Recent comments on applications from City of Holdfast Bay, SA

  1. In Glenelg SA on “Removal of Significant...” at 37-39 Partridge Street Glenelg SA 5045:

    Kathy F commented

    Why is the tree being removed?

  2. In Glenelg North SA on “Regulated tree removal...” at 27 Golflands Terrace Glenelg North SA 5045:

    Kathy F commented

    Why is the tree being removed?

  3. In Somerton Park SA on “Demolition of existing...” at 6 Salisbury Street Somerton Park SA 5044:

    Brigg Maund commented

    Dear Sir/Madam,
    I am the owner of 2B Boundary road which backs onto the garden of this property and shares a boundary. I would like to understand the plans for this development before it proceeds as there may be significant impact to both our peace, privacy and property value caused by the new build.
    I would also like to discuss if there are any more land on fencing, which I understand is a shared responsibility.

    Sincerely,
    Brigg Maund

  4. In Brighton SA on “Two, two storey detached...” at 20 Coventry Street Brighton SA 5048:

    Resident of Holdfast Council commented

    In the interest of public disclosure - I'd like to illustrate how inept Holdfast Council is at performing their duty. Essentially, the below chain of communication highlights that Holdfast Council do not have any inclination to observe the requirements in their own Development Plan and completely ignore any development requirements. This is posted as a "buyer beware" notification for anyone who is considering purchasing a property in an area in which the Development Plan indicates that no two storey development should be allowed. This is total rubbish and the council will approve two storey development at the drop of a hat. (names removed for privacy - suggest reading from the bottom up from this point.)
    ______________________________________

    From: @holdfast.sa.gov.au>
    Sent: Monday, 23 September 2019 4:48 PM
    To: Resident
    Subject: RE: Development Application ID 110/00426/19 concerns

    Hi,
    Sorry for any confusion here however I thought I clarified that in my email dated 19/07/19. As explained in that email because the application was considered under the Residential Code the only aspect of the development that Council could assess and refuse was the setback from Swan Street. For reasons explained in that email the setback was considered satisfactory and approved. The applicant could have chosen to have the whole development assessed by a private certifier , in which case there would have been no involvement by Council other than to issue development approval once the planning and building consents had been received.
    Team Leader Development Assessment
    City of Holdfast Bay

    From: Resident
    Sent: Monday, 23 September 2019 11:32 AM
    To: @holdfast.sa.gov.au>
    Subject: RE: Development Application ID 110/00426/19 concerns

    Hi,
    Thank you for your response. I appreciate that Council agrees with the Residential Code assessment outcome. However this does not deal with the fact that the development application is in gross misalignment with the principles of the Council Development Plan. In your below email dated 23 September, you indicated that Council has less control over applications, but you have not stated that Council has zero control. On this point, you have also not answered my question in my former email of 18 September, specifically:

    Did Holdfast Council have the capacity to reject the Development Application?

    Kind Regards,
    Resident

    From: @holdfast.sa.gov.au>
    Sent: Monday, 23 September 2019 11:16 AM
    To: Resident
    Subject: RE: Development Application ID 110/00426/19 concerns

    Hi,

    I note the Ministers response which correctly states that it is the role of Council to grant development approval after planning and building rules consents have been granted. In deed the law requires Council to grant development approval once planning and building rules consents have been obtained. The processes involved with the planning assessment and consent as distinct from the final development approval was explained in my previous email, noting that Council has less control over development when assessed against the Residential Code as opposed to Council Development Plan. Council is of the opinion that the assessment procedures and approvals for the development are correct.

    Team Leader Development Assessment
    City of Holdfast Bay

    From: Resident
    Sent: Wednesday, 18 September 2019 9:42 AM
    To: @holdfast.sa.gov.au>
    Subject: RE: Development Application ID 110/00426/19 concerns

    Hi,

    I have contacted the Minister for Planning in regards to this application to seek advice on why/how it is possible that a Development Plan that specifically indicates “no two story houses east of Brighton Road” can be entirely ignored.

    The Minister’s response is attached for your reference. In it, he writes that “It is then the role of council to grant development approval after planning and building rules consents have been granted”. This implies that Holdfast Council still had right of refusal to grant development application as said application was in breach of the principles of the Development Plan as I have highlighted in previous emails.

    I would appreciate your response on this matter to clarify whether Holdfast Council did in fact have the capacity to reject the development application or whether the Minister has provided me with incorrect information.

