview 25MacKenzie, Greg Nominees Pty Ltd, 44Main Roads Western French, Travis for Australia 49Chiang, Colin & Linda 54Melville, City of 55Chortis, Angelos 23MNA Holdings Pty Ltd 6 Clarebarn Pty Ltd 30Newminster Holdings Pty 29Conservation and Land Ltd, Oldfield Knott Management, Architects P/L for Department of 31 Nichols, Judy 45Correia Fishing Co. 15Patterson, Elsie, Ballard, 41 Cullen, Dr Josephine Anne for 48Cycle Touring 36Planning and Association Infrastructure. 46Cyclist's Action Group Department for 43Donnan, Finbarr 22Roman Catholic 5 Eastcourt Properties Pty Archbishop of Perth, The Ltd 9 Salerian, John 37Education and Training, 47Sustainable Transport Department of Coalition 14 Edwards, Tricia 28 Swale, Garry 8 Environment, Department 38Swan River Trust of 17 Tarrant, Mr & Mrs C.E 35Erceg, Brian & Tonci 51 Water Corporation 19 Ferreira, Manuel 20Watson, Kerry 34G.M & A Woerlee Pty Ltd 39Western Australian 24Gamblin, Paul & Anna Bicycle Committee 1 Gaspar, Agnes 16 Western Power 2 Gherbag, Catherine & 50VVoollard, Dr Janet MLA Bradshaw Nadia Late 10 Giles, Mark Woo, Yin & Poh Cinanni, Amanda
Schedule 2
Summary of submissions and determinations
Submission: 1
Submitted by: Agnes Gaspar
Nature of Interest: Local Business Owner
Affected Land: Shop 3/901 Canning Highway
Summary of Submission: The writer is in full support of proposed amendment and thanks theCommission.
Planning Comment: The affected property is in the section of Canning Highway betweenGlenelg Street and Canning Highway. Issues beyond this submission have led to adecision that this section of Canning Highway should be deleted from this amendment. Thismakes the submission no longer relevant to the modified amendment.
Determination: No longer relevant.
Submission: 2
Submitted by: Catherine Gherbag and Nadia Brackshaw
Nature of Interest: Local Residents
Affected Land: 438A & B Canning Highway (Attadale)
Summary of Submission: Thank you for advising us of changes.The changes will impact on our parking space, letterboxes and fences, which we cannot afford to replace.
Planning Comment: The purpose of the amendment isto reduce the widening of the reserves as much as possible. In the case of this property, the complete elimination of the reserveis not feasible. Legislated compensation provisions protect property owners from lossrelating to essential public works.
Determination: Dismissed
Submission: 3
Submitted by: Thomas Russell Greig
Nature of Interest: Resident
Affected Land: 13/469 Canning Highway
Summary of Submission: The writer asks that sufficient width be retained in the reservation to for bus lanes and cycle lanes.There are an increasing number of local people cycling along this part of Canning Highway.
Planning Comment: Noted.
Determination: Upheld Submission: 4
Submitted by: Department of Indigenous Affairs
Nature of Interest: Government Agency
Affected Land: Possible Aboriginal heritage sites
Summary of Submission: An Aboriginal heritage study of site will be neededprior to commencement of works.
Planning Comment: It is agreed that an Aboriginal heritage study wouldbe prudent prior to any site works towards the design concept commencing.
Determination: Not relevant
Submission: 5
Submitted by: Eastcourt Properties Pty Ltd
Nature of Interest: Business Owner
Affected Land: Not stated
Summary of Submission: The writer expresses support for the proposedamendment.
Planning Comment: Following consideration of all submissions, it was resolved thatthe reservation should not be reduced to the degree proposed in the advertisedamendment.
Determination: Upheld in part
Submission: 6
Submitted by: Reginald E Anthony for Clarebarn Pty Ltd
Nature of Interest: Resident
Affected Land: 430 Canning Highway
Summary of Submission: The writer supports the existing road reserve being lifted. Property owners should be encouraged to enter propertiesoff side roads and plant trees on verge to buffer noise.
Planning Comment: Following consideration of all submissions, it was resolved that thereservation should not be reduced to the degree proposed in the advertised amendment.The extent of reservation on this property would be minimal.
Determination: Upheld in part Submission:
Submitted by: Joanne Harvey
Nature of Interest: Business Owner (Caltex)
Affected Land: 587 (Lots 29, 30 & 31) Canning Highway
Summary of Submission: The writer supports the amendment in respect of the aboveproperties.
Planning Comment: Following consideration of all submissions, it was resolved that thereservation should not be reduced to the degree proposed in the advertised amendment.Re-drawn plans reduce the reservation on these properties even more than the advertisedamendment.
Determination: Upheld
Submission: 8
Submitted by: Department of the Environment
Nature of Interest: Government agency
Affected Land: General
Summary of Submission: The Department issatisfiedthat any issueswill be adequately addressed by the Environmental Protection Authority.
Planning Comment: The Environmental Protection Authority assessmentconcluded that the overall environmental impact amendment implementation would not be severe enoughto warrant assessment under Part IV of the Environmental Protection Act.
Determination: Upheld
Submission: 9
Submitted by: John Louis Salerian
Nature of Interest: Not stated
Affected Land: Not stated
Summary of Submission: The writer supports the proposal to remove the existing reservation.
Planning Comment: Following consideration of all submissions, it was resolved that thereservation should not be reduced to the degree proposed in the advertised amendment.Substantial reductions in reservation on private property would remain.
Determination: Upheld in part Submission: 10
Submitted by: Mark Giles
Nature of Interest: Resident
Affected Land: 557, Lot 1 Canning Highway (Alfred Cove)
Summary of Submission: The writer is pleased that his property is receiving areduction in reservation and requests that the remaining 13 sqm of reservation is alsoremoved.
Planning Comment: Following consideration of all submissions, it wasresolved that the reservation should not be reduced to the degree proposed in the advertisedamendment. In re-drafting plans the need for additional reservation on this property has beenavoided. In reviewing truncations, it was consideredprudent to retain the truncation on this property.
Determination: Dismissed
Submission: 11
Submitted by: Landcorp
Nature of Interest: Government Agency
Affected Land:
Summary of Submission: Landcorp has no objection to the proposal.
Planning Comment: Noted
Determination: Upheld
Submission: 12
Submitted by: Alinta Gas
Nature of Interest: Government Agency
Affected Land: Alinta Gas assets
Summary of Submission: Alinta Network services raises no objection to the proposal.Work carried out on Alinta's existing network shall be at the proponent's expense.
Planning Comment: Utility adjustments resulting from construction of this conceptwould be at the road authority's cost. This issue cannot be resolved at the landreservation stage.
Determination: Not relevant Submission: 13
Submitted by: David Macey
Nature of Interest: Not stated
Affected Land: Not stated
Summary of Submission: The writer supports the amendment, especially reduction ofthe highway reserve and the increased public transport proposed. This will decrease ourenvironmental impact.
Planning Comment: Following consideration of all submissions, it was resolved thatthe reservation should not be reduced to the degree proposed in the advertised amendment.
Determination: Upheld in part
Submission: 14
Submitted by: Tricia Marie Edwards
Nature of Interest: Local Resident
Affected Land: Not stated
Summary of Submission: The writer supports the proposal to remove the reservationfrom her property.Traffic congestion will only increase with widening of the existing highway.
The writer does not support a bus lane taking the only spaceleft between the property and Canning Highway as this would lower property values. The writerwould like to see other options before the bus lane is constructed.
Planning Comment: Following consideration of all submissions, it was resolved that thereservation should not be reduced to the degree proposed in the advertised amendment.
Determination: Upheld in part.
Submission: 15
Submitted by: Anne Ballard on behalf of Elsie Patterson
Nature of Interest: Local Resident
Affected Land: 2B Matheson Road, Applecross
Summary of Submission: The writer supports the reservation on property being removed.
Planning Comment: Following consideration of all submissions, it was resolved that the reservationshould not be reduced to the degree proposed in the advertised amendment. However, redraftingof plans confirmed that there was still no reservation required on this property.
Determination: Upheld Submission: 16
Submitted by: Western Power
Nature of Interest: Government Agency
Affected Land: Western Power assets
Summary of Submission: No objection as long as Western Power's assets arenot damaged.
Planning Comment: Utility adjustments resulting from constructionof this concept would normally be at the road authority's cost. This is not an issue that canbe resolved at the land reservation stage,
Determination: Not relevant
Submission: 17
Submitted by: Mr & Mrs C. E Tarrant
Nature of Interest: Local Resident
Affected Land: 619, Lot 14 Canning Highway
Summary of Submission: The writers support the reduction of reservationproposed in this amendment.
The writers ask that the 13 square metresof truncation required also be removedfrom the property. There is already a curved truncation,which appears to provide all of the necessary sight distance for pedestrians and motorists.If the truncation were required, then the writers would seek compensation for the land, fenceand improvements.
Planning Comment: Reservation of a truncation is a small loss to a property.Under the R-codes (clause 6.1.2), the area of a truncation may be includedin thelot area for compliance purposes. Compensation and reinstatement issues can beresolved when a road authority actually acquires land and constructs.
Determination: Dismissed
Submission: 18
Submitted by: Heritage Council of Western Australia
Nature of Interest:Government Agency
Affected Land: Wireless Hill Park, Raffles Hotel, Canning Bridge.
Summary of Submission: The following three sites relevant to this proposal areof interest to the Heritage Council. The Raffles Hotel; Wireless Hill Park; and Canning Bridge. As there is no detrimental effect on the above sites(and a positive effeon Wireless Hill Park), the Heritage Council has no objection to the proposedamendment.
Planning Comment: Following consideration of all submissions, it was resolved thatthe area affecting the Raffles Hotel and Canning Bridge should not proceed as part ofthis amendment. The modifications to this amendment do not materiallychange the positive effect that this amendment would have on Wireless Hill.
Determination: Upheld in part
Submission: 19
Submitted by: Manuel Ferreira
Nature of Interest: Local Resident
Affected Land: 615 Canning Highway
Summary of Submission: The writer supports the proposal as it removes road reservation onhis property.
Planning Comment: Following consideration of all submissions,it was resolved that the reservation should be wider than that shown in the advertised amendment. Noreservation would be required on this property.
Determination: Upheld
Submission: 20
Submitted by: Kerry Watson
Nature of Interest: Resident
Affected Land: Lot 10 Canning Highway (corner of Coverley Street)
Summary of Submission: This property is on the corner of a cul-de-sac street. There does not seemto be any need for a corner truncation.
Planning Comment: It is agreed that full truncations are not necessary wherestreets are cul-de-saced against Canning Highway.
The existing curved truncation appears adequate.
Determination: Upheld
Submission: 21
Submitted by: Jeanie Helen Antunovich
Nature of Interest: Resident and landowner
Affected Land: 473A/B, Lot 502 & 503 Canning Highway Summary of Submission The writer states general support for the proposed amendment. Itis requested that the amendment be modified so that the service road on the south side of Caning Highway, west of Williams Road is not reserved as a regional road.
Planning Comment: From a regional road perspective itis immaterial whether the service road is within the regional road reserve or not. There is logic that the service road has a local access function and no regional transport function.
