McDonalds; another planning application

recedite

Here it is.

..two storey building (1114sqm), comprising a cafe (158sqm), a health and fitness studio (598sqm) and a commercial unit (358sqm) in addition to the provision of a two storey drive-thru restaurant (624sqm), plus an enclosed yard measuring 30sqm, including the ancillary sale of hot food for consumption off the premises. The development which is principally provided in the north eastern corner of the Blacklion Centre will also consist of the provision of an additional 11 no. car parking spaces, the partial rearrangement of the existing car park to provide for internal vehicular access arrangements (the development will be accessed via the Blacklion Link Road and the main entrance into the Blacklion Centre); pedestrian accesses, bicycle parking, lighting, signage (elevational and freestanding structures for the drive-thru restaurant including a height restrictor and custormer order points with canopies, outdoor seating areas, plant, landscaping, boundary treatments and all associated site works above and below ground. The proposed development is set back on the eastern frontage to the R761 by circa 2.75m from the existing footpath edge to facilitate the ceding of land to Wicklow County Council for future road widening to facilitate a proposed left turning lane

Mine's a Big Mac with Coke.

Mahogany

Great news

swingking

I can't understand the debate on Facebook about this. I think it's a great idea. It brings jobs and other businesses will be encouraged to open up too.

It's just as easy to buy junk food in any of the fast food restaurants in Greystones: Jokers, Pinettos to name a few. I will be well browned off if this application is rejected

Alan_P

swingking wrote: »

I will be well browned off if this application is rejected

I would expect to be browned off, the last McDonald's application at the same site was rejected.

Mitch Connor

Alan_P wrote: »

I would expect to be browned off, the last McDonald's application at the same site was rejected.

rejected on aesthetic reasons to do with design. If they have taken the reasons for the initial rejection on board and based the new design on this, as you would imagine they will have done, then there is a much smaller chance for rejection this time around.

Why would you expect the application to be rejected again?

Charlie-Bravo

ok, so here we go again - I'll be on the fence as I see the pro's and con's. But what will be interesting is if the reasons on the last outcome have been addressed? Has anyone had an opportunity to review the new application and see how it addresses the issues from last time?

2011

Mod warning: Trolling, snide remarks and childish bickering will result in the thread being locked and/or people being banned. Let's not cover the same ground again. If you feel that a post has overstepped the mark, don't retaliate, instead report the post.
Life is too short.
Thank you.

Alan_P

Mitch Connor wrote: »

rejected on aesthetic reasons to do with design. If they have taken the reasons for the initial rejection on board and based the new design on this, as you would imagine they will have done, then there is a much smaller chance for rejection this time around.

Why would you expect the application to be rejected again?

Because I suspect Pleanála's objections aren't resolvable. Their ruling implies they dislike the basic concept of a drivethrough restaurant at this location, and came close to saying they wouldn't allow anything other than the development that previously got planning permission.

recedite

Bord Pleanala case file is here. The reports can be downloaded from the "documents" section.
Interestingly, the Bord Pleanala inspector rubbished some claims that had been made in the appeal about traffic congestion and flooding, but he supported the objection re proximity to schools, saying;

inspector wrote:

The Local Area Plans: Guidelines for Planning Authorities published by the Minister in June 2013 seek to promote active and healthier lifestyles by inter alia reducing the exposure of children to the promotion of foods that are high in fat, salt or sugar through careful consideration of the appropriateness and/ or location of fast food outlets in the vicinity of schools and parks. The Board shall have regard to these Guidelines in the performance of its functions. It is considered that the proposed development comprising of a fast food restaurant on lands adjacent to a three-school campus of primary and secondary schools would be contrary to these Guidelines and prejudicial to public health. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

But McDonalds pointed out that WCC could have put such a local area plan into the Development Plan, but failed to do so. If that is the case, it is not the business of ABP to enforce a LAP that does not exist.
Also it was pointed out that the same national guidelines issued by Dept. of Environment recommend that both schools and restaurants be located in areas specifically designated by planners as "neighbourhood centres", such as the Blacklion Centre. Therefore they can and do co-exist in town/village central areas, as happens in many other places.

