This is the editorial from The Daily Examiner on Saturday 8 May 2010 selectively reports:
THE good people of Yamba might need to get used to having a McDonald's fast-food outlet in their town.
Council officers, in business papers to be presented to Clarence Valley councillors on Tuesday, say there are two options for the development.
Their preferred option is to approve the application, but have suggested it could be refused on 'good grounds'.
It is hard to see what those 'good grounds' might be.
Since McDonald's lodged its development application in March, many in Yamba, including the chamber of commerce, have raised concerns about the impact it could have on existing businesses.
Others have raised concerns that a multinational fast food outlet does not fit with the village feel of Yamba.
As council staff correctly pointed out in their assessment of the application, these are not grounds for the council to knock back the DA.
"Council has generally never considered a perceived competition between businesses as valid grounds for objection," the council report says.
It also points out that 'decisions about brands or other ethical issues associated with the type of businesses within a community' was not a role for local government.
Much as some community members might object, that is the right approach.
We have seen with applications in Wooloweyah and James Creek the huge cost council can face when councillors vote against their officers' recommendations.
They should vote in support of the DA, much as it might go against the grain.
What the editorial did not point out was that the planner's report is sufficiently concerned about the anti-social behaviour that McDonald's 24hr fast food outlets attract that its recommendation to Clarence Valley Council is worded thus:
It is likely that the proposed 24 hour operating hours could result in an adverse impact to the locality by an increase in noise to adjoining properties from traffic, patrons and operation of plant equipment. With regard to acoustic amenity and given the proposed new use of the site adjoins a residential zone, a reduction in operating hours from 24 hours would reduce the potential for adverse amenity impacts to nearby noise receivers, and in particular the residential allotments along the western boundary of the allotment. Negotiation with the applicant has sought a reduction in the proposed 24 hour operation to 6am – 12am, seven (7) days a week. This will help mitigate any problems associated with noise and anti social behaviour that may occur from a 24 hour license.......
OPTIONS
Council may:
1. Approve Development Application DA2010/0203 subject to the conditions
outlined in Schedule 1 including:
- A reduction in the 24 operation hours to 6am to 12am; and
- A reduction in height of the pole sign from 10 metres to 9 metres (the maximum
building height permitted by the DCP for business zones).
2. Refuse Development Application DA2010/0009 for good reasons
Option 1 is the preferred option.The report also noted that:
Of the individual submissions received 25 supported the application and 455 were opposed.....
the primary issues raised by the submissions include:
- Competition and loss of revenue to existing businesses
- 24 Hour operating times and associated noise and potential increase in anti
social behaviour
- Increase in Litter/waste
- Increased traffic impacts, road and pedestrian safety
- Public Health Issues and Social Impacts
- Impact on Character and Amenity
- Devaluation of Adjoining Properties
Elsewhere in the newspaper that day an article did mention the recommended reduction in trading hours and signage height. However, like the editorial it was silent on the fact that the report stated local government could consider the effects of competition on existing local businesses if such competition were to be:
...accompanied by a prospect of a resultant overall adverse effect upon the extent and adequacy of facilities available to the local community if the development be proceeded with..
In other words, reduction in consumer choice can be an issue Clarence Valley shire councillors may properly consider in their deliberations.
Yet one wouldn't be aware of that if going to The Daily Examiner for information.
No comments:
Post a Comment