Determination: Dismissed
Submission: 22
Submitted by: The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Perth
Nature of Interest: Property Owner
Affected Land: Lot 1, Canning Highway, Ardross
Summary of Submission: The writer expresses support for the proposal.
Planning Comment Following consideration of all submissions, it was resolved that the reservation should be wider than that shown in the advertised amendment. There would be no increased affect on this property.
Determination: Upheld
Submission: 23
Submitted by: Adele Chai on behalf of MNA holdings
Nature of Interest: Local Business Owner
Affected Land: 420 Canning Highway
Summary of Submission: The writer supports the proposal as it gives confidence to proceed with renovations.
Planning Comment: Following consideration of all submissions, it was resolved that the reservation should be wider than that shown in the advertised amendment. The final reservation would still be substantially less than the existing reservation.
Determination: Upheld in part
Submission: 24
Submitted by: Paul and Anna Gamblin
Nature of Interest: Local Resident
Affected Land: 306 Canning Highway Summaryof Submission: The proposed regional road boundary will affect 5.2 metres into thefront of our property. Strongly object to the Primary Regional Road (PRR) reservation on ourproperty. Believe Canning Highway is under-utilised and therefore will not requirewidening. With the increase of residents on either side of Canning Highway, this amendment iscausing a negative impact on health and wellbeing.
Canning Highway is not a major road and should not be considered as one.
Planning Comment: The purpose of the amendment is to reduce the wideningof the reserves as much as possible. On this property, reservation is being reduced, but noteliminated.
The advertised reservation to widen Canning Highway at thislocation allows for the following additional provisions: 0 A median drawn as 3 metres wide in this location. This wouldprovide a central refuge for pedestrians and would separate the opposing traffic streams. 0 Widened kerbside lanes to give nominal protection to cyclists.
Measured traffic volume at this location is some 25 000 vehicles per day.Substantial traffic growth on Canning Highway is not expected. While this does not fullyutilise the full capacity of the 4 lanes provided, it is too much for a 2-lane road.
Legislated compensation provisions give protection to property owners.
Following consideration of all submissions, it was resolved that thereservation should remain.
Determination: Dismissed
Submission: 25
Submitted by: Michael Dillon, Greg MacKenzie, David Speak and Kim Bro herson
Nature of Interest: Property / Business owners
Affected Land: Lot 369 Canning Highway (corner of Reynolds Road)
Summary of Submission: The increase in reservation will adversely affect the property andthe writers strongly object. The proposal will adversely affect the property value and willreduce the redevelopment potential on this and adjoining properties. The writer asks for carefulconsideration as to whether this proposal is really essential to the Scheme.
It is disconcerting that this is the first time that the writershave heard of this proposal to increase the road reservation on this property. The writer askswhether this information was available to previous owners or real estate agents when the property waspurchased.
Planning Comment: The difference between the existing and the proposed reservationis small. It is recognised that both the existing and proposed reservations impact upon the property.This impact may reduce property value and development potential. This is why compensationprovisions exist under the Planning and Development Act 2005. Information about the existence of the regional road reserveis always freely available at the Department for Planning and Infrastructure front counter.Detailed information about the extent of the reserve on any property is availablevia a clause 42 certificate. Confirmed detail of the change in reservation became available inMay 2005 when advertising for this amendment commenced.
In this section of Canning Highway, movementdemands are considerable, and design standards used are minimal. Following consideration of allsubmissions, it was resolved that the reservation should be wider than that shown in theadvertised amendment. The additional affect on this property is minimal.
Determination: Dismissed
Submission: 26
Submitted by: Herbert & Pauline Yeo
Nature of Interest: Local Business Owners
Affected Land: 567 Canning Highway
Summary of Submission: The writers support the road reserve reduction, At presentit is impossible to turn right from many properties onto Canning Highway totravel eastward. As traffic signals are likely at the Canning Highway / His lop Road intersection, U turns will nolonger be possible there. Consideration should be given to a median island U turn slot betweenLentona Road and His lop Road.
Planning Comment: Reservation is being removed from this property.
Australian Standard 2890.1 1993 Parking FacilitiesPart 1: Off Street Car Parking page 47 indicates the absolute minimum width needed for a u-turnby a car is 12.5 metres. Other standards suggest that a larger space is needed. For the safetyof people waiting to make U turns, the road median should be a minimum of 3 metreswide and desirably 5 metres wide.
There are locations between Lentona Road and His lopRoad where there appears to be sufficient width in the proposed reservation to allow U turn slots. Thedecision about if and where U turn slots might be constructed rests with MainRoads WA at the time of construction.
Determination: Upheld in part
Submission: 27
Submitted by: Travis French representing Cambert Nominees Pty Ltd andClearview Nominees Pty Ltd
Nature of Interest: Local Business Owners
Affected Land: Lot 75, Canning Bridge Commercial Centre
Summary of Submission: If the road reserve boundary proceeds as proposed then therewill be two negative impacts. The building may need structural change. Access to the building will be restricted or totally removed. This is the moreimportant issue. The proposed amendment only requires 21 square metres of land.This seems insignificant o the road but very significant to the building.
The writer asks that the Metropolitan Region Scheme boundaryremain, as it was effective in 1985.
Planning Comment: Following consideration of all submissions, it was resolved that the changesto this section of the Canning Highway reservation should not proceed at thistime. For the present, this achieves the request in this submission.
Determination: Upheld
Submission: 28
Submitted by: Garry J Swale
Nature of Interest: Resident
Affected Land: Road Issues
Summary of Submission: There is an urgent need for three traffic lanes in each direction on CanningHighway between Risley Street and Canning Bridge.Peak hour traffic becomes bumper to bumper and regularly gridlocks intersections along Canning Highway.
Planning Comment: Future traffic estimates indicate little change in the volume of traffic onCanning Highway.It is recognised that there is a traffic congestion issue on CanningHighway.To achieve a balanced and sustainable land use and transport system, no additional generaltraffic lanes are proposed.This proposal allows a reservation for future construction of bus lanes in addition to the existing traffic lanes. This would give advantage to those peoplewho choose to use sustainable transport.
Determination: Dismissed
Submission: 29
Submitted by: Department of Conservation and Land Management
Nature of Interest:Government Agency
Affected Land: Bush Forever Land
Summary of Submission: CALM supports the transfer of portions of Bush Forever Site 336 (Wireless Hill Park) from Primary Regional Road (PRR) reserve to Parks and Recreation,
Planning Comment: Following consideration of all submissions, it was resolved that the reservation should be wider than that shown in the advertised amendment, This change from the advertised amendment does not affect significant vegetation.
Determination: Upheld Submission: 30
Submitted by: Oldfield Knott Architects for Newminster holdings
Nature of Interest: Local Business
Affected Land: Lot 50 Canning Highway, Canning Bridge AutoLodge
Summary of Submission: This site was substantially refurbished /redeveloped in 1999 / 2000.
The area of land proposed to be resumedcontains parking bays and a swimming pool. Both of these are essential services to guests.
Reduced landscaping along the affectedboundaries would compromise the aesthetic presentation of the property.
The reduced area of land compromisesthe value and the redevelopment potential of the property.
Planning Comment: It appears that the pool, parking andlandscaping are already compromised by theexisting reservation.
Following consideration of all submissions, it wasresolved that the changes to this section of the Canning Highway reservationshould not proceed at this time.For the present, this achieves the request in this submission.
Determination: No longer relevant.
Submission: 31
Submitted by: Mrs Judy Nichols
Nature of Interest: Resident
Affected Land: 5/582 Canning Highway
Summary of Submission: The writer supports removal of reservationfrom the property.
Planning Comment: Following consideration of all submissions, it wasresolved that the reservation should be wider than that shown in the advertisedamendment. In re-drafting of plans, a practice of protecting working business properties has alsobeen followed. These issues have caused some reservation to remain on thisproperty in the final version of the amendment.
The final reservation on this property wouldstill be a massive reduction from the present.
The compensation provisions under thePlanning and Development Act, 2005, protect property owners from financial loss.
Determination: Upheld in part Submission: 32
Submitted by: Mr & Mrs Sylvia and Ronald Barclay- Monet-Gadd
Nature of Interest: Local Residents
Affected Land: Lot 7 (No 603) Canning Highway
Summary of Submission: Driving from the affected property to enter the traffic streamof Canning Highway is already difficult and dangerous due to the quantity and speed oftraffic, Turning from Canning Highway onto the property is dangerous because drivers behind assumethat we are turning into North Lake Road and do not slow down.
Reducing the area at the front of the property would reduce the areaavailable for parking and turning within the property.
Amendment of Canning Highway has taken far too long, causinganxiety for property owners for more than 5 years.
Heavy traffic (vehicles over 30 tonnes) have increased onCanning Highway in the past year, increasing noise and danger.
The proposed amendment will devalue the property regardlessof any form of compensation.
The extra lane proposed would bring traffic closer to thehouse, increasing noise.
Planning Comment: The extra lane shown on the concept plans is a bus queuejump lane with an incidental function of allowing left turns for general traffic.
The Road Traffic Code section 136 - Exemptions todriving in special purpose lanes etc states: (5) The driver of any vehicle may drive up to the permitted distancein a bicycle lane, bus lane, transit lane or truck lane if it is necessary for the driver todrive in the lane- (a) To enter or leave the carriageway.
(6) In this regulation- "permitted distance" means- (a) For a bicycle lane50 m; or (b) For any other lane 100 m.
Entering the traffic stream of any major road from a privatedriveway is difficult.Slowing down on a major road to turn into a private driveway always poses arisk of rear end crashes through the inattention of following drivers.
Taking land from the front of any property usually impacts uponthe operation and value of the property. Road reservation and construction agencies workunder legislation that ensures due compensation to affected landowners.
Construction in the form shown on the concept plans appears to be adistant future option only.
Determination: Dismissed Submission: 33
Submitted by: Department of Industry and Resources
Nature of Interest: Government Agency
Affected Land: None
Summary of Submission: No comment
Planning Comment: No relevant comment.
Determination: Not relevant.
Submission: 34
Submitted by: Anna Ward for Worlee Holdings
Nature of Interest: Local Business Owner
Affected Land: Lot 7, 8, 9 and 306
Summary of Submission - General: The proposed reservation impacts upon fourresidential properties held by Worlee holdings. Worlee Holdings operates a business ofowning and renting a number of residential properties adjacent to Canning Highway.
Resumption as proposed from two of theproperties (Lot 9 and Lot 206) would cause serious loss of amenity to the properties. Three ofthe properties held are adjacent. The resumption would detrimentally affect the combined landpackage.
Summary of Submission - Lot 9, 887Canning Highway, Applecross This property has been held since 1960.
Tenant car parks are 1.5 2 metres below the level of Canning Highway.The proposed resumption would mean vehicular access to the propertywill not be possible.Engineering solutions would not address this issue.
Planning Comment: Under the advertised proposal, Lot 9 wouldbe affected by a modified reservation shape, although the extent of reservation changes onlyslightly. The driveways to this property are already steep and loss of either the existing or theproposed reserved land would make the driveways unworkable.
If the property is redeveloped beforeconstruction of Canning Highway then driveway gradients could be adjusted to suit the ultimatesituation.If the reserved land must be acquired before redevelopment of the property then theacquiring authority would either need to deal with the compensation issues associatedwith the loss of amenity or could negotiate to purchase the whole property.