When the actual decision from ABP came, the ABP inspector's concerns re the schools were not used. Instead a new concern, which he hadn't even thought of in his report, was given as the reason. This new "concern" was that the McDonalds building was too low and not spectacular enough to be the gateway building that people first see on arriving into Greystones.
IMO this has all the hallmarks of a trumped up concern, hastily put together when they realised that the schools issue had no legal basis.
This is what they said in deciding the final refusal;

At a Board Meeting held on the 23/12/2013 the Board decided to defer a decision on this appeal. Subsequently at a meeting held on the 09/01/2014 of all available Board Members the Board by a majority of 4:3 decided to refuse as follows
1. Having regard to the position of the site at a gateway location into Greystones and to the outstanding permission for a Fitness Centre granted
under PL27.209412 , development at this location has considerable importance in terms of its urban form and civic structure . It is considered
that the proposed Drive Thru restaurant by reason of its size, low scale and extensive parking and vehicular circulation area involves a radical alteration from the permitted development , which is considered to be an inadequate design response particularly when compared to the architectural coherence of the approved scheme that was based on a comprehensive design scheme for this landmark location. It would, accordingly, seriously injure the amenities of property in the vicinity and be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

N.B. In deciding not to accept the recommendation of the Inspector in relation to health issues the Board had regard to Local Area Plans: Guidelines for Planning Authorities published by the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government in June 2013, but noted that the subsequently adopted Greystones- Delgany Local Area Plan 2013 has no policy/objectives relating to the location of fast food outlets in proximity to schools. The Board also considered that the current proposal detracted from the previous permission (still operative) which involved a unified design approach to the overall development of the site in a key corner location, as set out in the above refusal.

And here's what the ABP inspector said about the low-rise design, which seems to be the exact opposite to what his bosses decided in the end;

10.11 I consider that the amended design is acceptable for this location having regard to the contemporary materials and finishes of the existing blocks of development in the Blacklion Centre. The amended proposal, whilst somewhat generic, is a simplification of the original proposal and is less obtrusive and more consistent with the surrounding development pattern. Having regard to the type of use, I consider that a lower rise structure is appropriate for this location. As noted in the Planning Report, this helps to provide a transition with the 2-storey structure to the south. The shopping centre therefore remains the landmark for this location rather that a new corner structure. In addition, the proposed building is located quite close to the road edge, which will go towards addressing the street and concealing surface level car parking.

So IMO there can be no objection now in principle to a Mc Donalds, but McDonalds just needed to address the design of the building, such that it looks more impressive, and maybe put the car parking a bit more out of sight.
I haven't actually looked at their new design yet, but what I'm saying is, its just a matter of getting the right "look" now (unless ABP decide to move the goalposts again)

Annasopra

Doesnt the Greystones Area Plan now have to be rewritten because of the council changes?

Charlie-Bravo

From a first look, has the 'Draft' area plan even been adopted yet?

Edit: It has reached Stage 4, so yes http://www.wicklow.ie/greystones-delgany-kilcoole-local-area-plan-2013-2019

recedite

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Doesnt the Greystones Area Plan now have to be rewritten because of the council changes?

No, it comes up for review every 5 years.

ABP must have known that they were only buying some time by refusing it on elements of the design.
WCC could have used that time to draft an amendment to the development plan, inserting into a LAP for Blacklion that fast food outlets would not be permitted near existing schools. But they didn't.

But then WCC were not against the McDonalds being in that location in the first place, they granted the original permission. Why is this?

I suppose somebody is losing money while the building is not fully occupied, and nobody seems to want to set up a gym there. Money talks.
Or it could be that WCC are too busy with other important matters (including ones that are totally outside their sphere of influence, such as voting no confidence in Irish Water). Or maybe they just can't be bothered taking an interest.
IMO somewhere near the Aldi would have been a better place, but still, McDonalds are entitled to justice and fair play in their planning application.