    Kind Regards,
    Resident

    From: @holdfast.sa.gov.au>
    Sent: Friday, 19 July 2019 3:16 PM
    To: Resident
    Subject: RE: Development Application ID 110/00426/19 concerns

    Hi,

    I note your concerns and if fully assessed under Councils Development Plan I agree that there would be more reasons to warrant a refusal. As previously advised however the application has been submitted under the Residential Code, which was introduced by the Minister and supersedes Councils Development Plan in areas that are applicable to the Code. The Code does not have the same regard to bulk and scale as does our Development Plan and if the application meets certain basic criteria of the Code then it is ‘complying’ development which must be approved. The Code also allows for one non-compliance of the relevant criteria, which can be assessed as a ‘limited assessment’ on merit.

    The subject development meets the relevant Code criteria regarding the secondary road setback to Coventry Street, side and rear setbacks, boundary and other wall heights and other criteria except for the Swan street setback which was assessed as the limited assessment. This was the only aspect that could legally be assessed so most of the Development Plan provisions you have referred to could not be considered. In assessing the Swan street setback consideration was given to a number of factors including its location at the end of Swan Street, the similar setbacks associated with the two storey development previously approved and under construction at the western end of Swan street and reduced setbacks to a number of other dwellings facing Swan Street. Having regard to those it was considered the street setback is satisfactory and given compliance with other Code criteria Development Plan Consent has been granted.

    Team Leader Development Assessment
    City of Holdfast Bay

    From: Resident
    Sent: Friday, 19 July 2019 9:56 AM
    To: @holdfast.sa.gov.au>
    Subject: RE: Development Application ID 110/00426/19 concerns

    Hi,
    I thank you for responding to my previous email. I note that the development application related to 20 Coventry Street, Brighton (i.e. Application ID 110/00426/19) has transitioned to “planning consent” and this concerns me deeply hence I would like to make further enquiries and advise that I am still highly dissatisfied with any decision that would allow the construction of two storey dwellings at this location. I am not opposed to the subdivision of the land as has been done already at 10, 12, & 16 Coventry Street. My grievance is solely with any application to allow multiple-storey construction on this street.
    I fail to see how any development can occur that does not need to be considerate of the Development Plan related to the area in which that development is planned. In this instance, there are multiple elements of the Holdfast Bay Council Development Plan, 2016 which specifically deter and prohibit the construction of a multiple-storey development at this location as per below.
    I draw your attention to Clause 1 (a) of General Section, Design & Appearance, Principles of Development Control (pg. 33), which states “Buildings should reflect the desired character of the locality while incorporating contemporary designs that have regard to the following… building height…”. There are no two storey dwellings at all on Coventry Street or Swan Street and in allowing the construction of such, I feel would be in contravention of this guiding principle.
    I note that Coventry Street is classified within the Holdfast Bay Council Development Plan, 2016 as a general “Residential Zone” which highlights the third objective of this Zone as “development that contributes to the desired character of the zone” (pg. 179). This desired character is then defined on the same page as “predominantly low-density suburban form” and that development “will not compromise the suburban character but will progressively increase dwelling densities through unobtrusive small-scale developments. In this regard, infill development will have a comparable height, mass, scale and setbacks to that of existing dwellings in the relevant locality.”. Finally, it is explicitly stated in this description of ‘desired character’ that “Development outside of the policy areas will generally be single storey in height in the areas east of Brighton Road”.
    For all reasons above, I cannot see how it would be possible to permit the construction of two-storey dwellings on 20 Coventry Street, Brighton.

    In regards to setbacks, personally having significant experience in the construction industry, I do not feel that appropriate prescribed setbacks can be achieved for two multiple-storey dwellings on 20 Coventry Street, giving consideration to:
    1. The need to achieve a setback from street frontage consistent with adjacent dwellings (Clause 19, pg. 79; Objective 3, pg. 179)
    2. The need to have sufficient side boundary setback to minimise the visual impact and overshadowing of adjacent properties (Clause 20, (a) & (b), pg. 80)
    3. Rear boundary setbacks of minimum of 6 metres (Clause 21, pg. 80)
    4. Side boundary walls should be limited in length and height to minimise visual impact on adjoining properties (Clause 23 (a), pg. 80)

    I would like to re-iterate my previous point that I am entirely supportive of subdivision and the construction of multiple dwellings at this address and my sole objection is to the allowance of multiple-storey construction.