Summary of SubmissionLot 306, 865 Canning Highway, Applecross The impact of the proposed 6.7 metre wideresumption will be: Visitor and tenant parking will no longer exist so the property couldnot meet the plot ratio or parking requirements of planning scheme. The new front boundary would be just outside the windowsof 2 units so attractiveness to tenants would be extremely limited. ® The above would decrease the profitability of the residentialrental business.
Planning Comment Lot 306 is already affected by a reservation. Theadvertised amendment proposal would increase the reservation. It is agreed that the existing andincreased reservation will have a detrimental impact upon the property.
If the property is redeveloped before construction of CanningHighway then new buildings could be designed to suit the ultimate situation.If the reserved land must be acquired before redevelopment of the property then the acquiring authority would eitherneed to deal with the compensation issues associated with the loss of commercialvalue or could negotiate to purchase the whole property.
General conclusion Following consideration of all submissions, it was resolved thatthe Amendment should not proceed in the area between Glenelg street and Canning Bridge.Reservation would remain unchanged on the properties discussed above.
Determination: No longer relevant
Submission: 35
Submitted by: Brian and Tonci Erceg
Nature of Interest: Property Owners
Affected Land: Lot 1 & 2 Canning Highway, Point Walter Medical Centre
Summary of Submission: Under the advertised proposal, the writers' property will beaffected by a significant regional road reservation. At this location, a left turn lane formotorists turning from Canning highway to Point Walter Road causes a larger reservationthan that on other properties in the vicinity. The reservation would have a much greater impact upon theproperty than the area suggests, as it would affect at least 21 car bays.This would reduce the on site parking by almost 50%. The property houses a medical centre that is servicedby this parking. Limited,if any, alternative parking is available.
Planning Comment: This amendment proposes to reduce the reservation. Thefollowing facts are still recognised. ® The left turn lane shown on the design concept plans causesthe reservation to be wider than that that proposed at in other locations along CanningHighway.
O The medical centre on the property is relatively new. Loss of parking that would occur when the road is built tothe shown concept plans would significantly affect the functionality of the whole property.
The purpose of a left turn lane is to separate turning (anddecelerating) traffic from through traffic that would be maintaining speed. This reduces theincidence of rear end crashes. The importance of the deceleration lane is greater here than at otherplaces because it is at the bottom of a significant slope (4 to 5%). Crash statistics, for years2000 to 2004, supplied by Main Roads WA show a total of 39 reported crashes. Nofatalities, and 14 injuries were recorded for the whole intersection during the investigationperiod.
Of the 39 total crashes, 21 were rear end crashes. During theinvestigation period there were no rear end crashes involvingvehicles decelerating to turn from west to north, which would be served by the proposed left turn lane. The reservation is a long-term prospect.If the reservation remains, the medical centre can retain its functionality for many years.If land were taken from the medical centre causing loss of parking and therefore loss of functionality,compensation payments would need to account for this.
Following the hearing Department for Planning andInfrastructure staff surveyed the parking utilisation at the medical centre and immediately adjacentstreet parking.The results are tabulated below.
Total Parking Bays at Medical centreLots 1& 2 Cnr Canning Hwy & Point Walter Rd
Location Number Front facing Canning Highway 19 Front facing Point Walter Rd 12 Rear of°seri 32 On street adjacent 4
Day Wednesday Thursday Friday Monday Tuesday Date 12/10/2005 13/10/2005 14/10/2005 17/10/2005 18/10/2005 Time 2:09 .m 4:20 m 8:50 am 4:00 12:00 Noon Front facing 13 14 Cannin. Hw Front facing Point Walter Rd Rear of ro e On street ad'acent Total Occu.ied Total vacant
The surveys of occup'ed and vacant bays clearlyindicate that loss of 21 parking bays would affect the current operation of the building.The extent of this affect would need to be examined by a valuer if and when land is acquired from theproperty.
Following consideration of all submissions it wasresolved that Canning Highway should generally be wider than advertised to accommodatebetter cycling facilities and wider verges. Re-drafting of plans (without theleft turn lane) has succeeded in reducing the land requirement. It appears that the final plans retain substantially moreparking than the advertised plans.
Determination: Upheld in part
Submission: 36
Submitted by: David Rice, Department for Planning and Infrastructure
Nature of Interest:Principal Network Planning Officer speaker for the LocalImpacts Committee
Affected Land: Road reserve
Summary of Submission: The Local Impacts Committee was formed by the Ministerfor Planning and Infrastructure to look at road problems and solutions in the south westmetropolitan area on the basis of no Fremantle Eastern Bypass. The Local Impacts Committee supportsthe MRS amendment 1100/33 showing bus lanes east of Riseley Street. Planning Comment: Following consideration of all submissions, it was resolved that thechanges to the section of the Canning Highway reservation between Glenelg Street andCanning Bridge should not proceed at this time.
Determination: Upheld n part
Submission: 37
Submitted by: Department of Education and Training
Nature of Interest: Government Agency
Affected Land: None
Summary of Submission: No objection
Planning Comment: No comment.
Determination: Not relevant.
Submission: 38
Submitted by: Swan River Trust
Nature of Interest: Government Agency
Affected Land: Swan River Land
Issue 1 - Summary of Submission: No objection to the proposed reduction of the width of CanningHighway, and subsequent widening of the parks and recreation reservation where this occurs.
Issue 1 Planning Comment Following consideration of all submissions, it was resolved that theroad reserve should be wider than that shown in the advertised amendment.This is still generally a substantial reduction in the existing reservation.
Determination: Upheld in part.
Issue 2Summary of Submission Object to the widening of the PRR reservation and subsequentreduction of Parks and Recreation reserve of the Esplanade at Mount Pleasant as shown ondrawing No 04310017. This is a heavily utilised reservation that serves many peopleand community groups. The submission suggests that Main Roads should purchase the reserve.Money received should be used to replace the Parks and Recreation reserve.
Issue 2 - Planning Comment: Following consideration of all submissions, it was resolved that the changesto Canning Highway reservation near The Esplanade should not proceed at thistime.
Determination: No longer relevant. Submission: 39
Submitted by: Western Australian Bicycle Committee
Nature of Interest: Government Committee
Affected Land: Road reserve issues
Summary of Submission: The WA Cycling Committee thanks theChairman and the Commission for the opportunity to make a submission.
Good quality cycling facilities, including onCanning Highway, are supported by the following government policy statements. Statement of planning policy No 2Environment and Natural Resources Policy seeks "development patterns and urban form that encouragewalking and cycling." Strategy includes the following points O The Western Australian State Sustainability that cycling helps to address. o Responding to greenhouse and climate change. o Oil vulnerability o Integrating land use and balanced transport o Sustainable energy o Sustaining healthy communities The State Planning Strategy seeks to doublethe cycling mode share in metropolitan Perth.This means tripling the number of cyclingtrips.It calls for "emphasis on upgrading facilities for cycling...." Network City transport planning principlescall for a wide range of high quality transport options including bus, pedestrian (and)cycle.
The current amendment for CanningHighway is a once in a lifetime opportunity to retain enough reservation for the potential futureneeds of the community.It is agreed that the current reservation is too wide, and thecommittee is mindful of associated financial liability.
Canning Highway is defined as an ActivityCorridor in Network City. Activity Corridors are not designed to be high speed through trafficroutes. The Committee notes "the central partof the corridor sees emphasis given topublic transport, walking and cycling with space inthe 'transport' (road) reserve being shared betweendifferent users." For Canning Highway to fulfil the objectives of an Activity Corridor,it is essential that all road users be catered for in the cross section applied.
Two types of facility are needed for twodifferent cyclist categories, on road facilities for competent commuter cyclists and pathfacilities primarily for pedestrians but useable bychild or novice cyclists.
The current situation for cyclists onCanning Highway is very poor.Parallel routes do not offer a satisfactory alternative.
The WA Bicycle Committee considersthat the proposed 4.2 metre wide kerbside laneis not adequate for the safety of cyclists. Thisis compounded by some of the kerbside lanesbeing bus lanes. The Road Traffic Code does notpermit cyclists in bus lanes.
Austroads Guide to Traffic EngineeringPractice Part 14Bicycles section 4.4 states: An exclusive bicycle lane may be appropriatewhere: an existing or potential significantdemand for bicycle travel can be demonstrated.E.g. where traffic volumes or speeds deter cyclistsfrom using an otherwise favourable route The WACC has formed the view that the space in theproposed Canning Highway reserve cannot be reallocated to provide satisfactory service tocyclists.
The WA Bicycle Committee seeks the following general crosssection elements.
Cross ec ion Element Width Numb Total Width Shared path and standard clearance 4.0 m 2 8m Street Furniture ad acent to the kerb 2.8 m 2 5.6 m Cycle lane 8 2 3.6 m Traffic anes 5m 4 4m edian includin. ri.htturn lane 0 5m Total reserve width (without Bus lanes 6.2 m Bus Lanes 3.5 m 7 Total reserve width with bus lanes 43.2
Mr David Nicholson presented to the HearingsCommittee on behalf of the WACC. He used a power point presentation toamplify the points made in the written submission.The following key points were made. O Cycling is a legitimate transport mode and isaddressed in a number of key state government documents. requested preparation of a Statement ® The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure has of Planning Policy for cycling.
® The Metropolitan Transport Strategy target is toincrease cycling from 5.7 % of trips to 11.5 % of trips by 2029.
® Bike Ahead maintains the approach that "every streetis a bicycle street," Canning Highway is defined as an Activity Corridor.Activity Corridors are not designed to be high speed through traffic routes.The central part of the corridor should have emphasis given to public transport,walking, and cycling. Canning Highway must provide high quality cycling facilities ifthe objectives of the amendment are to be achieved. The range of cyclists in our community makes twotypes of facility appropriate. On road cycle lanes for use by competent and commutercyclists, and off road path facilities for novice or child cyclists or for short trips.The WA Road Traffic Code only permits children under 12 years to ride on footpaths.
O Parallel roads and shared paths don't offer a sufficientalternative because trip end points exist along and close to Canning Highwayand because alternative routes are circuitous and difficult to navigate.
® The cross sections proposed in this amendment are notsatisfactory for cycling. They do not meet the stated objectives of the amendment orthose of an Activity Corridor. Planning must meet appropriate standards fornon-motorised transport.For a 60 km/h road Austroads recommend 1.5 metre wide onroad cycle lanes. (The acceptable range is 1.2 to 2.5 metres wide.)For an off road shared path, 3 metres width plus 0.5 metres clearance on each side isappropriate.
Planning Comment: The following points of agreement with the submission canbe stated: promote cyclingas a O Numerous Government policy and strategy statements sustainable, and cost effective transport mode. The current amendment is a rare opportunity todeclare a reservation that provides for future needs. Canning Highway is defined as the spine of an "ActivityCorridor" and this implies a lower speed road where space is shared between many users. Existing facilities for cycling on Canning Highway are very poorand alternative routes are less direct. The space in the proposed Canning Highway reserve cannotbe reallocated to provide exclusive cycle lanes. On Canning Highway, there are many competing demandsfor road space. There is also an expectation that land taken from private properties will beminimised. In this situation, all stakeholders must accept some form of compromise.