Wicklow Will

To those of you supporting the construction of such a fast food joint as this, in this location can you truly, in all honesty tell me that you have no qualms whatsoever about locating this at the entrance gates to THREE schools, given all the reports about childhood obesity that is plaguing Ireland in the 21st cent?!?!?!? It's the equivalent of locating your hen house beside a foxs' lair! Com'on people wake up and smell the coffee (and preferably NOT a cup of MacD's - at least not in that location)!!!

cocker5

LEIN wrote: »

This was done to death in the original thread, do we really have to go through it all over again?

It's a little tiresome now....

Original thread

Nor sure why the loaction is such a huge problem... Mcdonalds in Naas is 50 feet away from the secondary for the last 7 years (i think maybe more) - its all a matter of choice, i for one think a McDonalds would be a great addition to the area .. would i use it (yes maybe twice a year) - will i use it on a regular basis - no beacuse i know its unhealthy for me.

We all need to grow up as a nation and take respomsibilty for our own actions - no one forces the food down out throats. :rolleyes:

2011

There is considerable demand to debate this issue again.
On that basis posts from both sides of this arguement have been reinstated.
We want to keep this thread open but this will only be possible if people can debate / discuss the issues in a civilised manner.

Annasopra

recedite wrote: »

No, it comes up for review every 5 years.

Yes but in the "Stage 1 - Pre Draft Public Consultation Issues Booklet" on WCC website it says;



The Planning Act requires that towns bigger than 5,000 persons are provided with ‘Local Area Plans’, which are prepared under a separate process after the county development plan is adopted. In this regard, following adoption of this county development plan, new LAPs will be prepared for the following towns / areas:
- Bray Town and Environs (replacing the current Bray Town Plan 2011- 2017 and the Bray Environs LAP 2009-2015)
- Arklow Town and Environs (replacing the current Arklow Town and Environs Development Plan 2011-2017)
- Wicklow Town - Rathnew and Environs (replacing the current Wicklow Town and Environs Development plan 2013-2019)
- Greystones – Delgany - Kilcoole (replacing the current Greystones – Delgany – Kilcoole LAP 2013-2019)
- Blessington (replacing the current Blessington LAP 2013-2019)
- Newtownmountkennedy (replacing the current Newtownmountkennedy LAP 2008-2018)

Fiachra2

How like WCC to omit any national guideline that interfere with their (unstated) objective of allowing any developer to build anything they like anywhere they like.
I am open to correction on this but I think the Board can rely on a guideline or any planning recommendations/directives etc irrespective of whether it has been adopted by the local authority. I doubt the inspector would have referred to this otherwise notwithstanding that the Board chose to ignore that particular guideline.

Alan_P

Fiachra2 wrote: »

How like WCC to omit any national guideline that interfere with their (unstated) objective of allowing any developer to build anything they like anywhere they like.
I am open to correction on this but I think the Board can rely on a guideline or any planning recommendations/directives etc irrespective of whether it has been adopted by the local authority. I doubt the inspector would have referred to this otherwise notwithstanding that the Board chose to ignore that particular guideline.

As I understand it, the guideline prohibiting fast food restaurants near schools wasn't formally in place when the previous application was submitted, and that's largely why the Board didn't feel they could use it as a criteria. And yes, that's my understanding :- irrespective of what WCC do, the Board can use a national guideline as a deciding factor.

loyatemu

Is that guideline definitely in place now?

Alan_P

loyatemu wrote: »

Is that guideline definitely in place now?

I believe so,yes.

2011

loyatemu wrote: »

Is that guideline definitely in place now?

I don't know but this suggests that the ban should be in place.

LEIN

cocker5 wrote: »

Nor sure why the loaction is such a huge problem... Mcdonalds in Naas is 50 feet away from the secondary for the last 7 years (i think maybe more) - its all a matter of choice, i for one think a McDonalds would be a great addition to the area .. would i use it (yes maybe twice a year) - will i use it on a regular basis - no beacuse i know its unhealthy for me.

We all need to grow up as a nation and take respomsibilty for our own actions - no one forces the food down out throats. :rolleyes:

TBH, I don't know what the fuss is all about.

2 primary schools who are not be permitted to leave the school for lunch.

