A planning application for a new petrol station and convenience store on Bridge St West went before Benalla Rural City Council on Wednesday, August 23.
Hold tight - we’re checking permissions before loading more content
The proposal, from retail giant 7-eleven, was initially brought to council in December 2022 before being put out for community feedback.
It sought planning permission for the site, at 18-20 Bridge St West to develop the new retail operation.
There was an initial objection from residents of St Joseph’s Villas, an independent living, aged-care community of 10 units next door to the proposed site.
During the consultation period those objections, and others, were formally lodged - 53 in total.
Council included a snapshot of those in its meeting agenda:
Amenity issues
- Noise impacts from 24 hour operation of business
- Vapour and odour hazards
- Built form outside of building envelope
- Privacy (overlooking by shedding and staff members)
- Adverse impact caused by noise (operation of machinery) and dust and light emissions.
Traffic issues
- Inappropriate increase in vehicle movements caused by the business.
- Safety and congestion caused by increased traffic and conflict with school traffic
- Vehicle and machinery movement within and to and from the site causing detriment to surrounding residents.
Contrary to policy
- Industrial business in a residential area
- Not in keeping with character of the area.
- Contrary to the purpose of the General Residential Zone.
Operational issues
- 24 hour operation of the business not appropriate in residential location
- Deliveries and waste to be stored in close proximity to residential properties.
Other
- The proposal will attract children to the site (anti-social behaviour)
- The proposal sets a precedent for further non-residential uses.
Three people spoke at the council meeting, two objectors and one on behalf of the applicant.
Mr Richard Rubira said he was concerned about the development’s impact on neighbouring residents.
“In this town we have very limited accommodation for independent living for our aged residents who are vulnerable,” Mr Rubira said.
“I really am concerned that this development will have... a serious adverse effect on the people in the villas...
“The second problem is it’s also very close to a primary school with children walking around that area, and I’m concerned (about) the additional traffic.”
Mr Rubira also incorrectly stated that there is already a 24/7 convenience store nearby.
However the Shell Petrol Station and Coles convenience store he was referring to does not operate overnight.
Mr Oliver Raschke also spoke against the proposal.
“If someone affected by drugs or alcohol wants something to eat in the early hours, a 24 hours food and drink outlet will give them somewhere to go,” Mr Raschke said.
“When they‘ve had their food and drink, (with) their judgement to make good decision impaired, they may decide to behave inappropriately… making noise, vandalism (sic) or whatever.
“Whether or not that actually happens, if this development proceeds, the fear of that is real now.. and those residents (of the aged-care villas) will have that fear seven days a week.”
The third speaker, Mr Bret Fleming, said there were measures in place to address some of the residents’ concerns.
For example there will be a 2.2 - 3.2 meter acoustic fence between the proposed development and the residential villas to address noise concerns.
And the delivery of goods and fuel will not be undertaken by B-Double trucks, with only smaller vehicles allowed.
And those deliveries would only happen between 7am and 10pm.
However, Cr Justin King put forward an amendment to the planning application, prior to it being voted on, that would change that.
He proposed passing the planning application with an amendment stating that deliveries could only take place between 9am - 1pm, and 4pm and 8pm Monday - Friday, and 9am - 8pm on weekends.
Cr Bernie Hearn seconded that amendment.
Cr Peter Davis also recommended an amendment to limit the opening hours to 6am - 11am, seven days a week.
That was not seconded and was therefore not included in the recommendation.
The planning application was ultimately passed 4-2 with Cr Davis and Cr O’Brien voting against, and Crs King, Firth, Claridge and Hearn voting in favour.
Editor