On Road Cycle Lanes The first of two key elements in this submission isthe desire for on road cycle lanes. The advertised reservation includes a 4.2 metre wide sharedkerbside lane to provide competent cyclists within a basic facility. Previous correspondencefrom Main Roads WA agreed in principle "that the future highway cross section should bemodified to include the provision of on-road cycle lanes within the proposed highwayreservation." To provide a 1.5 metre wide cycle lane, without compromising other traffic or safetystandards, it would be necessary to widen the reserve more than was advertised in thisAmendment. This would have property and cost implications.
There is an ambiguity (based on design speed) aboutwhether cycle lanes should be 1.8 metres wide or 1.5 metres wide. Reservation ofland suitable for 1.5 metre wide cycle lanes appears reasonable, as this is bothfrugal in land terms and within the acceptable range for whichever design speed interpretation is made.
Off Road Cycling Facilities The second of two key elements in this submission is thedesire for additional verge width, This would allow for shared paths that are not encroached uponby street furniture. The following points are acknowledged. There are locations, including Barrack Street in Perth,where there are obstructed areas of verge that extend to 2.8 metreswide. Bus stops with shelters appear to be the most critical locations. There will be some cyclists who will not be comfortable using evengood standard on road facilities on Canning Highway and will seek a path. Austroads Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice Part 14Bicycles sections 6.3.3 and 6.3.4 indicate a 3 metre wide shared path as being desirable. Austroads Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice Pad 14 Bicycles section 6.3.5 specifies a minimum lateral clearance of 0.5 metres. Even though the 6.8 metre wide verge sought isrational,it seems excessive in an environment where private property is being reserved andadditional reservation width means further disruption of the urban fabric.
The Committee has the view that the footpath along CanningHighway is primarily a footpath. It is acknowledged that the Road Traffic Code onlypermits children under 12 to cycle on a footpath. The Committee recognises that there isdiscussion and debate in the community about whether additional cyclist types should be allowed onfootpaths.
On an Activity Corridor, a high standard of footpath is appropriate.Austroads Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice Part 13Pedestrians section 2.1.1 suggests a desirable footpath width of 1.8 metres to allow for 2 wheelchairs to pass. Thisincreases to 2.4 metres or more in areas where high pedestrian demandmight be expected.Austroads Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice Part 14Bicycles section 6.6.1 recognises shared paths as narrow as 2.0 metres for a local access path.
There is no clear standard saying how much verge area maybe obstructed by street furniture.Investigation of several sites in metropolitan Perth has indicated thatthe verge width obstructed by bus shelters varies at least between1.3 metres and 2.8 metres. Investigation indicates that reasonable quality protection for bus passengerscould be achieved within an obstructed area some 2.2 metres wide. TheCommittee has the view that authorities responsible for street furniture must manage the road spacetoprevent obstruction.It is unreasonable to widen the reservation to allow for poorplacement of street furniture. In light of the submission and subsequent investigation,nvestigation, the 3.5metre general verge width ini the original proposal is considered unreasonably narrow. On anActivity Corridor good quality paths and street furniture should make pedestrians feel comfortable.Provision to allow for low volume, low speed off road cycling facilities may also beappropriate. This converges with good quality pedestrian facilities.
Determination: Upheld in part as specified below.
O Provision shall be made for 1.5 metre wide on road cycle lanes. The verge width shall be increased to a minimum of 4.1 metres.
Submission No: 40
Submitted By: Michelle Allinson
Nature of Interest: Affected resident and home owner
Affected Land: Unit 7 / 363 Canning Highway, Palmyra
Summary of Submission The writer appreciates the proposal to remove reservationfrom her property and asks that the amendment proceed immediately.
Planning Comment Consideration of all submissions suggests that the advertised road reserveis not wide enough to include all necessary road functions and a slightly larger reserveis appropriate. This willresult in an impact on the writers property that greaterthan the advertised amendment, but still considerably less than the existing reservation.
Determination: Upheld in part.
Submission No: 41
Submitted By: Dr Josephine Cullen
Nature of Interest: Business operator
Affected Land: 860 Canning Highway, Applecross
Summary of Submission The writer is concerned about the impact upon Lot No 138Canning Highway Applecross. Modification to the land will cause major disruption to parkingfacilities and thiswill dramatically affect the business. Compensation for the lossof land would not cover loss to the business if this plan goes ahead.
Planning Comment Following consideration of all submissions, it was resolved thatthe changes to the section of the Canning Highway reservation between Glenelg Streetand Canning Bridge should not proceed at this time.At present, there will continue to be no reservation on thesubject property.
Determination: No longer relevant. Submission No: 42
Submitted By: Robert Douglas Heron
Nature of Interest: Property Owner
Affected Land: 520 Canning Highway Attadale
Summary of Submission Thank you for informing us that the amendment removesthe existing road reserve from our property. We welcome and fully support the proposedamendment in regard to our property.
Planning Comment Consideration of all submissions suggests that theadvertised road reserve is not wide enough to include all necessary road functions and aslightly larger reserve is appropriate. Redesign of Canning Highway has confirmed that noreservation is needed on this property.
Determination: Upheld.
Submission No: 43
Submitted By: Finbar Donnan
Nature of Interest: Resident / property owner
Affected Land: 299A Canning Highway, Palmyra (Single lot sketch (09-b))
Summary of Submission Any major changes to Canning Highway should haveminimum impact upon residents. This is not being achieved by the current proposal. Theproposal massively impacts upon 299A Canning Highway.
The bus queue jump lane between Hannibal Street andCarrington Street is too short to be effective, would bypass few vehicles and save minimalbus passenger time as buses would still encounter traffic lights at Carrington Street. As trafficvolumes are estimated to remain fairly constant, there should not be a significant increase in passengerdelay.
Planning Comment The proposed amendment is a substantial reduction in thereservation for Canning Highway. The effect of this amendment on 299A Canning Highwayis to reduce the Primary Regional Road reservation from affecting the whole house to affectingthe front yard.
Along Canning Highway, bus queue jump lanes have beendrawn on the approach to all signalised intersections. Provision of queue jump lanes at the westernend of this amendment reflects the lesser importance of the bus service compared tothat east of Rise ley Street where continuous bus lanes are essential.
The cumulative savings along the route and the number of passengersmaking these savings are relevant, rather than those at eachintersection. The perception of buses having priority and travelling more quickly can be as important as calculatedtimesavings.
In pursuit of sustainable transport in our city,itis prudent to take all opportunities to advantage bus passengers.
Discussion at hearings highlighted an omission in the amendment report.The amendment report should have mentioned that Carrington Street was notthe only location where bus lanes are proposed. Plans also provide for: Bus queue jump lanes at Stock Road and North Lake Road. Continuous bus lanes east of Rise ley Street.
Consideration of all submissions suggests that the advertised road reserveis not wide enough to include all necessary road functions and a larger reserveis appropriate. Redesign has resulted in the reservation needed on this propertybeing larger than the advertised proposal, but still substantially less than the existing reservation.
Determination: Dismissed.
Submission No: 44
Submitted By: Main Roads WA
Nature of Interest: Road authority responsible for construction and maintenance of Canning Highway
Affected Land: Canning Highway road issues.
Summary of Submission Main Roads had previously endorsed plans for Canning Highway.The Main Roads endorsed concept plans were modified by Department for Planning andInfrastructure and presented for this amendment.
The revised concept design has not been reviewed by MainRoads and hence Main Roads did not have the opportunity to contribute to the concept design, contraryto the principles of the Memorandum of Understanding between Department forPlanning and Infrastructure and Main Roads relating to the road network planning process.
Considering that design standards and road user requirements mayhave changed since 2000, some design elements of the revised concept may need tobe reviewed by Main Roads.
Without the opportunity to review or contribute to the revised conceptdesign for Canning Highway in any detail, Main Roads is not in position to supportthis Metropolitan Region Scheme amendment.
At the hearing, Main Roads provided considerably more informationin both written and verbal format. These issues are addressed individually below.
Issue 1 CyclingSummary of Submission An absolute minimum of 1.2 metres edge line separated sealedshoulder for cyclists should be provided for the entire length of the route.
Issue 1 CyclingPlanning Comment This is consistent with five other submissions however the suggestedwidth of exclusive cycle lanes varies. Section 5.4 of the Report on Submissions providesassociated logic.
Issue 1 CyclingDetermination Upheld The reservation shall allow for 1.5 metre wide exclusive cycle lanes Issue 2Access StrategySummary of Submission There is a need to reassess the access strategyfor the area between Petra Street and Preston Point Road. Plans currently show full movementsat all intersections but the medians are too narrow to protect rightturners.
Issue 2Access StrategyPlanning Comment At present, this section of Canning Highwayhas unprotected right turns permitted at 10 minor road intersections between Petra Street and PrestonPoint Road. This is unchanged from the Canning Highway Planning Review produced forMain Roads WA in August 2000. The issue of protecting or restricting right turnsis discussed in section 5.3 of the report on submissions.It is highly desirable that right turns be eitherbanned or protected.
Issue 2Access Strategy - Determination UpheldThe reservation shall allow for 5.3 metres widemedian to protect motorists turning right in lieu of deciding to restrict or eliminateturning movements.
Issue 3Minimum median widthSummary of Submission At locations where right turns are permitted,the median width should be at least 5.5 metres wide to accommodate a 3.5 metre wide right turnlane and a 2.0 metre wide pedestrian refuge.
Issue 3Minimum median widthPlanning Comment Section 5.3 of the report on submissions discusseslane widths. A 3.5 metre wide right turn lane adjacent to a 2.0 metre wide pedestrianrefuge is a desirable standard, however 5.0 metres can be acceptable. The MainRoads WA submission recognises 5.0 metres asthe absolute minimum width to shelter a right turnvehicle.
Median width is one element of a complexcompromise also involving traffic lane widths, cycle lane widths, verge widths. The morebasic issues are minimisation of impact and the value of urban space.
In redrafting the carriageway plans, anominal 5.3 metre wide median was adopted.
Issue 3Minimum median width - Determination DismissedMedians of 5.3 metres nominal width shall be adopted.
Issue 4Desirable lane widthSummary of Submission A desirable lane width of 3.5 metresshould be applied for the entire length of the route.
Issue 4Desirable lane widthPlanning Comment Traffic lane widths are part of the compromisebetween providing a functional road and The minimising impact.Section 5.3 of the report on submissionsexamines lane widths. desirable lane width is 3.5 metres wide, and generalminimum lane width is 3.0 metres.
Issue 4Desirable lane widthDetermination Upheld in part The left lanes shall be 3.5 metreswide. Other lanes shall be 3.3 metres wide. Issue 5Verge widthSummary of Submission A minimum verge width of 5.1m shouldbe applied for the entire length of the route.In accordance with the Utility Providers Code ofPractice.
Issue 5Verge widthPlanning Comment The existing verge width on Canning Highwayis, in many places considerably less than 5 metres, and all necessary utility services appearto function.
It is also clear that the very narrow (as little as3.5) metres wide in the advertised proposal is, in many ways, insufficient. Issue 5Verge widthDetermination Dismissed - The reserve shall allow for verges 4.1 metres wide.