1 Secondary school who are not permitted to leave the school for lunch until 4th year. If they go to Mc Donalds everyday for lunch, where are they getting the money from?

I personally don't believe that they are targeting the schools. It's a busy spot down there with Lidl and the other shops. I will have 2 of my own children in the secondary school in the coming years and I have no issue at all.

It is up to the parents to educate their children and that's the main point here.

legrand

Clearly the educate bit (nor the parental responsibility) is not working where 25% of 11 year olds are obese. Perhaps some might think the initiative to ban fast food joints near schools is a representative of a Nanny state - but frankly I personally think its a good idea. How many kids (say on ½ days on Wednesday or after school on Friday) will be looking forward to a 'special treat' which turns into a convenient and regular part of their diet?

McDonald's may not be targeting schools - but you may be damn sure they are licking their lips at the prospect of getting the go-ahead in this particular location.

glenjamin

Look at Bray as an example. There's a primary school almost opposite the McDonalds there and two secondary schools within a 5 minute walk too. Its the parents job to say no to the younger kids when they want to go there, and the parents job to educate their kids on the hazards of constant eating of fast food. Plus where exactly are the kids going to get money from to get themselves a McDonalds? The parents of course. All these parents objecting about McDonalds going in at Blacklion need to realise that its down to them whether their children eat there or not.

red_bairn

glenjamin wrote:

Look at Bray as an example. There's a primary school almost opposite the McDonalds there and two secondary schools within a 5 minute walk too. Its the parents job to say no to the younger kids when they want to go there, and the parents job to educate their kids on the hazards of constant eating of fast food. Plus where exactly are the kids going to get money from to get themselves a McDonalds? The parents of course. All these parents objecting about McDonalds going in at Blacklion need to realise that its down to them whether their children eat there or not.

Unless they work and can buy the food themselves...

Jimjay

I was in our local supermarket and a large lady with two large very young children were at the checkout in front of me. Part of their shopping basket included three big packets of buscuits. After they packed their bags and were about to leave the checkout they had a packet each and by the time they were at the door they had opened them and began eating away. How on earth did this supermarket get planning permission :pac:

Fiveplusone

Thankfully we all live in an age that we are educated enough to know that fast food everyday is not good for anyone. I certainly do not need anyone telling me what to eat. If I want a burger Ill have one, I am not overweight and have never been overweight thankfully. However, over the years I have have had the odd fast food meal as have my children. They knew it was a treat as were sweets. Never had hassle from them if I said no. Maybe therein lies the problem with some.

mrbrianj

Thinking of a Fast food 'giant' targeting an area with lots of schools, does make you worry. But at the same time there is a supermarket close by that sells some things that wont be on the healthy menu - that does not seem to pose any problems.

My main worry would be the extra traffic, its already pretty busy in the area.

sinead81

SERIOUSLY!!!! As a 33 year old that grew up in Greystones..... this is GOOD NEWS! It is extra jobs, and investment into the town which it needs. I went to school beside Pineto/Jokers/Mooneys..... and surprise surprise I didnt end up obsese like some people are suggesting will happen when a McDonalds opens up beside their school.

BRAY IS AN EXAMPLE??????!!!!!!????? Hello!!!!!!

I now live in an area 20 mins from Greystones and OMG I have 2 McDonalds beside me, I have to stop myself from going in every day, OMG it is torture - NOT!!!!!

Seriously, it is not a bad thing and hello...... Lidl will be beside it and are you telling me that Lidl is the Happy Pear shop for Blacklion?? No, it has 'bold' food which I am sure no one is screaming about.

I am sure if it was ANOTHER coffee shop then there would be no objections

mrbrianj

Quick, someone get that girl a happy meal!!!

recedite

Alan_P wrote: »

As I understand it, the guideline prohibiting fast food restaurants near schools wasn't formally in place when the previous application was submitted..

I don't think any such guideline is in place; the politicians are still talking about it. Here's another link relating to that.