    It is with respect that I ask that this development application be rejected for all the above reasons and that permission be granted to the applicant to further develop the site to the extent that single storey dwellings only be permitted.

    If this is outside of Holdfast Bay Council’s ability to control, I would be appreciative of information and contact details to allow me to escalate this concern further. I would be happy to discuss this further at any time and can be contacted on xxxxxxxxxx.

    Kindest Regards,
    Resident

    From: @holdfast.sa.gov.au>
    Sent: Tuesday, 18 June 2019 3:14 PM
    To: Resident
    Subject: RE: Development application dispute

    Dear Resident,

    Thank you for your email. Your concerns are noted however the application has been submitted pursuant to the Residential Code. The Residential Code was introduced by the Minister and where applicable supersedes Council’s Development Plan. Developments that meet certain provisions of the Code (Schedule 4 of the Development Regulations – complying development) are not subject to public notification. The Code does allow for two storey developments regardless of existing character subject to meeting prescribed heights and setbacks. Council will finalise its assessment once final plans have been submitted.

    Team Leader Development Assessment
    City of Holdfast Bay
    Brighton Civic Centre
    24 Jetty Road, Brighton SA 5048

    From: Resident
    Sent: Monday, 17 June 2019 1:30 PM
    To: Holdfast Mail
    Subject: Development application dispute

    Good Morning,

    I am a resident of Holdfast Council and would like to dispute a development application to build two two-storey detached dwellings on an adjacent property. This related to Application 110/00426/19. I do not consent to this development and feel this would significantly detract from the immediate area and devalue my current property. There are currently no two storey dwellings on the entire street, or the entire block on which this development is proposed. There is currently a single single-storey dwelling and demolishing this and replacing with two two-story dwellings would significantly deteriorate from the current amenity of the surrounding area.

    Moreover, the second storey of the dwellings would significantly affect the privacy of the backyards of adjacent dwellings.

    Please advise the process to formally lodge this notification of dispute.

    Kind Regards,
    Resident

  5. In South Brighton SA on “Eight, two storey row...” at 558 Brighton Road South Brighton SA 5048:

    Jane commented

    Totally agree with the above comment! Well said . Trees are going fast , no backyards anymore . We will end up like Sydney and Melbourne. Very sad for our children .

  6. In Brighton SA on “Removal of regulated willow...” at 2/24 Rutland Avenue Brighton SA 5048:

    Jenny Gyss commented

    What’s the point of the tree being ‘significant ‘ if you or other persons can go ahead & remove it, no doubt for ‘significant’ development.🤬

  7. In South Brighton SA on “Eight, two storey row...” at 558 Brighton Road South Brighton SA 5048:

    Neil Morris commented

    To paraphrase the Australian Anthem, ..Beneath our radiant Southern Cross, We've boundless plains to share;
    Yet here we are with another proposed overdeveloped site, on a busy main road, no thought to impact to climate, community or infrastructure.
    This level of development is not sustainable and is destroying what makes Adelaide one of the top 10 city in the world to live. Put an end to this cancerous greed and support the petition on the following link.
    http://chng.it/qZpgjFkKVf

  8. In Hove SA on “Detached dwelling...” at 20 Shephard Street Hove SA 5048:

    Robert Miller commented

    Hi there just wondering if this application is for one storey or two? If it is two stories I would not be happy with windows over looking my property. I hope this will be considered in the planning. thank you

  9. In Glenelg North SA on “Demolition of existing...” at 2 Canning Street Glenelg North SA 5045:

    Paul Williams commented

    i just hope that the Council is taking into acc the extra parking and traffic flow to the area

  10. In Glenelg North SA on “Demolition of all existing...” at 19 Adelphi Terrace Glenelg North SA 5045:

    Bronwyn Watt & Darren Matthew commented

    I feel that the application here is a little misleading. It states two storey townhouses. When in fact it is a SEVEN STOREY (46 apartments), with 10 two storey townhouses in Todd street.
    This is a FIVE storey zone, so why is this development even being consider at SEVEN? I rang SCAP and they advised that it had to be at least six storeys. Seems the zoning is a joke not taken seriously.
    There is another 40 unit development (within 20 metres of this proposal) that was approved last December. This adjacent development has limited parking which will inevitably mean more residents cars being parked in the vicinity. We hope that you consider that Tod Street is very narrow and would find it difficult to accommodate more traffic and/or off-street parking. The area is already very congested. An extremely high-density living area, yet there isn’t enough thought going into the outcome of these high-rise developments.