Issue 6Bus queue jump lanesSummary of Submission Where a proposed bus queue jump lane will have a green signal at the sametime as through vehicles, the following are required for a design speed of 70 km/hr (posted60 km/hr). A length of parallel lane after the signals 80 m long, for 4 seconds of travel. A merge taper of 111 m. Any side street abutting the merge or diverge taper must be cul-de-sacedfor safety reasons. Operationally itis unclear how effective the bus queue jump lane will be when vehicles turning left are blocking the bus lane.
Issue 6Bus queue jump lanesPlanning Comment Main Roads submission is based upon the design operating speedbeing 70 km/h.If Activity Corridors are not designed to be high speed through traffic routes, then this parametermight be questioned. Two of the three bus queue jump lanes are in areas that willprobably be designated as activity centres. In activity centres, the appropriate vehicular speed maybe lower than on Canning Highway generally.
Measurement of the bus lane merges on the plans indicates that they are some100 to 120 metres long. This roughly meets the standard suggested by MainRoads WA for the merge taper. The decision to cul-de-sac any street cannot be addressed in theMetropolitan Region Scheme amendment process. It is an issue managed by LocalGovernment under separate legislation. In redrafting of Canning Highway plans, locations are noted wherecul-de-sacs should be considered.
It appears that the bus queue jump lane would be effective as long as left turntraffic that also uses the lane can proceed in all of thephases that the bus can proceed.
Re-drafting adopted a standard for bus queue jump lanes downstream of trafficsignals of 50 metres of continuous lane plus 100 metres of merge taper.
Issue 6Bus queue jump lanesDetermination Dismissed
Issue 7Deceleration lanesSummary of Submission Deceleration lanes for left or right turns should be at least 100 m long.(Based on design speed of 70 km/hr and posted speed of 60 km/hr)Left and right turn lanes should be long enough that through lane queues do not block entry. At the very least,auxiliary lanes should be no less than existing.
Issue 7Deceleration lanesPlanning Comment Main Roads submission is based upon the design operating speedbeing 70 km/h.If Activity Corridors are not designed to be high speed through traffic routes, then this parametermight be questioned.
The length of auxiliary lanes needed to avoid lane entry being blockedis a complex issue.It depends upon numerous factors including traffic demand on all movements,traffic signal green splits and cycle time.
In re-drafting of plans, a desirable standard of turn lanes being 100 metres long wasadopted.
Issue 7Deceleration lanesDetermination Upheld. Issue 8 - Splitter islandsSummary of Submission Splitter islands on side streets should have a minimumlength of 12 metres.
Left turn splitter islands should be at least 12 m long by 6 mwide.If pedestrian cut throughs are to be provided then a size of atleast 15 metres long by 8 metres wide is needed.
Issue 8 - Splitter islandsPlanning Comment The length of median splitter islands on side streetsdoes not appear to have a material effect on the reservation required for CanningHighway.In re-drafting, the requested standard (12 metres length) has been applied wherepractical.
There are locations where the proposed reservation isinsufficient to provide left turn splitter islands.In these locations, many of which are in potentialactivity centres, it appears most prudent to take left turn traffic through the signals.This would delay some traffic but may have pedestrian and urban design advantages.
Details of islands and pedestrian cut throughs appear to beissues best resolved at detailed design and construction stage.
Issue 8 - Splitter islands - Determination Upheld in Part
O Median Islands drawn at 12 metres long wherepractical. o Left turn splitter islands that cannot meet appropriatestandards shall be removed in favour of left turn movements through the trafficsignals.
Submission No: 45
Submitted By: David Correia and other owners of Lot 500
Nature of Interest: Property owners
Affected Land: Lot 500 Corner of Canning Highway and Reynolds Road.
Summary of Submission This amendment affects the property by about 0.7 metres.The proposed amendment would significantly impact upon the saleability and rateability ofthe residential units, resulting in a commercial loss adversely affecting the income from theland.The proposed amendment does not increase the reserve on the north side ofCanning Highway where the existing service station is significantly set back from the highway.The owners of Lot 500 consider this as inequitable.
The owners of Lot 500 request that the MetropolitanRegion Scheme amendment be modified to move the widening to the north side ofCanning Highway.
Planning Comment Following consideration of all submissions, it was resolvedthat the changes to Canning Highway affecting this property should not proceed at thistime.
Determination: No longer relevant. Submission No: 46
Submitted By: Bruce Robinson for Cyclists Action Group
Nature of Interest: Representing a road user group.
Affected Land: Deals with Canning Highway Road Issues.
Summary of Submission The Cyclists Action Group supports the submission made bythe WA Cycling Committee. The current plan provides no safe provision for bicycle transportalong the corridor. This is appallingly short sighted and discriminatory.Historical failure of road authorities to provide for bicycle transport is contributing to the obesity epidemic.It is high time that it is mandatory for all roads to provide both on street and off street bicycle transportfacilities, and to provide well for pedestrians.
As our population ages, there will be a growing number of peoplewho need to use pedestrian facilities and small electric vehicles.It is therefore essential that this amendment provide for good quality paths.
"Peak Oil" is an additional reason to insist on providing goodquality cycling facilities.A technical paper on this issue is attached to the submission.
In his presentation to the Hearings Committee, MrRobinson explained the theory of "peak oil."He proposed that modifying the amendment to provide goodquality cycling facilities is one action that build robustness against theeffects of declining oil availability and extreme high prices.
Planning Comment The Western Australian Planning Commission has beenbriefed on the theory and potential effects of peak oil. What should be done to mitigate the riskof peak oil is far less defined.It is clearly prudent to consider of the potential impact of peakoil in planning decisions.
Good quality cycling facilities may be one element of peakoil mitigation.They also have economic, environmental and population health advantages.Regardless of peak oil, good quality cycling facilities have substantial benefits to the wholecommunity.
Determination: Upheld in part. 0 Provision shall be made for 1.5 metre wide on road cycle lanes a The verge width shall be increased to a minimum of 4.1 metres.
Submission No: 47
Submitted By: David Worth for Sustainable Transport Coalition
Nature of Interest: Road user group
Affected Land: Deals with Canning Highway road issues
Summary of Submission The Sustainable Transport Coalition strongly supportsthe submission made by the WA Cycling Committee. The current proposal omits provision for the mostsustainable vehicular transport mode, bicycle transport.It is essential that space be reserved for both on-road and off-road facilities.
Two technical papers were appended to the submission paperentitled "The Impact of Oil Depletion on Australia" and "Oil Depletion: The Crucial Factor inTransport Planning." Planning Comment The material issues in this submission are dealt within addressing submission 39 from the Western Australian Cycling Committee and Submission46 from Mr Bruce Robinson for Cyclists Action Group.
The Committee is cognisant of: The various government policies that relate to cycling; The sustainability advantages of good quality cyclingfacilities; and The contribution that good quality cycling facilities mightmake towards mitigating risks from either peak oil or other supply disruption.
The Committee has carefully considered the standardof cycling facility appropriate within the constrained environment of Canning Highway.
Determination: Upheld in part. Provision shall be made for 1.5 metre wide on road cyclelanes The verge width shall be increased to a minimum of 4.1metres.
Submission No: 48
Submitted By: Cycle Touring Association
Nature of Interest: Road user group
Affected Land: Deals with Canning Highway road issues
Summary of Submission The association strongly supports the submissionalready lodged by the WA Cycling Committee. The current proposal provides no safe and efficientprovision for bicycle transport along the Activity Corridor.
In the past, road authorities have failed to provide forbicycle transport, endangering cyclists and contributing to our obesity epidemic.It should be mandatory for all roads to provide both on-road and off-road bicycle transport facilities.Facilities should also provide for pedestrians and the growing number of people who must usesmall electric vehicles.
Oil depletion is a serious issue.It is disappointing that the amendment does not providefor bicycles, which are powered by renewable energy.
Planning Comment The material issues in this submission are dealt with inaddressing submission 39 from the Western Australian Cycling Committee and Submission 46from Mr Bruce Robinson for Cyclists Action Group.
The Committee is cognisant of: The various government policies that relate to cycling; The sustainability advantages of good quality cyclingfacilities; and The contribution that good quality cycling facilities mightmake towards mitigating risks from either peak oil or other supply disruption. The Committee has carefully considered the standard ofcycling facility appropriate within the constrained environment of Canning Highway.
Determination: Upheld in part. Provision shall be made for 1.5 metre wide on road cycle lanes The verge width shall be increased to a minimum of 4.1 metres. Submission No: 49
Submitted By: Colin and Linda Chiang
Nature of Interest: Residents
Affected Land: 70B Garlioch St, Applecross
Summary of Submission The writers support the reduction of reservation proposed on CanningHighway because:
® Canning Highway already carries significant traffic and widening would attract more. Widening Canning Highway may reduce the number of people using the busservice. Widening and increased traffic would be negatively impact regardingnoise, pollution and greenhouse gas. Reducing the reserve will increase property values.
Planning Comment This amendment seeks to move towards the advantages set out inthis submission.
Consideration of all submissions suggests that the advertised road reserveis not wide enough to include all necessary road functions and a slightly larger reserveis appropriate. This will increase the impact on properties generally, but the reservewould still be removed from this property.
Determination: Upheld
Submission No: 50
Submitted By: Dr Janet Woollard MLA
Nature of Interest: Member of Parliament representing people affected by this Amendment.
Affected Land: Canning Highway, adjacent properties and adjacent suburbs from which people either use or cross Canning Highway.
Issue 1 Bus Lane from Riseley StreetSummary of Submission Canning Highway is already very busy.Rather than making Canning Highway larger to attract more traffic, which leads to further traffic issues, thesubmission seeks public transport improvements made which see smaller and more frequent busservices implemented within local residential areas.
The submission proposes that it is not in the community's bestinterests to extend three lanes to Risley Street.Increasing the number of lanes will not alleviate the bottleneck at Canning Bridge and will not encourage people to utilise public transport.
Issue 1 Bus Lane from Riseley StreetPlanning Comment Following consideration of all submissions, it was resolved that, at thistime, the amendment should only proceed in the length of Canning Highway west ofGlenelg Street.
Canning Highway east of Riseley Street is an artery that carries numerousbus routes. These routes service a large sector of the metropolitan area where thetravelling public will not have good access to the metropolitan railway. Many of the bus services onCanning Highway are line haul services carrying people through the areas. Smaller and morefrequent bus services within the local residential areas are fundamentally different, but arealso desirable.
The option of dedicating one of the existing Canning Highway lanes as abus lane was tested. This option was found to be unacceptable because: The reduction in car capacity was calculated to causemassive queues and delays. This option was calculatedto worsen, not improve the travel times forbus passengers. This may be a result ofextensive car queues obstructing buses from entering the dedicated bus lanes.
This proposal does not add private carcapacity to Canning Highway and is the option that gives the best bus passenger service. The roadlayout as proposed is the one most likely to maximise the use of public transport.
Issue 1 Bus Lane from Rise ley Street - Determination: Dismissed
Issue 2Bus Queue Jump LanesSummary of Submission Bus queue jump lanes are supported over new,dedicated "bus only" lanes.These may encourage people to use publictransport without widening the entire carriageway.Bus Queue jump lanes may cause difficulty atside streets and residential driveways such as where the queue jump lane approaching North LakeRoad passes Cowan Street. Entering to a queue jump lane may beparticularly difficult at congested times. These aresafety issues that need further consideration.