There is another matter at play though, which is a bit complicated. A national guideline was issued in June 2013 instructing county councils to take into consideration various health issues when forming LAPs. This includes prioritising pedestrians and cyclists, providing open spaces and playgrounds, and the "careful consideration of the appropriateness of fast food outlets near schools and parks". The guideline was already in place last time ABP made a decision.
The previous Mc Donalds application was made under an older county development plan, and there was no LAP for Blacklion taking account of these things, and no need for them. Then the subsequent development plan of Sept 2013 contained new local area plans, but still nothing about the fast food. The new Mc Donalds application is being made while this new plan which (possibly) ignored the June guidelines is in force.

Maybe ABP could try to say that the new plan somehow "lacks validity" because it is negligent in failing to ban fast food outlets near schools and parks. Then they might try to impose their own virtual version of a LAP.

That would be tricky, and not the same thing as imposing some definite guideline from the govt banning fast food near schools (which has not appeared yet).

WCC could say they did "consider" a restriction, but decided against it on the basis of the neighbourhood centre zoning in the particular location, which would normally be in place to facilitate and allow for shops and food outlets.

If ABP get it wrong and overstep their powers, they can themselves be appealed through a judicial review.

Charlie-Bravo

Wow, judical reviews is all about who has the money to do it in court. In this case, I think McD's could throw a few quid at it and not the schools/objectors. This will get interesting...

clocha_liatha

no way should they get planning in my opinion, too close to schools, busy junction and traffic would be chaotic trying to get out of redford park

braddun

do you want pink slime mc nuggets

Chef Jamie Oliver wherein Oliver tried to convince Americans not only to eat better but also to address their dependence on fast food — not surprisingly, Oliver soon set his sights on giant fast food corporation McDonald’s. here’s this chef with television shows in the U.K. and the U.S. who is pushing a healthy diet agenda on either side of the pond. He’s trying to convince the denizens to just say no to junk food. McDonald’s, therefore, seems like a natural opponent. But Oliver’s beef with the fast food chain was not fueled by its greasy, high- and empty-calorie meals, marketed as aggressively at children as they are to adults. The fight boils down to how McDonald’s used to prepare it burger patties.


McDonald’s used to take the fatty bits and pieces of beef, which are described by Oliver as “unfit for human consumption,” and wash them in a solution of ammonium hydroxide. Why? To kill bacteria such as salmonella and E coli. “Basically, we’re taking a product that would be sold in the cheapest way for dogs, and after this process, is being given to human beings,” said Oliver

LEIN

clocha_liatha wrote: »

no way should they get planning in my opinion, too close to schools, busy junction and traffic would be chaotic trying to get out of redford park

Do you genuinely believe a fast food outlet is going to cause traffic problems?

Alan_P

recedite wrote: »

I don't think any such guideline is in place; the politicians are still talking about it. Here's another link relating to that.

There is another matter at play though, which is a bit complicated. A national guideline was issued in June 2013 instructing county councils to take into consideration various health issues when forming LAPs. This includes prioritising pedestrians and cyclists, providing open spaces and playgrounds, and the "careful consideration of the appropriateness of fast food outlets near schools and parks". The guideline was already in place last time ABP made a decision.
The previous Mc Donalds application was made under an older county development plan, and there was no LAP for Blacklion taking account of these things, and no need for them. Then the subsequent development plan of Sept 2013 contained new local area plans, but still nothing about the fast food. The new Mc Donalds application is being made while this new plan which (possibly) ignored the June guidelines is in force.

Maybe ABP could try to say that the new plan somehow "lacks validity" because it is negligent in failing to ban fast food outlets near schools and parks. Then they might try to impose their own virtual version of a LAP.

That would be tricky, and not the same thing as imposing some definite guideline from the govt banning fast food near schools (which has not appeared yet).

WCC could say they did "consider" a restriction, but decided against it on the basis of the neighbourhood centre zoning in the particular location, which would normally be in place to facilitate and allow for shops and food outlets.

If ABP get it wrong and overstep their powers, they can themselves be appealed through a judicial review.

Read the Inspector's Report for the previous application :- he recommended refusal, and one of his reasons was the guidelines that came into effect in June 2013.