  11. In Glenelg North SA on “46 apartment building and...” at 19-20 Adelphi Terrace Glenelg North SA 5045:

    Susan You g commented

    We use Kings bridge daily as we go to Glenelg North Beach everyday. The congestion on the bridge at peak times morning, and from 3.30pm and week ends is bad enough but to put a huge apartment building at the end of it is just silly. Who is responsible for rubber stamping these stupid decisions? And we don’t even live nearby!

  12. In Glenelg North SA on “Demolition of all existing...” at 19 Adelphi Terrace Glenelg North SA 5045:

    Paul Williams commented

    it states that it is only a two Storey development as long as it has room on site for owners and visitor parking and dose not impinge on Tod st or the surrounding area

  13. In Somerton Park SA on “McDonalds Restaurant” at 262-270 Brighton Road Somerton Park SA 5044:

    Rachel Koch commented

    We are a family with 5 children (both highschool and primary age) living in this zone/area. Putting a maccas directly across from BSS and Paringa Park Primary School is deplorable. It can be stated again and again that the students are not the target, but let’s be honest.... they will be there all the time! We see enough problems with health, not to mention the environmental effects of this franchise. Our schools are so diligent with educating the kids and parents on ‘one use’ packaging. I send my kids lunchboxes in Tupperware and use no plastic waste. Yet here we are with a place that only uses this toxic waste. Our community is family and environmentally focussed. Please keep this away. There are enough of these franchises already. As a community we are all saying, no. Please consider not just the families, but also the massive damage this will do to our amazing locally owned and operated small food businesses in the area. This will no doubt affect them hugely. I’d rather support local small business any day. As would most others I’m certain. Protect our health, environment and small businesses.

  14. In Somerton Park SA on “McDonalds Restaurant” at 262-270 Brighton Road Somerton Park SA 5044:

    Sco Mo commented

    Seriously ,we already have enough fat kids at school already.

  15. In Somerton Park SA on “McDonalds Restaurant” at 262-270 Brighton Road Somerton Park SA 5044:

    Jasmine Heaney commented

    I strongly object to the proposed location due to its proximity to Brighton high school. There should be a legislated minimum distance of at least 1-2km from schools for this type of fast- food outlet. There is no need for this development and it will do harm to the health of Brighton high school students if it is to proceed.

  16. In Somerton Park SA on “McDonalds Restaurant” at 262-270 Brighton Road Somerton Park SA 5044:

    Libby Edwards commented

    Christos, my concern is much more than just the nature of fast food vs a balanced diet. We want to respect the local businesses in the area, especially the 3 unique coffee shops which have opened in recent times. We are also concerned about the environmental impact McDonalds has - let's start by the use of plastic straws need I say more! The other factor which is of great worry is the increase of traffic on Brighton Rd which is already becoming heavier at certain times of the day. I believe all of these issues need to be seriously considered before such a development goes ahead. We don't need McDonalds in suburbia - why not in Glenelg or Marion shopping centre instead.

  17. In Somerton Park SA on “McDonalds Restaurant” at 262-270 Brighton Road Somerton Park SA 5044:

    Ange commented

    The public health system in Australia does not need to be under anymore financial strain. It is a known fact that obesity related diseases cost our health system billions of dollars.

    A recent report Weighing in: Australia’s growing obesity epidemic discusses the obesity crisis.

    “We are fast heading down the road the United States has travelled and they have discovered exactly how much it costs in terms of health and taxpayer dollars,” Ms Schmiede said.

    The report indicated the financial burden of obesity in Australia is estimated to be $11.8 billion. Those figures consist of $5.4 billion in direct health costs and $6.4 billion in indirect costs.
    (https://media.bupa.com.au/obesity-statistics-australia/)

    Building a fast food establishment in front of a school is extremely unethical.

    Our children need healthy food options in order to thrive and learn and grow into healthy adults.

    I am sure there is another location to be considered, which is not so close to our children's schools.

  18. In Somerton Park SA on “McDonalds Restaurant” at 262-270 Brighton Road Somerton Park SA 5044:

    Hayley commented

    As a City of Holdfast resident and rate payer I oppose this application. I am concerned at the possibility of increased traffic flow through our backstreets which are already used as cut through roads at high speeds. I am also concerned about the fast food smell which is likely to be affect local residents. The environmental impact of a fast food restaurant in our beachside suburb is also of great concern.

