232 King Street Newtown NSW 2042

Use of public footway on King Street in association with the licensed 'Moo Gourmet Burgers', including 2 tables, 4 chairs and 2 barriers. Proposed hours of use are 11:00am to 10:00pm Monday to Sunday inclusive (renewal of previously approved application).

External link Read more information

We found this application for you on the planning authority's website over 3 years ago. It was received by them 3 days earlier.

(Source: City of Sydney, reference FA/2015/317)

11 Comments

Have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. gregory stevens commented

    there is not enough room on foot path. I often have to step onto the road to get past out side seating on busy days and when King st becomes a clear way i will be run over when I do so.
    gregory stevens

  2. Bruno Jimenez commented

    I go to Newtown every weekend. I have noticed that this company already has tables, chairs and barriers in this location, blocking pedestrian access.

    This company cannot be trusted. They are requesting council for permission to have 2 tables and 4 chairs and 2 barriers, however they already doing this without authorisation. Which means that they are obstructing the pathway without caring what council has to say, and as they have not asked for council authorisation and they do not know the impact on the community, means they did not care how these tables impacted the community and the people trying to use the pathway.

    There is also not enough space to house both tables there. As soon as someone sits on the road side of any of the tables, the pedestrian access on the pathway is reduced even further than requested. I have experienced this myself, and during busy periods, I had to walk onto the road.

    Based on this lack of respect to the community and council, I would not trust this company. And the additional use of the pathway by using chairs on the table side closest to the road, means that the pedestrians, specially on busy days such as weekends, would heavily block the pathway thus I strongly suggest council to reject the plan.

  3. Luke Bacon commented

    As long as this doesn't limit access to the foot path for pedestrians, I'm all in favour of more cafe/restaurant street seating. I think it brings life to the street.

    Clearly if this reduces access for pedestrians, including people who use wheel chairs or other walking aids, then unfortunately this shouldn’t be approved.

    I assume the council and the applicants can test this out somehow.

  4. Jennifer Killen commented

    As others have pointed out this should not be approved if it will obstruct wheelchairs, prams or other users of the footpath.
    Nor should it be used as an excuse to add a polluting outdoor heater to the many already in operation in King Street.
    Outdoor gas heaters are an enormous waste of energy and contribute to global warning because of the fossil fuel consumed and the carbon dioxide produced. Poisonous nitrous oxides are also produced by gas heaters.

  5. Luke Bacon commented

    I just noticed that this is not an application for new seating, but a renewal of an existing approval.

    If you look at this store on Google Street view, you can clearly see the existing seating and that there is heaps of space for pedestrians to pass. This should definitely be approved in my opinion.

    Here’s the view of the store:
    https://www.google.com/maps/@-33.8953353,151.1816198,3a,41.1y,140.48h,80.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGQIFEUAxLwdJv8vS5lYRQA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

  6. Joe Ortenzi commented

    Well done Luke for looking up the details, and discovering the facts before speaking.

    Bruno, as you can see if you read the complete paragraph, this is a "renewal of previously approved application", so perhaps you would consider withdrawing your assertion the restaurant can't be trusted. They merely want to use the same amount of the pavement as before.

    Jennifer, although very good points, there's no mention of outdoor heaters.

    If access to the pavement is an issue it is the same issue for all restaurants, not just one. So if one venue has pavement seating there is no reason to refuse seating in another venue if their seating area provides the same amount of remaining pavement as all the others. I have lived just off King st for over 8 years and never has there been an issue for wheelchair access and neither the City of Sydney nor Marrickville Council would allow outdoor seating to block safe wheelchair passage.

    Yes, King st is busy, always was, always will be, but I'd happily see people outside enjoying the buzz. It will probably help keep the cyclists off the pavement too.

  7. Bruno Jimenez commented

    And Joe Ortenzi, you should limit yourself to make comments about the application, instead of simply criticise other peoples comments. There are ways to comment on things, without criticising others. This platform is to be constructive comments for a happy community decision.

    Back to the DA in review, I do not recall seeing the "Renewal of previously approved application" until now that has been mentioned. Although I did read it all, including the "Read More" section. However I do understand that if this is a "renewal of previously approved seating" now.

    My comments on the DA are :

    I go to Newtown every weekend. I have noticed that this company already has tables, chairs and barriers in this location, blocking pedestrian access.