That link you're referencing is dated the 9th of November, 2011. I believe the guidelines of June 2013 are effectively the measures the article is talking about. They were in place last time ABP made a decision, but not when the previous application was submitted, which I believe is why ABP's board decided the guideline couldn't be considered as a refusal reason.

There's no question of ABP creating a virtual version of the LAP :- ABP is required to have regard to the June 2013 guidelines (as is WCC, by the way). Refusing the application because WCC should have refused under those guidelines is simply ABP correcting a mistake of a local authority planning department, which is effectively what it does every time it overrules a decision.

As regards the judicial review route, appealing planning decisions to the courts is very rare, no matter what the stakes are. Planning legislation explicitly states that the only grounds for appeal from APB are a point of law :- the courts can't simply decide that a decision was wrong in planning terms. To take an example, when Sean Dunne was bankrupted by ABP's decision to refuse his Ballsbridge development in it's entirety, he didn't bother going to the courts. We may assume he considered it and was told by his lawyers it was pointless.

In fact, given the June 2013 guidelines, I suspect that a WCC/ABP decision to allow this application is much more vulnerable to judicial review.

This is all speculation, of course :- as a planning consultant once said to me, two things in life are unknowable :- the mind of God and the outcome of an ABP appeal.

Fiachra2

There is an aspect of this that is getting left out of the discussion and is what should be exercising our local public representatives.

The planning guideline exists and in theory at least its a good idea. Irrespective of where you feel the balance of responsibility lies with regard to healthy eating its not a bad idea to keep the temptation away from schools. In addition whether we like it or not the guideline is in place and should be adhered to.

What we now have however is a developer (McD's) asking that the guideline, and in part the town plan, be set aside because THEY want to locate on this site for THEIR commercial benefit. And the only reason that we are having a discussion about kids and healthy eating is because McD's want us to set aside town plans and guidelines for McD's benefit.

But that's not how town planning is supposed to work. There are a number of sites suitable for a McDonalds. They were zoned thus in various town plans. They may not suit a drive thru and indeed they may not be the as profitable as Blacklion but that's where we planned to put such facilities and the developer should be required to comply with the town plan and other guidelines and not try and bend them to maximise his profitability.

It's a new concept for Greystones but it is really high time we ceased to allow developers to dictate the layout of the town

recedite

Alan_P wrote: »

Read the Inspector's Report for the previous application :- he recommended refusal, and one of his reasons was the guidelines that came into effect in June 2013.

Correct, and he was overruled by his bosses. I quoted them both earlier in this thread.

Alan_P wrote: »

That link you're referencing is dated the 9th of November, 2011. I believe the guidelines of June 2013 are effectively the measures the article is talking about. They were in place last time ABP made a decision, but not when the previous application was submitted, which I believe is why ABP's board decided the guideline couldn't be considered as a refusal reason.

I agree with this. So you are now saying no new guideline has been issued since.

Alan_P wrote: »

There's no question of ABP creating a virtual version of the LAP :- ABP is required to have regard to the June 2013 guidelines (as is WCC, by the way). Refusing the application because WCC should have refused under those guidelines is simply ABP correcting a mistake of a local authority planning department, which is effectively what it does every time it overrules a decision.

This is the tricky bit. The guidelines don't say a fast food outlet can't be located near a school. They only say that WCC should "consider" these things when making a LAP. Whether they did consider the issue or not, they did not put any restriction in the LAP. So nothing has changed since; there was no ban in the plan before, and there is none now in the current plan.

By "virtual" plan I only mean that if ABP do not accept what is in the current LAP, they are effectively imposing their own imagined LAP.

If they do that, they are saying the LAP is not valid, which may or may not be touching on a point of law; that could be "exceeding their powers".

All this is only speculative of course; WCC would have to grant the PP first and then somebody would have to appeal it, before ABP would get involved again. Maybe some govt. directive will be issued before then, re fast food and schools.

Suppose they introduced a rigid rule saying that for PP purposes, no fast food outlet could be within x km of a school. It could pose problems for new schools. Lets imagine that a chipper or a takeaway had opened in Blacklion a few years ago when it was first built. Would that have prevented the new schools from being built nearby?

