Lack of con­sul­ta­tion claims

Southern Gazette (South Perth) - - NEWS - Aaron Cor­lett

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.

Pro­posed McDon­ald’s

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Australia

© PressReader. All rights reserved.