    They are requesting council for permission to have 2 tables and 4 chairs and 2 barriers, however they already doing this without authorisation. Which means that they will still be obstructing the pathway as there is also not enough space to house both tables there. As soon as someone sits on the road side of any of the tables, the pedestrian access on the pathway is reduced even further than requested. As this company does "serve their customers" when they are seating in such side of their outside table, they are aware of this blockage, and do nothing. I have experienced this myself, and during busy periods, I had to walk onto the road. This company cannot be trusted to manage their seating as to not impact the pedestrians passing by.

    Based on this lack of respect to the community, I would not trust this company. And the additional use of the pathway by using chairs on the table side closest to the road, means that the pedestrians, specially on busy days such as weekends, would heavily block the pathway thus I strongly suggest council to reject the plan.

    So, Joe Ortenzi, you should now retract your comments about having to retract my "this company cannot be trusted" as you obviously do not know what you are talking about

  8. Joe Ortenzi commented

    I did address the DA, Bruno, over several paragraphs, and since Moo Burgers is seeking to continue with their currently approved conditions, I am very happy to support it. I offer no criticism, merely point people towards information available that they may not have noticed. The "previously approved application" detail I mention is at the very top of this page, copied below for you:

    "Use of public footway on King Street in association with the licensed 'Moo Gourmet Burgers', including 2 tables, 4 chairs and 2 barriers. Proposed hours of use are 11:00am to 10:00pm Monday to Sunday inclusive (renewal of previously approved application)."

    This is repeated on the page with more information, provided by the CoS, under the section labelled "Details", which you may choose to review. http://development.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/DASearch/Detail.aspx?id=1223763.

    You state the restaurant does not have approval to currently do this, but it has been shown to you this is not the case. This is an extension of a "previously approved application". I think you might wish to review your position in light of this information.

    I reiterate, I fully support this application and welcome local restaurants to make similar modest use of the pavement for seating. As a local resident, I have no problem with this type of use of the street as it adds to the liveliness of what has been a very busy shopping and entertainment area for very many years.

  9. Marghanita da Cruz commented

    As an avid pedestrian, footpath occupation is an ongoing bug bear of mine. I think it was during the olympic construction boom, that the Bus drivers finally went on strike over safety concerns of pedestrians who were forced onto the road.

    The standard construction hazard barriers which suddently instruct pedestrians to use the other footpath, often on the other side of a busy street, with no safe crossing point, are completely non-sensical.

    Does the footpath space left comply with disability act for wheelchair access - not to mention the need for Pram access and responsible cyclists?

    City of Sydney should be looking at removing parking spaces, not occupying footpaths, to allow for outdoor dining.

    Are the barriers being used for third party advertising?

  10. Mark Matheson commented

    City Council officers have told me these shops are only allowed to occupy 50% of the public pathway.

    If I see shopkeepers occupying more than 50% I move their furniture out of the way!

  11. Bruno Jimenez commented

    Joe Ortenzi... 1st, you only realised that it was "previous approved DA", because you saw it in Luke's comments and as you stated "Well done Luke for looking up the details, and discovering the facts before speaking", then you went onto a rampage here. Joe, WRONG PLATFORM TO VENT OFF. This is a site for DA comments. Not for you to comment on others input. So refrain from directing yourself to me in this site, and I will stop directing myself to you. Yes I missed the comment about "Previous approved DA" but you did not see it either until someone else did. Even on this you are not even original, need to piggyback on someone else's research. This company "ALLOWS" for their customers to sit on the closest road side when on their tables, exceeding their "Previously approved DA" agreed space. So this company does not care for pedestrians, Wheel chairs, disabled persons, etc.... No, this company cannot be trusted that they will stay within their agreed "Previously approved DA" allotted area, and will directly impact pedestrians.

  1. Have you made a donation or gift to a Councillor or Council employee? You may need to disclose this.

  2. Please use your real full name if possible.

  1. We never display your street address. Why do you need my address?

This week

Find PlanningAlerts useful?

This independent project is run by a local charity, the OpenAustralia Foundation. PlanningAlerts is powered by small, tax-deductible donations from the people who use it to stay informed about changes to their local area. If you find it useful, chip in to support PlanningAlerts.

Back PlanningAlerts