Charlie-Bravo

Well, the other problem may be that WCC will refuse it. McD's appeal it to ABP and round goes the merry-go-round. Am I right in saying that if it goes to appeal after refusal, all the application information is reviewed and not just the reasons for refusal?

Alan_P

recedite wrote: »

This is the tricky bit. The guidelines don't say a fast food outlet can't be located near a school. They only say that WCC should "consider" these things when making a LAP. Whether they did consider the issue or not, they did not put any restriction in the LAP. So nothing has changed since; there was no ban in the plan before, and there is none now in the current plan.

By "virtual" plan I only mean that if ABP do not accept what is in the current LAP, they are effectively imposing their own imagined LAP.

If they do that, they are saying the LAP is not valid, which may or may not be touching on a point of law; that could be "exceeding their powers".

No, they're saying that having regard to the guidelines which they're required to consider, they consider that those guidelines require this application to be refused. The fact that the legislation explicitly requires ABP to consider the guidelines clearly foreshadows this case, where a local authority has failed to fulfill the requirements in it's LAP. There can be no question of ABP exceeding it's powers by fulfilling a duty explicitly placed on it by statute.

And to reply to an earlier poster about schools/objectors not having the money to fight a judicial review, they wouldn't be required to. ABP would defend it's own decision in the courts if necessary.

In any event, as I noted earlier, taking APB to the courts is an extremely rare event and hasn't happened in cases where there was exponentially more at stake. I'd lay a hundred euro it won't happen in this case.

Alan_P

astrofluff wrote: »

Well, the other problem may be that WCC will refuse it. McD's appeal it to ABP and round goes the merry-go-round. Am I right in saying that if it goes to appeal after refusal, all the application information is reviewed and not just the reasons for refusal?

Yes, APB tend to consider a case from scratch, and whilst they note the local authority's decision and rationale, they don't pay much attention to them.

I've read cases where they've reversed a local authority decision because they spotted the local authority had misunderstood a regulation, even though nobody else had noticed or raised the misunderstanding at all.

2011

For those that want McDonalds to be granted planning permission:
Would you like to see a Burger King and Kentucky Fried Chicken there as well?
Would you agree with having any of the above on the main street too?

Although Greystones has lost much of its village charm I think it is still really special. Part of the reason is that it does not have these type of fast food outlets or a large shopping centre. So many bad planning decisions have been made in the past, and once made they are very hard to undo. Just look at the harbour fiasco. In my opinion good planning places these outlets in retail parks (such as Carrickmines), petrol stations (like the new one near Ashford on the N11) and city centres.

Although I do not agree with these establishments being built so close to schools I accept it is the responsibility of parents to educate their children (this has worked well for me). I don't agree with the comparison to supermarkets either despite the fact that they also sell plenty of unhealthy food. The fact is supermarkets do not sell well marketed food that is ready to eat, extremely high in fat, salt, sugar that is also tasty and cheap!

From McDonalds perspective this is about financial gain maximised by employing a small number of low paid staff.

recedite

2011 wrote: »

The fact is supermarkets do not sell well marketed food that is ready to eat, extremely high in fat, salt, sugar that is also tasty and cheap!

Of course they do. Not only that, but they pile up the sweets and choccy bars at the checkouts, knowing that hungry and bored kids can maximise their pestering power at that point by "making a scene" in the queue.

recedite

Alan_P wrote: »

No, they're saying that having regard to the guidelines which they're required to consider, they consider that those guidelines require this application to be refused. The fact that the legislation explicitly requires ABP to consider the guidelines...

You are still looking at this as if the guidelines prohibited fast food restaurants near schools. They don't.
They only say that a local authority should consider the issue of appropriateness of schools and fast food being in the same area when drawing up a LAP. (ie whether to put in a restriction or not).
Its similar, but there is a subtle difference. And the same guidelines were there last time.

2011

recedite wrote: »

Of course they do. Not only that, but they pile up the sweets and choccy bars at the checkouts, knowing that hungry and bored kids can maximise their pestering power at that point by "making a scene" in the queue.

I agree that there is an element of that but few make a meal out of chocolate. Besides sweets & chocolate do not have high salt or fat content that McDonalds food does.

