OTR’s fifth try at building a service station in Kensington approved following compromise with council

Councillors and opponents of OTR’s controversial service station in Kensington Park have hit out over secrecy behind a decision to give it a green light.

The Kensington Rd site was once home to an Ozone service station. Picture: Eugene Boisvert

Opponents of OTR’s contentious service station slated for Kensington Park have been left “dumbfounded” by the decision.

Chris Shakes, a vocal opponent of the service station, says the decision lacked integirty.

“To any ordinary person... it’s likely to invite questions about the integrity of the process,” Mr Shakes said.

“I would have liked to have seen a detailed analysis. But for some reason it’s been kept secret.

“Is this how the Burnside Council will operate in the future? Is this the style of the so called new Burnside Council?”

A rendering of the contentious OTR service station that has been approved for Kensington Park.

He told The Messenger he and his supporters were looking into a possible review of the council’s decision.

“It’s too early to give greater detail but we are far from done with this,” he said.

The Environment, Resources and Development Court (ERD) has granted OTR parent company Peregrine Corporation development plan consent for the station at 285-287 Kensington Rd.

It comes after Burnside councillors assessed an appeal from Peregrine behind closed doors on March 16 this year, after its proposal for the corner of Kensington Rd and May Terrace was rejected by the council’s assessment panel in September 2019.

The panel, by a 4-1 vote, rejected the plan saying it did not qualify as a “small-scale” development and would create traffic and safety problems.

Councillor Jane Davey, who voted against the plan during the secret meeting last month, said there were major concerns with traffic issues, which present “a real risk to local and broader community safety”.

“It is a disappointing decision... in my opinion it is not in the best interests of the community to have such a development at this site,” Cr Davey said.

She also had concerns with assessment panel and council discussions being held in secret.

Mayor Anne Monceaux, who supported the approval, said it had been a “very difficult decision” for the coucil.

“It’s been a very long journey,” Mrs Monceaux said.

“The footprint that is planned is much, much smaller than what was first proposed.”

The company’s “compromise proposal” had a “significant level of improvements”, addressing amenity, landscaping and scale concerns, minutes from the confidential meeting show.

The council’s chief executive officer Chris Cowley said elected members took into account the assessment panel unanimously endorsing the new proposal.

It was also approved on the “high likelihood of defeat should the matter progress to a hearing based on the amended scheme”, minutes show.

The cost of proceeding to a hearing, in the ERD, could be as high as $50,000.

There was also “potential for the appellant to pursue an even lesser desired development, shaped by the policies in the incoming Planning and Design Code”, the minutes revealed.

Community protests began against OTR’s plan in November, 2016.

In an online video, Mr Cowley said it was a “very difficult decision for council” but it was ultimately swayed by the panel’s unanimous call.

“It was of a significantly reduced scale and essentially redevelops the existing building that’s on the site,” Mr Cowley said.

“Protecting the amenity of the community is one of its highest priorities.”

In a further statement, Mr Cowley said it was the best outcome for the site.

“It was unrealistic to believe that there would be no commercial development at this site, so this decision has achieved an outcome with the least impact to the community’s amenity,” Mr Cowley said.

The council has previously said discussions were held in private to “protect its legal position”.

The decision concludes a longwinded process that began in November 2016 with a community protest of over 200 people against an earlier plan.

Peregrine’s initial proposal was rejected by the state government’s assessment panel in June 2017 and an appeal in the Environment, Resources and Development Court in July 2018 was dismissed.

That decision was then upheld in the Supreme Court, in May 2019.

Months prior to the decision, Peregrine told The Messenger, it would pursue a second proposal if its Supreme Court challenge was unsuccessful.

Peregrine Corporation has been contacted for comment.