Issue 2Bus Queue Jump LanesPlanning Comment The Road Traffic Code section 136 Exemptions to driving in special purpose lanes etc states: (7) The driver of any vehicle may drive up to thepermitted distance in a bicycle lane, bus lane, transit lane or truck lane if it is necessaryfor the driver to drive in the lane- (a) To enter or leave the carriageway. (8) In this regulation permitted distance" means- (a) For a bicycle lane50 m; or (b) For any other lane 100 m.
The amount of traffic in queue jump lanesshould be less than that in the general traffic lanes. It may be easier to enter a bus queuejump lane than a general traffic lane.
Issue 2Bus Queue Jump Lanes - Determination: Dismissed
Issue 3Increased width of Carriageway Summary ofSubmission Plans to build new dedicated bus lanes in placeswhere there are currently 3 lanes will unnecessarily increase the carriageway widthwithout addressing the need to reduce private vehicle use. The report indicates that traffic willdecrease by 2021.If this is the case there does not seem to be much need for an extralane, especially as previous studies have shown more roads actually increasesvehicle usage.
Increasing the width of Canning Highway will havethe negative impact of further severing the community.
Issue 3Increased width of CarriagewayPlanning Comment Following consideration of all submissions, it wasresolved that, at this time, the amendment should only proceed in the length of CanningHighway west of Glenelg Street, The proposed bus lanes are a significant and valuablepiece of this amendment proposal. The busfacilities on Canning Highway serve alarge number of people and need to be of highquality if they are to compete with private cars.
Traffic on Canning Highway east of ReynoldsRoad is at a level where we probably should not be encouraging pedestrians to crosswithout assistance.Pedestrian crossing issues might be best addressed by introduction of trafficsignals at appropriate locations. The approach of reallocating existing lanes as exclusive bus lanes wasconsidered.As intersections are already approaching capacity at peak times, loss of lanes to generaltraffic would probably cause unacceptable queues and delays.If this compromises decisions to implement bus lanes then public transport would be disadvantaged.
Page 3 Amendment report indicates an estimated reduction in traffic.In the higher traffic areas of Canning Highway, this reduction is some3%.It is unlikely that this traffic reduction would create any real difference from the present traffic situation.
Issue 3Increased width of Carriageway - Determination: Dismissed
Issue 4Pedestrian CrossingSummary of Submission Inclusion of bus lanes as well as the existing traffic lanes will make it even more difficultfor pedestrians to cross Canning Highway.The plans need to be revised to include pelican crossings at regular intervals.
The intersection of Ardross Street needs traffic signals now. St Benedict's PrimarySchool is at the intersection of Canning Highway and attracts students from both sidesof Canning Highway.
Issue 4Pedestrian CrossingPlanning Comment It is agreed that Canning Highway is less than pedestrian friendly.It is also clear that adding bus lanes would increase the Canning Highway crossing distance, and may alsoadd a speed differential between the traffic lanes. A judgement needs to be made as to whether thepublic transport advantage achieved by bus lanes outweighs the disbenefits to pedestrians.
There are a number of intersections, including Ardross Street wheretraffic signals would substantially improve the situation for both pedestrians and motorists who seek to cross Canning Highway. Pelican signals at locations where these are justified would be beneficial to pedestrians. Traffic signals and pelican signals do not necessarily require adifferent reservation from that proposed in this amendment.
Issue 4Pedestrian CrossingDetermination Not relevant
Issue 5U turn pointsSummary of Submission There are a number of points along Canning Highway where it is difficult toexit a side street. This leads to both inconvenience and crash risk.In some locations, traffic signals could be used to address this.The addition of U turn points would also help to alleviate this by allowing motorists to turn left and then make a U turn.
Issue 5U-turn pointsPlanning Comment Australian Standard 2890.1 1993 Parking FacilitiesPart 1: Off Street Car Parking page 47 indicates the absolute minimum width needed for a u-turn by a car is 12.5 metres.Other standards suggest that a larger space is needed. For the safety of people waiting tomake U turns, the road median should he a minimum of 3 metres wideand desirably 5 metres wide. In the advertised reservation proposal, there are very limited locationswhere minimum U-turn standards could be achieved. The best value based decision would be thatprovision of U- turns does not justify increasing a Primary Regional Roadreservation. Where U-turns are feasible, it could be reasonable to make this provision.
Issue 5U-turn points - Determination Dismissed Issue 6North Lake Road Summary of Submission Plans show some change to the layout ofNorth Lake Road. North Lake Road, between Marmion Street and Canning Highway is a singlecarriageway road, serving residents of the area. Improvements to NorthLake Road shown on the plans may increasetraffic on North Lake Road. Issue 6 North Lake RoadPlanning Comment The concept plans associated with this amendmentshow an upgrade to the intersection of Canning Highway and North Lake Road. Capacityenhancement is created by an additional lane on North Lake Road approaching the trafficsignals.
The reservation and carriageway concept assumedfor North Lake Road is consistent with previous planning studies (which allowed 4 lanes onNorth Lake Road). Decisions about North Lake Road may be best held over for anexamination of North Lake Road.
Issue 6North Lake Road - Determination: Dismissed
Submission No: 51
Submitted By: Water Corporation
Nature of Interest:Water Corporation infrastructure exists in theCanning Highway road reserve.
Affected Land: Canning Highway road reserve and adjacent land.
Summary of Submission The Water Corporation has no in principleobjection to the proposal.It is noted that any adjustment to water corporation infrastructure made necessaryby future works shall be at no cost to the Water Corporation.
Planning Comment It is agreed that all costs of future construction,including service relocation would be at the expense of the construction agency.This is not a reservation issue.
Determination: Not relevant.
Submission No: 52
Submitted By: Lewis Arthur Bond
Nature of Interest: Property Owner
Affected Land: 63 G Alness St, Applecross
Summary of Submission The submission supports the reduction of theCanning Highway Reserve for the following reasons. The existing road carriageway appears to caterfor the traffic. With public transport upgrading, there appears tobe no real reason to widen Canning Highway to more than 2 lanes in each direction. Reducing the road reservation allows the largeresidential stock to remain intact. Reducing the road reservation and retaining carriageways asis will help to control or reduce traffic volume, noise, fumes, etc. Reducing the Canning Highway reserve assists to protectthe landscaping in existing residential areas, particularly side streets. 0 Clarifying the road reservation gives owners and purchasers certaintyabout future land requirements affecting their property. 0 There are clear savings caused by reducing the land requirementsuch as land acquisition, construction and ongoing maintenance.
Planning Comment Bus lanes along Canning Highway between Riseley Street andCanning Bridge are a high value public transport project,Analysis commissioned by DPI has analysed the existing situation plus 2 bus lane scenarios for Canning Highway between RiseleyStreet. The scenario of replacing a traffic lane in each direction was found to make bustravel slower, as well as causing much greater traffic congestion. The scenario thatimproved bus travel time and retained a tolerable general traffic situation was to construct buslanes as well as retaining the existing traffic lanes.
Consideration of all submissions suggests that the advertised road reserveis not wide enough to include all necessary road functions and a larger reserveis appropriate. Redesign has resulted in the reservation needed on this property beinglarger than the advertised proposal, but still substantially less than the existing reservation.
Determination: Upheld in part
Submission No: 53
Submitted By: Orlando Andrade and Susanna Andrade
Nature of Interest: Property Owner
Affected Land: Lot 5 North side of Canning Hwy between Risley St and CononRd
Summary of Submission The proposed reduction in Lot 5 has severely devalued the propertyand has stopped the proposal to redevelop the property to office commercial. Planningfor conversion to office Commercial development has stopped because of this amendment.The submitters seek compensation for $100 000 per year loss of income.
Planning Comment The amendment proposes to substantially reduce the PrimaryRegional Road reservation on Lot 5. Some land is still required and the property owner maymake a compensation claim under circumstances prescribed in the Planning and DevelopmentAct 2005. Alternatively, the owners have the option of retaining andderiving an income from the property until they deem it commercially worthwhile to redevelop.
Consideration of all submissions suggests that the advertised road reserve isnot wide enough to include all necessary road functions and a larger reserveis appropriate. Redesign has resulted in the reservation needed on this propertybeing larger than the advertised proposal, but still substantially less than the existing reservation.
Determination: Dismissed
Submission No: 54
Submitted By: City of Melville
Nature of Interest: Local Government in whose jurisd on the amendment falls
Affected Land: Various Issue 1 Whittle Court / Yeovil Crescent - Summary of Submission The City of Melville seeks removal of reservation from Whittle Court,Yeovil Crescent and the properties to the north of these streets.The City is of the view that a local government partnership could deal with this intersection. The City would like theCommission prepare a detailed design of this section of Canning Highway affectingthis reservation.
Issue 1 Whittle Court / Yeovil Crescent Planning Comment The carriageway pattern plans for this section of Canning Highwayindicate that the access to properties to the north of Yeovil Crescent would be disruptedby Canning Highway construction.The reservation extending onto these would allow for accessreinstatement consequential to Canning Highway Construction. Reservation seemsappropriate as it gives clear planning control, and places affected property owners underthe compensation umbrella provided by the Planning and Development Act.
Issue 1 Whittle Ct / Yeovil Cres Determination Dismissed.
Issue 2Antony Street / Canning Highway - Summary of Submission The shape of the reserve should be straightened between 2 AntonyStreet and 289 Canning Highway to eliminate a kink.
Issue 2Antony Street / Canning HighwayPlanning Comment Consideration of all submissions suggests that the advertised road reserveis not wide enough to include all necessary road functions and a larger reserveis appropriate. Redesign has resulted in wider reservation in this area. This has removedthe kink.
Issue 2Antony Street / Canning HighwayDetermination Upheld.
Issue 3East of Adrian Street - Summary of Submission The reservation boundary should be straight and continuous ratherthan deviating to follow property boundaries.
Issue 3East of Adrian StreetPlanning Comment It is normal practice to include necessary corner truncationsin regional road reserves. This allows the Planning Commission to accurately define theland needed for future road reservation and compensate landowners accordingly.This is relevant just west of Adrian Street where private property is reserved.
Issue 3East of Adrian StreetDetermination Dismissed.
Issue 4 - Point Walter Road - Summary of Submission It is inappropriate to truncate the corner of the Leopold Hotel.
Issue 4 - Point Walter RoadPlanning Comment Redrafting of plans has given an indication of the ultimate extent ofthis carriageway.If no truncation existed on this corner, the verge would be reduced toless than 2 metres.This could not be deemed adequate.
Issue 4 - Point Walter RoadDetermination Dismissed.
Issue 5McKimmie Road - Summary of Submission A new 2 storey hair & beauty salon is on this corner. Issue 5McKimmie RoadPlanning Comment In spite of the constraint of minimising damage to theLeopold Hotel, the reservation does not appear to encroach on the main building onthis property.
Issue 5McKimmie RoadDetermination Dismissed.
Issue 6Murray Road and Hope Road - Summary of Submission Deviation in reserve on the southern side is unnecessary and should notbe supported.
Issue 6Murray Road and Hope RoadPlanning Comment Redesign of Canning Highway has confirmed the need foradditional reservation at this location. The deviation will cease to exist.
Issue 6Murray Road and Hope RoadDetermination Upheld.