I would be interested in hearing your answers to the questions in my last post.

pixbyjohn

2011 wrote: »

From McDonalds perspective this is about financial gain maximised by employing a small number of low paid staff.

The same perspective as every other restaurant/coffee shop /chipper and eatery in Greystones.

I am not too bothered where Mc Donalds locate but I understand the objections to locating at Blacklion.
I have noticed lately that Mc Donalds & KFC in Carrickmines are very busy most times of the day and they are not situated close to schools.

2011

pixbyjohn wrote: »

I have noticed lately that Mc Donalds & KFC in Carrickmines are very busy most times of the day and they are not situated close to schools.

Agreed.
This is the best type of location.

Would you mind having Burger King and Kentucky Fried Chicken there as well?
Would you agree with having any of these outlets on the main street too?

pixbyjohn

2011 wrote: »

Would you mind having Burger King and Kentucky Fried Chicken there as well?
Would you agree with having any of these outlets on the main street too?

As I said above I would not be too bothered where these fast food premises are located whether it be McDonalds or Kentucky Fried Chicken or any other supplier of fast food.
Greystones has been the target of several food outlets over the years and will continue to be.

stehyl15

I think mcdonalds is better than some of the sh1te they serve up at deli counters in spar and centra

Jimjay

stehyl15 wrote: »

I think mcdonalds is better than some of the sh1te they serve up at deli counters in spar and centra

I used to have the very occasional sausage sanno from supervalu until i saw them delivered to the store pre cooked in shrink wrapped sheets and heated up. They looked gross.

On the subject of unhealthy kids in ireland it always amazes me to see parents at deli couters buying bags of cocktail sausages and handing them to their kids like a bag of sweets. I also had a job which involved working in people houses and the amount of fried food cooked up for breakfast and dinner is stunning and seems quiet normal in many families.

recedite

2011 wrote: »

I agree that there is an element of that but few make a meal out of chocolate. Besides sweets & chocolate do not have high salt or fat content that McDonalds food does.

I would be interested in hearing your answers to the questions in my last post.

There is fat in chocolate, and anyway sugar and fat are interchangeable in terms of being bad for you. Processed foods that are sold as "low fat" are invariably loaded up with sugar, and vice versa.
I don't think eating salt is "bad" as such, otherwise surfers would be the unhealthiest people around. Salt can be excreted. The problem is actually the sodium:potassium balance in the body, and people who eat a lot of junk food often don't eat many vegetables, hence they are ingesting a lot of sodium but little or no potassium. But that is going off topic...

So in answer to your question, a drive-thru would not be suitable on the main street. If necessary, Mc Donalds can adapt to a main street situation and tone down their usual "look". The restaurants in Bray, Dun Laoghaire, and Grafton St. are fairly discreet. But in this case, they are going for a different type of thing; a drive-thru, which is what you would usually see on the edge of town at a crossroads, or like the one at Carrickmines. Lets face it, Blacklion is at the edge of town.

I agree with what the ABP inspector said last time;

Overall, I would be satisfied that the proposed drive-thru restaurant is an appropriate use for a neighbourhood centre such as this. I also agree that this type of development is better suited to an edge of town centre location.
Within the recently adopted Greystones-Delgany/ Kilcoole Local Area Plan, 2013 the Blacklion Centre and appeal site is zoned as a neighbourhood centre where it is the objective "to protect, provide for, and improve a mix of neighbourhood centre services and facilities, which provide for the day-to-day needs of the local community".It is stated that restaurant uses are generally
appropriate within neighbourhood centres and there do not appear to be any other policies or objectives in the Local Area Plan or County Development Plan which limit the provision of fast food or drive thru restaurants in particular areas. In this context, I consider that the proposed development is acceptable in principle.

And I also agree with what he said about traffic;

The peak hour for a fast food drive through for a weekday is between 13:00 and 14:00. This hour does not coincide with peak traffic times on the surrounding road network or with secondary school departure times. Indeed, the peak period of use of a drive thru type development is on a Saturday between 14:00 and 15:00.