Bayswater Residents Mobilise Against Proposed 24-Hour Petrol Station Development
Residents in Bayswater are expressing strong opposition to a proposed $2.5 million 24-hour petrol station development at 321 Guildford Road in Maylands. The community has described itself as "fired up" and prepared to contest the application vigorously, citing significant concerns about traffic safety, noise pollution, and overall amenity impacts on the local area.
Development Details and Community Backlash
The planned On The Run facility would include three fuel bowsers with six fuelling points, a 24-hour convenience store, a drive-through fast-food outlet, an automated car wash operating until 10pm, and multiple parking bays. Access would be provided from both Kenilworth Street and Guildford Road, positioning the development near residential homes, a cafe, and approximately 900 metres from Maylands Primary School.
Daniel West, an informal leader of the residents' group opposing the project, stated that the community reaction has been unprecedented in his over two decades living in the area. "This is the most fired up I've ever seen in the community," he remarked. A petition against the development has already garnered 585 signatures, reflecting widespread local discontent.
Mr West emphasised that the community is not inherently "anti-development" but is specifically opposed to the scale and nature of a 24-hour petrol station and the associated activity. "The community is quite welcoming of development in that location," he clarified, highlighting that objections centre on the project's intensity and potential disruptions.
Planning Process and Official Concerns
The Metro Inner Development panel voted 4–1 last October to defer the application for 180 days, requiring the applicant, Hiddings Urban Planning, to provide further documentation to the City of Bayswater by October 23. The application is set to be reconsidered on or before March 31, following a community consultation period that closed on February 23.
City planning officers had previously recommended refusal due to insufficient information regarding noise and light pollution, impacts on nearby residential properties, and limited activation of the public realm. An initial report noted, "The proposed development will have amenity impacts including environmental impacts associated with noise, light, and odour," and described it as "an inappropriate built form for its setting."
The report also highlighted that the original application was lodged in October 2023, with the city requesting additional information that was not provided. No community consultation or council process was conducted at that stage, further fuelling resident frustrations.
Traffic Safety and Independent Review
Traffic safety emerges as a paramount concern for residents, with Mr West characterising Guildford Road as already dangerous. "There wouldn't be a week that goes by that there isn't some kind of traffic accident or incident in that location," he asserted, adding that nearby residents frequently hear "the screech of tires kind of on a daily basis."
He criticised the road alignment as "really bad" and expressed fears about pedestrian safety, particularly for students and parents from Maylands Peninsula Primary School navigating increased traffic. Although the proposal includes a traffic impact assessment, residents commissioned an independent review by Urbii, which found the applicant's assessment "quite flawed" and lacking a "robust, conservative, or completed assessment" of traffic, access, internal circulation, and road safety impacts.
Community Engagement and Future Steps
Mr West lamented the lack of direct engagement from the developer with the community. "There's been no engagement with the community," he stated. "They just seem dead set on putting in what they want to put in, regardless of what the community thinks and wants in the area. The community will fight for a better outcome for the community, as far as we need to and as far as we possibly can."
With community consultation now concluded, the application will be reviewed by the Metro Inner Development Assessment Panel. On The Run was approached for comment but has not yet responded. The outcome of this reconsideration will be closely watched by both proponents and opponents of the controversial development.
