Second knockback for servo

An application to build a third service station in Dunsborough’s town centre has again been unanimously rejected by the Southern Joint Development Assessment Panel.

The panel reconsidered an application – initially rejected in December last year – from DCSC to build a Puma Energy station on Dunn Bay Road after the State Administrative Tribunal ruled for the application to be revisited as a convenience store, rather than a service station.

After 12 presenters, of which nine were opposed to the development and three represented the landowner or proposed tenant, the panel unanimously rejected the application.

Panel member and City of Busselton Mayor Grant Henley told the gallery of almost 70 people the City did not have a “cast-iron framework” with which the application could be rejected.

However, he said a firm reason to reject the application, which is considered a Permitted Use in the City’s Local Planning Scheme 21, was that design was a consideration of “P Use” developments.

“It will have a detrimental impact on the visual and pedestrian amenity,” Cr Henley said.

“They are design principles that can be taken into consideration.”

During his presentation, lawyer and representative of the applicant Michael Hotchkin said policies could not “determine the law”.

“We’re in this position because of the way the scheme defines service stations and convenience stores – that’s the law,” he said.

The City’s planning scheme defines a convenience store as a retail space for the sale of goods commonly found in supermarkets, delicatessens and newsagents, but also includes the sale of petrol.

A service station is defined as a land or building selling petrol products and vehicle accessories, and can include minor mechanical activities.

Dunsborough and Districts Progress Association spokesman Mark Webster rejected the reclassification of the proposal.

“To be clear from the start, it is a petrol station,” he said.

“The biggest chunk of the site is dedicated to petrol bowsers.”

The panel’s deputy presiding member Sheryl Chaffer chose to base her decisions on the development aspects and said the “legal side can be dealt with in the court”.

Ms Chaffer, councillor Gordon Bleechmore and specialist member Anthony Casella all pointed to the City’s Strategic Community Plan for Dunsborough as reason to reject the application.

Presiding member Ian Birch also voted against the application, but described it as a “quandary”.

“The planner in me feels I can’t support the application, though I do have some reservations on the statutory side … which very well could be determined in another place,” he said.

TheTimes understands the applicant can now request the SAT make a determination on the hearing.