Issue 7Stock Road Intersection Summary of Submission The shape and configuration of truncations require further assessment asit affects planning of the intersection, particularly properties owned by the City ofMelville.
Issue 7Stock Road IntersectionPlanning Comment The redesign highlights the need for widening on this property.It also highlights how close the kerb would come to an un-truncated corner.It appears that the truncation size needs to be retained to maintain reasonable verge space for pedestrians.
Issue 7Stock Road IntersectionDetermination Dismissed.
Issue 8Prinsep Road - Summary of Submission The shape and configuration of the truncations on the northernside of Prinsep Road is inappropriate as it contains a standard 8.5 metre truncation on one cornerand a curved truncation on the other.
Issue 8Prinsep RoadPlanning Comment The truncations on the northern side of Canning Highwayat Prinsep Road follow the road reserve boundaries. Changing thetruncation offers no benefit.
Issue 8Prinsep RoadDetermination Dismissed
Issue 9Preston Point Road / Money Road - Summary ofSubmission The shape of truncation at Preston Point Road / Money Roadis excessive.
Issue 9Preston Point Road I Money RoadPlanning Comment This issue has little impact on Canning Highway. Revised planshave reduced this truncation.
Issue 9Preston Point Rd I Money RdDetermination Upheld.
Issue 10South Side of Money Road - Summary of Submission On the south side of Canning Hwy, Money Road has been closed.There should be no need for a truncation and the reserve should be continuous betweenthe property boundaries.
Issue 10South Side of Money RoadPlanning Comment This point appears reasonable, considering that MoneyStreet has been cul-de-saced. Revised plans have reduced the truncation. Issue 10South Side of Money RoadDetermination Upheld in part.
Issue 11Service Road near Williams Rd Summary ofSubmission The City of Melville has received a subdivision applicationreferral in respect of 473 A and B Canning Highway.If the Canning Highway reserve were modified to excludethe service road then these properties would become subdividable.The City understands that the owner will be making a submission.
Issue 11 Service Road near Williams RdPlanning Comment The owner has made a submission seeking amodification that would have the Canning Highway reservation exclude this portion of the service road(submission no 21). This issue is not one that should influence a Primary RegionalRoad reservation.
Issue 11 Service Road near Williams RdDetermination Dismissed.
Issue 12Cowan Street - Summary of Submission At Cowan Street, the slip lane is questionable.It seems illogical to resume land on the south side of Canning highway when there is vacant land onthe north side.
Issue 12Cowan StreetPlanning Comment Submission 32 also relates to this location.Within the design concept used for Canning Highway, moving the carriageway to the north to affectpublic rather than private land. This public land also has value.Changing the road alignment would also have implicationsfor private property on the north side of CanningHighway, west of North Lake Road.
Issue 12Cowan StreetDetermination Dismissed.
Issue 13Coverly Road - Summary of Submission There appears to be an inconsistency with cornertruncations with some allowed to be 8.48 metres straight and some following existingboundary curves.
Issue 13Coverly RoadPlanning Comment In redesigning the carriageway and themodified reservation, numerous truncations were considered individually. At this location it was resolvedto follow the existing curved property boundary.
Issue 13Coverly RoadDetermination Upheld.
Issue 14Doney Street intersection - Summary ofSubmission The truncation required is excessive andillogical.Further detailed design together with the City of Melville and Main Roads.
Issue 14Doney Street intersectionPlanning Comment The truncation in the advertised amendmentfollowed the dedicated road reserve boundary. The extent of Primary Regional Road reserve onexisting dedicated road is, within limits, immaterial.
Issue 14Doney Street intersectionDetermination Dismissed. Issue 15 Wireless Hill near Hickey St - Summary of Submission There is no justification for a wide truncation into Wireless Hill near Hickey Streetopposite Lot 40.
Issue 15Wireless Hill near Hickey StPlanning Comment The reservation boundary follows the cadastral boundary of the Wireless Hill reserve. In reality there is little relevance whether facilities such as the existing path are onroad verge or parkland.
Issue 15Wireless Hill near Hickey StDetermination Upheld.
Issue 16Cunningham St and Matheson Rd - Summary of Submission The truncation required at the corner of Cunningham St and Matheson Rdis excessive and unnecessary.
Issue 16Cunningham St and Matheson RdPlanning Comment Reducing the truncation at thispoint has no detrimental effect on Canning Highway reservation.
Issue 16Cunningham St and Matheson RdDetermination Upheld
Issue 17Conon & McLeod Roads - Summary of Submission The truncation at the corner of Conon and McLeod Roads is unnecessarily deep.
Issue 17Conon & McLeod RoadsPlanning Comment In redrawn plans the Metropolitan Region Scheme reservationfollows the dedicated road reserve boundary line along the existing truncationlines.The extent of Primary Regional Road reserve on existing dedicated road is, within limits, immaterial.
Issue 17Conon & McLeod RoadsDetermination Dismissed
Issue 18Tain Street - Summary of Submission The south side of Tain Street has been closed. The reservationshould continue along the property boundary line.
Issue 18Tain StreetPlanning Comment Elimination of truncations is unreasonable, however reduction to 3.43metre truncations appears reasonable at this location.
Issue 18Tain StreetDetermination Upheld in partTruncations shall be reduced to 3.43 metres.
Issue 19Glenelg Street Summary of Submission The proposed truncation at Glenelg Street cul de sac is not required.
Issue 19Glenelg StreetPlanning Comment Although cul de sac streets may not need full truncations, completeelimination of truncations does not seem prudent.
Issue 19Glenelg StreetDetermination Dismissed Issue 20Ullapool Road - Summary of Submission The proposed truncation at Ullapool cul-de-sac is notrequired.
Issue 20Ullapool RoadPlanning Comment Following consideration of all submissions, it was decided not toproceed with this section of the advertised amendment. The MetropolitanRegion Scheme reservation would therefore remain unchanged at this location.
Issue 20Ullapool Road Determination No longer relevant
Issue 21 Kishorn Road (North) - Summary of Submission The proposed truncation at Kishorn Road (north) is notrequired.
Issue 21Kishorn Road (North)Planning Comment Following consideration of all submissions, it was decided notto proceed with this section of the advertised amendment. The MetropolitanRegion Scheme reservation would therefore remain unchanged at this location.
Issue 21 Kishorn Road (North)Determination No longer relevant
Issue 22Ogilvie Road- Summary of Submission The proposed truncation at Kishorn Road (north) is notrequired.
Issue 22Ogilvie RoadPlanning Comment Following consideration of all submissions, it was decided notto proceed with this section of the advertised amendment. The MetropolitanRegion Scheme reservation would therefore remain unchanged at this location.
Issue 22Ogilvie RoadDetermination No longer relevant.
Issue 23 - Dewsons Supermarket - Summaryof Submission The small deviation in reserve is not needed atDewsons Supermarket.
Issue 23 Dewsons SupermarketPlanning Comment Following consideration of all submissions, it wasdecided not to proceed with this section of the advertised amendment. The MetropolitanRegion Scheme reservation would therefore remain unchanged at this location.
Issue 23 - Dewsons SupermarketDetermination No longer relevant Issue 24 Canning Bridge - Summary ofSubmission Why is truncation required northwest of CanningBridge on the riverbank?
Issue 24Canning BridgePlanning Comment Following consideration of all submissions, it wasdecided not to proceed with this section of the advertised amendment, The MetropolitanRegion Scheme reservation would therefore remain unchanged at this location.
Issue 24Canning BridgeDetermination No longer relevant Issue 25 Kintail Rd and Canning Beach Rd - Summary of Submission Should the truncation for Kintail Road and Canning Beach Road intersection be extended?
Issue 25 Kintail Rd and Canning Beach RdPlanning Comment Following consideration of all submissions, it was decided not to proceed with this section of the advertised amendment. The Metropolitan Region Scheme reservation would therefore remain unchanged at this location.
Issue 25Kintail Rd and Canning Beach Rd Determination No longer relevant
Issue 26Sustainable mode provision Summary of Submission In relation to the bus priority lanes within the blue kerb lines shown on the drawings, itis imperative that that there is adequate provision within the reserve to incorporate on road cycling facilities and adequate footpaths.
Issue 26Sustainable mode provisionPlanning Comment This cycle lane issue concurs with five other submissions. Provision for cycling is addressed in the body of the report on submissions.
The submission seeks adequate footpaths. There is no universal definition of an adequate footpath, but the WA Cycling Committee makes a suggestion on this subject.
Issue 26Sustainable mode provisionDetermination Upheld
Submission No: 55
Submitted By: Angelos Chords
Nature of Interest: Resident and property owner
Affected Land: 807 (Lot 344) Canning Highway, Applecross (corner of Tain Street)
Summary of Submission The writer supports the general intent of the amendment. The writer does not support the proposed truncation on the above propertybecause: a Tain Street has been cul-de-saced for the last 30 years and thereis no intention to change this. a There is no safety requirement to secure a line of sight via atruncation if Tain Street is not open to Canning Highway. a The City of Melville supports removal of all truncations from streetsthat are closed off from Canning Highway. a Western Australian Planning Commission has classified CanningHighway as an Activity Corridor.Rigid geometric road standards no longer apply in anActivity Corridor that encourages a more constrained street environmentwith greater priority for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport.
Planning Comment Where a street abutting Canning Highway is closed totraffic, ful ncations are not needed, however some lesser truncation may be prudent.
Determination: Upheld in respect of the corner truncation.