  19. In Somerton Park SA on “McDonalds Restaurant” at 262-270 Brighton Road Somerton Park SA 5044:

    Christos commented

    Parents need to parent. End of story. If you don’t want your child eating McDonalds, don’t let your child eat McDonalds. If your child defies you, then you need to address the relationship between yourself and your child. If you don’t like it, don’t give them your business. It’s as simple as that. I have a child at BSS and yes, we sometimes eat McDonald’s but my children also know the value of a balanced diet. Sometimes my child asks me if he can stop at Hungry Jacks in Brighton on the way home from school. Sometimes we say yes and he goes, other times we say no and he respects that. We have a good, open and honest relationship. We share mutual respect. Stop blaming organisations with slippery slope arguments to compensate for your parenting deficiencies. I wonder how many of the people complaining have never eaten fast food or worked in a chain business as one of their first jobs when they were younger? You are responsible for your own child, not society, not council and certainly not an organisation.

  20. In Somerton Park SA on “McDonalds Restaurant” at 262-270 Brighton Road Somerton Park SA 5044:

    Bronwyn McAllister commented

    As a parent of a student at BSS, I am also opposed to this proposal! I have witnessed students purchasing junk food before and after school from the local supermarket and frequenting the local fish and chip shop as well! So, I feel, that building a McDonald's will only encourage the students to buy junk food more frequently! Not to mention the environmental impact on our beautiful area with litter, higher volume of vehicles (encouraging unsavoury behaviour?) and most importantly, the negative effect on our children who choose to eat the unhealthy food options that McDonald's offer.

  21. In Somerton Park SA on “McDonalds Restaurant” at 262-270 Brighton Road Somerton Park SA 5044:

    Sue Erickson commented

    Please say no to this application.
    I live near to the site on the beach side of Brighton Rd. near a small park.
    Litter will be a big problem.
    I do not look forward to the hot fat cooking smells that come with fast food outlets. I chose to live here for the sea breeze not hot fat smells.
    This fast food outlet will have a damaging effect on the small food businesses that are directly opposite Brighton High School.
    I can’t understand why anyone would consider placing such unhealthy food choices near to 2 schools. I understand that the food is inexpensive but that comes at a cost long term.
    Please consider the community that you represent not just the money making aspect.

  22. In Somerton Park SA on “McDonalds Restaurant” at 262-270 Brighton Road Somerton Park SA 5044:

    Kalani poetsch commented

    I attended Paringa park and now attend Brighton high, after a long day at school kids get tired and want food fast. Having a McDonald’s will be the first option for kids to go to before home. Kids should be eating healthy and learning about how what you eat can impact yourself and the environment. The McDonald’s industry is oily, fatty foods that will not provide the energy kids need and will result in obesity. This industry has also impacted the environment in so many ways, with plastic straws and cruel, cheap animals being slaughtered for disgusting burgers. Instead of building another McDonald’s, we should be building a place that has healthy food options that provide the correct nutrients that will help feed children/teenagers growing minds and bodies.

  23. In Somerton Park SA on “McDonalds Restaurant” at 262-270 Brighton Road Somerton Park SA 5044:

    Marian McAllister commented

    As a parent of a Brighton High School student and local resident I also object to any plan to locate McDonalds within walking distance of two local schools. Please see this study for data on the relationship between fast food outlet density and ill health, https://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g1464
    The incredibly cheap sale of sugar filled and fat filled food from fast food chains is a high temptation for our children and youth. You only need a $1 to by a sugar laden drink of no nutritional value. Please fight hard against this plan! As a rate payer I would like to say Holdfast Bay does not need a McDonalds in our council area! We could be the council with the lowest density of fast food outlets, which would make an excellent goal for the councils Regional Health Plan.

  24. In Somerton Park SA on “McDonalds Restaurant” at 262-270 Brighton Road Somerton Park SA 5044:

    Christopher walsh commented

    No MacDonalds PLEASE. We try very hard to sell products with simple healthy and high quality ingredients and take pride in approaching zero waste outputs. Support local not multinational. No to McDonalds devious moves to feed school kids fast sugary foods.

