Lack of consultation claims
THE City of South Perth has been criticised for a lack of public consultation after a McDonald’s restaurant was approved to be built at Waterford Plaza Shopping Centre.
The Metro Central Joint Development Assessment Panel (JDAP) gave approval on March 22, with the council sending out 12 notifications to nearby residents and receiving no submissions back.
The plan put forward means that the former Chicken Treat building would be demolished and replaced with a new building.
The development was classed as an Area 1 through the council’s policy P301 ‘Community Engagement in Planning Proposals’, which meant that mail-outs went only 30m from the site.
Manning resident and former Association of Ratepayers and Residents of Karawara secretary Carol Roe attended the JDAP meeting to ask for the application to be deferred.
Speaking to the Southern Gazette, Ms Roe said the McDonald’s outlet should have been classed as a restaurant and not a take-away outlet.
“You look at the people notified and it’s only a 30m distance but this development will affect more people than that,” she said.
“To have no submissions, I think means the policy is a failure but by receiving no submissions they can say that no one cares, which is wrong.”
City of South Perth Deputy Mayor Glenn Cridland said the public consultation undertaken by the council was completed in a manner that was required by its policy P301 ‘Community Engagement in Planning Proposals.’
“Under the ‘Area 1’ consultation method, individual property owners, occupiers and/or strata bodies were invited to inspect the plans and to submit comments during a minimum 14-day period,” he said.
“As outlined in the policy, ‘Take-Away Food Outlet’ is a permitted land use for the District Centre Commercial zone, which in this instance is the Waterford Plaza Shopping Centre.
“Hence, the policy does not require the proposed land use to be advertised.”
Mr Cridland said the site on which the proposed McDonald’s is to be located had a Chicken Treat store operating on it and there was not a significant change in amenity, impact or use by the new proposed development.
“Notwithstanding this, the neighbouring residents most likely to be affected by the proposal are located within the ‘Area 1’ distribution and were therefore consulted and notified by mail of the development application,” he said.