Schedule 3
The amendment figure as advertised
[-TT: . _F-1___T a-4 ii-F-Fi ir FFt -Hion F li II 111 \ ticr,-Eii4rxi
it -I, [ 11 111[ Ilb----, iIr III I j ILI I, I '-' 11 II I 1li I 11 11 il ' 1 f I It 1' II i'l p t '-'11 1 , 1 1, 11 , ,P14c1 CL i MONT -1, 11 11 I NEDLANDS,1 I /pc. ,iept 1, ,\?? # A i, ,,11 1' li p 111 } il t HI 111' 14,it
1 ' 0/ t 11 ] Li I 11 -_ ' --ri. _ Fr- 4 -,p II I I if 1 ' 1 IF / II I I I ,1 I , -III , r -, I 1 Iv 1- Ir /,/ `IL 11 1 1 \\'\1±'F i" ,n i r) 1 II I II II 1, 1, i , i I J , Fr if - I , F\F Fr FF C P t 1 V '1 1,1 IF ' 1 11jti E' IF LI llJr il 4h /Ti tip 4 J
lLFFFF I
1 1 111P I) i11tIir,/ I11 14 L /e1/111 Hi 11 11 (0/ 1 11
, It 1 I \\ I11IL, ',/,' tic d ,,\ 1,1111,' , ,II,/,,, II , , 11
I 1, 1 LI I' , IF 1 iIt lit n , --- ,, IF L T 63(?,),'Ir ti(?) in ' 1
I 1 PLEC Il cp 1(Frill Fl IL) )
FF F IFF 1 i_,//, , i F 7 I- F F , F II I P 7i( I
I'II II r II II il
1
I il I 1 /0 /
1 11 ( ATTADALE III II/ II, 131c4rolv 1 , (
RI\ Odi 1,11ilit, 1111,, 11111E1 111111911 111E1 III/t ;2y7,;(67:1 /111111 1, 1 1:,A,N,D\ lirill
II I II II It II I III 2 1 It 0/ I -'filly jitErill, [iiiiiEl:'i.,7IY 1 II Y is iii',\ y ( ii ilcv -)------ro) I 'I1, , 1 6 Y[ ir 1 11 11 , EAST ( 1 hi ' 'WI 111 11 I 1 r 4 FREMANTLE ' ' I 1 I ------1, ii' 1', , ALFREDI ' , I III I -,1 1 '1[ -j-..- i ,i1 I i _ , 11:11 't 1 I Ell ill II- Ji I I ?I' jiir r li j COVE 11' I II ,
1 1 I 1 II 1,,, 17_ __, 1, r; I 1 II II II 111 _1' 11 , 11 1 )11jIII HI II1111 Fir11 --_i ;1 ] 1_ 11 1c),,,,,,..: 1 li (1) H 17i( I1 MELVIT LE I , H li , ,, HI 11 1 1 J1 iv r1 r 11 1_ 11 _1 il_ 1 jr 1 11 ,1 III, __II , II 1 , ---,1 _- , : 1 ,, I, -,11 FF i -11 1 _II 1, , 1 I &At ININ(7) c ,7 _ r I I 1, 117, 11 1 , 1 1 1, -0111 ;re' HI, 1 I' 1_ r 7 - , I 'Ill
F 1 11,11 HI , 1 I 1, 1 Ii 'PALMYRA 1- 1 , II 11 11 __I-{_ ,' AREP, If ;1 1 II II Jr II I I I I I- II- if' I til II ii 11 Ii 11 li 1 1 d if Fir )11 , ' 1 ' 1 -,1 IV/Ay 1 1i II l' 11 li , 1, , 1 I I Ii , p , 1_, 11 1, -11_111_ir 1- -Jjj-bi t 11 II I XJ 1' ' 11P II I g Ii t t " 'ill II, 1 t 1 i A IB4TElliiiiiN ,/ il _II__ ir p IP 17 I' 1-1 1 I- 1 , /// It _,,, LFACHj 1 1, r lit it I Ir 111 - t/ I I II II II II i I ' tit , trAti
1 1 , '1 1 11 P riP II TVILLAGEE , H1 /11, 11 2-,j,
i 1, I I I '4 11 ' I' ri 11 II I Hi r -/ 1 I i 1 WINTHROP III IF1, i ILIII II :In:III 1 II t li 4/ II ti, ii1, II, \ Ilui
I Il Ii 'II / t 'HI lit _IL _ '
I II illiiiJr1; -1jr ) I, 1191 IL 11 7 J1 1 oteorlivoR u n1 '1-1 'I -, I- Jr -%__ 't 1 1 1? I 11 Iii f _II 'I li1 iI , p, hi-ifr I, ?11r 'II''\\''' V j -{ rt c 1 I 1, , II I, r ,,, , 11 _11- 11, 11 IIJr _11P - 1 Irli ii EA'ir ti 1 jr 11 -1 '4 1- _II l'-'I 11 II I I ilIn(1 IjIIt il li I 71] 1 -d 1- 111(1, I -' , n , I L KARDINYA? , 11 ' I :1,11 1)171--r71 _ 11 i II Ill' if .1-''',\ °(',111, / 1) 111 I, 111 111) '11 111 1: 1 Plitc /1/ / /IL' 1711" \\?," III cr tri C) 1, 11111( 1111 -1 1 1 III r1 //IL_ '11141 IL!
/,'SAMSON, ,/ " 1 , I 11 1 I" I, I 141' , / Ill CANNING I-I GHWAY - PROPOSED MAJOR AMENDMENT
14th SEPTEMBER2004 AS ADVERTISED FIGURE 1 LEGEND
PROPOSED:
URBAN ZONE
PARKS AND RECREATION RESERVATION
PRIMARY REGIONAL ROADS RESERVATION
tat 'ORO AUOTBAI IAA -N I Ai'UIUI CAt e, t,000 CO 911loll GEM
Schedule 4
The amendment figure as modified
11'\ it T-11 I 11-1-117lij ' 111 111 II11 111 [11, I -Ili' I Iill \ \ -J4,- I p ,L:),4; -,11,, 914' 11 , 1 -1 111 HI h iit., 1, 1--1 i) I ip 1°. 711 I I I II III NI ll lir 1 rL (11 , 1 L LWL/ I Ill 1 i /- IL II t 1 'il 1 1 \ !IIji 11il 711L11 11 11 ,J 1_. :i in nfilTfi §)i L :1 H §-1 ii Q, , , 111 , ii-I' 1 ( 0 pALICEIH dif / 11 , p I, II F 1\,-/..../ I II \ U-' I \ --- Tin f_f)/ 1)11` rili4 11,1
1")E , r \: JtiiII11,--iY"Iq -1) ;IfFi(
/d i ft % II / / ii 1 11 II, , /1 c ji I 1 jj-It , / I 1 2_ ,/ , jl -,I , 7_-- -9 'j ,,/,, , / ATTA 4 E illnirL, ,t( /cc/ ii BlitetOjiN
11 1 1r- II il r II 1 ( ' 1' -I--;1 it 1_ 1 I z h II
Atil1FRI EMA;t11-1111-rj1 ( Li Li rri)1 ! r, I (11, )) 1b1"71---il 'It ,J11-1(0, -j-rr-11, I nilL- ill , 1 rLif--ii ii 1 1 [tic ii_d : Ico_.,,,, -, , LI r II lir _ Ii a kl ,--,1- T 1 1 h VI 1 ) 1,11 ,,,_(1 ,y) iLL.. i-Ei_- iiiiiir:. IS: c---, clitv ' I An 14 mEt_vil_t_E; illk it I 1 IV I M I 111-ii '1 I,11°0)1511' I il III I di i ...11r hi ' 11 Jr ' =Ls) _ i, t I_ 21 ad-2" .. II illt 1 d __J 1 T-T I 1 ...,,,itiiit , iiii) hti-111 1,-; 1) II ,L I I' IP It 11 I, I), , IiirIL 11_1±_ it , -1- L \/' idd tit it 1 11 I 11 PAWYnA_IL 11 d d 1 191YARE8i idI d 111 II )I I 11 IL ' r lir III 111_ 1[ _11 11 _1 1_11 11 [ I 11 11 d ,H17,71=1-h_ r'=" Id- 1 1, ; 1 Fi il )1, 1 _Jr I j Hi ) , fir; -77_1 , 1 _J1-,Li --El I -L'1 d -Thri _II L-Lir pir,, -p -Jr,1? 111 lEaf IRii 1F- A1 -11 _JI- 1 Sjj [r-n1, r_li Il ft -, iI -1 -i,1- IF -1-11CI{ -ii!_-__*,:----1 l_ ' In2f,, r 1 II k__ID 'Yr' I J__ 11 _II 1-, d Jr ft/ft ifIll, 1 `,%0 , ' aA.pm Illli WILLicGELLE -II_ kilt , 113 J 1_ itF:i -II t ,If (Lri L IL wi_NTHRp? vq ?1 }II I , ji i ; ,t
I 11_I u ,,,,j1 1 A_-_1 i j_Ill 1 )117// ,ii-, 2)g ['Ilk 'Ili-II L 1 li .: .4,1, I if I II 1111 II ii O'LrONlivn Ii ili '1 _ I Ul I i 1-c(ti'61-, A , in. \\ ,il 1114i 1 e- f,/ '' in[ T:,-,// L _ L \(''Ai I I 4 I 1-_ , IlL ii--qI Jl_ LIP _I it lc i-( vtt,i',Itil Re' -,,ii,:'i' l'," Ir''''tiv 'l'1_,},\, ti cr- /1 11 /1' f Oril 11- IillilrlIii I ll 11 n c![0,/ 1 lc' I -1 IIILtl' a IL lIIIIIL .114 ijtill161,1 kf#DINYA Iit, //.. 'ILI __11, EILLUI i ';:. :=4 '' / _II ,r \ q If.14/fjifli tin-sh 11 Lj'_4 k):[hllir, 11111 11- Th /(,' [,,/[ 1,1`I, iliti,:iiirriii?-1,1-iiif,--_- Czy/ iirfl,bi, iF/ilio( ii hi rj7, tifi; ,ficill , ik,o; ini 4 '1,,I7/ 1 1111, _Ili 0,,, , viol il 1 1 , 1,$1NISON) ,Il ' la, t d 11,11 ,L, 11 -II IP ( 111 r/ ,' k Canning Highway proposed major amendment as modified 10 June 2008 Figure 1
Legend Proposed:
urban zone
parks and recreation reservation primary regional roads reservation
Western r. C) Australian )1 1 Fr L I/1 / jr jrrrj Planning 1000 , GOA Hi/ .1 I 11 1111111 11,1 , Commission moires
Appendix 1
List of detail plans as advertised
CANNING HIGHWAY
PROPOSED MAJOR AMENDMENT
AS ADVERTISED
2.0769/1
LAND REQUIE ENT PLANS
1.1927/3 CANNING HIGHWAYGLENELG ST TO CANNING BRIDGE
1.5103/1 CANNING HIGHWAYPETRA ST TO HOPE RD
1.5104/1 CANNING HIGHWAYHOPE RD TO CURTIS RD
1.5105/1 CANNING HIGHWAYCURTIS RD TO CHESSON ST
1.5106/1 CANNING HIGHWAYCHESSON ST TO COLLIER ST
1.5107/1 CANNING HIGHWAYCOLLIER ST TO GLENELG ST
CHANGES PLANS
1.5108/1 CANNING HIGHWAYPETRA ST TO HOPE RD
1.5109/1 CANNING HIGHWAYHOPE RD TO CURTIS RD
1.5110/1 CANNING HIGHWAYCURTIS RD TO CHESSON ST
1.5111/1 CANNING HIGHWAYCHESSON ST TO COLLIER ST
1.5112/1 CANNING HIGHWAYCOLLIER ST TO GLENELG ST
1.5113/1 CANNING HIGHWAYGLENELG ST TO CANNING BRIDG
Appendix 2
List of detail plans as modified
CANNING HIGHWAY
PROPOSED MAJOR AMENDMENT
AS MODIFIED
2.0769/2
LAND REQUIREMENT PLANS
1.5103/2 CANNING HIGHWAY PETRA 51 10 HOPE RD
1.5104/2 CANNING HIGHWAY HOPE RD TO CURTIS RD
1.5105/2 CANNING HIGHWAYCURTIS RD TO CHESSON ST
1.5106/2 CANNING HIGHWAY CHESSON ST TO COLLIER ST
1.5107/2 CANNING HIGHWAY COLLIER ST TO GLENELG ST
1.5675 STOCK ROAD CANNING HWY TO LEACH HWY
1.5676 NORTH LAKE ROAD CANNING HWY TO LEACH HWY
CHANGES PLANS
1.5103/2 CANNING HIGHWAY PETRA ST TO HOPE RD
1.5109/2 CANNING HIGHWAY HOPE RD TO CURTIS RD
1.5110/2 CANNING HIGHWAY CURTIS RD TO CHESSON ST
1.5111/2 CANNING HIGHWAY CHESSON ST TO COLLIER ST
1,5112/2 CANNING HIGHWAYCOLLIER ST TO GLENELG ST