  25. In Somerton Park SA on “McDonalds Restaurant” at 262-270 Brighton Road Somerton Park SA 5044:

    kayne ensten commented

    I am strongly against this McDonald's in Somerton Park / Brighton.
    I am so upset about this even being considered. We don't need a McDonald's here.
    It will cause so much litter for the area, extra traffic at the intersection, more noise and the smell is just horrid.
    There are far too many schools within close proximity and my fear is kids are to easily tempted by this type of business, they will hang here and consume all the junk far too easy.
    We definitely don't want, all of our local small cafe and food businesses to come under threat of such corporate giants.. This type of business is no good for our culture, it adds no real value to the community.
    I know it will create jobs but small independent businesses will suffer.
    Our community is special, its full of gyms, healthy active people and we want to keep it that way.

  26. In Somerton Park SA on “McDonalds Restaurant” at 262-270 Brighton Road Somerton Park SA 5044:

    Eleanor Taylor commented

    I am not in favour of this application. I have recently lived interstate where there was a McDonalds directly opposite a primary school and was appalled at the amount of school children who purchased McDonalds both before and after school. It certainly did not encourage a healthy culture within the school community.

    I have a child who attends Paringa Park Primary School as well as a child who attends Brighton Secondary School. Whilst we will continue to educate our children on healthy food choices, I am concerned that a McDonalds located so very close to their schools and home will prove too great a temptation to them.

  27. In Somerton Park SA on “McDonalds Restaurant” at 262-270 Brighton Road Somerton Park SA 5044:

    Ali Sutton commented

    I believe this application should be unsuccessful. Targeting schools with current rates of childhood obesity is appalling. Increased traffic, noise and air pollution to local residents will also be a problem. Support our local businesses not a multinational.

  28. In Somerton Park SA on “McDonalds Restaurant” at 262-270 Brighton Road Somerton Park SA 5044:

    Katie Gallagher commented

    I totally object to McDonald's being built so close to Brighton Secondary School and Paringa. This country has such a problem with obesity in teenagers and having this restaurant so close to 2 school will be too much temptation for the kids to ignore.

  29. In Somerton Park SA on “McDonalds Restaurant” at 262-270 Brighton Road Somerton Park SA 5044:

    Trevor Fox commented

    We have recently built a new home in Seaforth Ave Somerton Park approx. 6 months ago, located 200 meters from the proposed location and our daughter attends Paringa Park Primary.
    The current traffic that is using our street to cut through at high speeds from cars to trucks from the Brighton Road end is already crowding the back streets and it will only be a matter of time before someone is seriously injured or killed at its current level off traffic as we are a Residential Street with many young families.
    This also applies on Bowker St Somerton Park,near the primary school, which will only get worse if this progresses.

  30. In Somerton Park SA on “McDonalds Restaurant” at 262-270 Brighton Road Somerton Park SA 5044:

    Tristan Kouwenhoven commented

    As a parent of a student at BSS, a teacher and more importantly, community member, I have a number of issues with this application and feel really strongly about it going forward in the proposed location, if at all.
    Firstly, why would we add a fast food chain that has very little nutritionally valuable food in a central location to a high concentration of adolescents, who rely on good diet to effectively learn. This food will have a noticeable academic impact on students who eat there for breakfast or lunch. Then there's the students who struggle to manage their behaviour. Adding high GI foods to their diet will make their behaviour more inconsistent. It is not acceptable for Macdonalds or the council to just say "well they shouldn't eat there then".
    Therefore, as a community member, why would I/we support that for our young people?
    As a teacher, the day Macdonalds opens close to school is the day my job gets harder. With concentration and behaviour of students potentially being reduced, plus students potentially truanting to go to Maccas, my job will move away from teaching and towards behaviour management. This has a flow on effect to all students I work with and grinds down the relationship between school and community.
    As a father, I don't want more opportunities for my kids to eat poor food, I would rather it be more difficult for them to have access to nutritionally poor food.
    I've also recently moved from a seaside town where a Macdonalds opened up. The immediate impact of litter around the beach (and in the water) was profound. I'm sure Macdonalds will try to clean up the litter around their restaurant, but a lot of people who take away will head to the beach to eat their food, and a significant increase in litter will follow. Macdonalds package their product in such a wasteful manner to begin with and this gross waste subsequently impacts on local environment.
    I have to acknowledge the small amount of value Macdonalds adds to a community with employment and financial support of community organisations, but that is no different to the value added by other small to medium businesses. If a city council wanted to assess the viability of a business like this opening up, particularly in the proposed location, they should be considering far more than the revenue it would raise for that council!

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