McDonalds; another planning application

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.

Annasopra

On the traffic thing its odd he referenced secondary schools and not primary schools.

recedite

I think its because primary school kids are never allowed off the premises, whereas secondary school kids often go out at lunchtime, if their parents have given the consent.
The reality of traffic is that a problem only develops when everyone tries to use a road at the same time.
Schools traffic will be a problem at 8.30 - 9am, and McDonalds won't have any extra impact on that.

Annasopra

recedite wrote: »

I think its because primary school kids are never allowed off the premises, whereas secondary school kids often go out at lunchtime, if their parents have given the consent.

What has that got to do with traffic at school pickup time?

recedite

Nothing to do with traffic, and everything to do with whether it is appropriate to have fast food outlets near schools.

The traffic thing is a red herring IMO. Do you seriously think there would be traffic gridlock at 1pm, just because junior infants are leaving school at the same time as I'm going down for my big mac?

2011

recedite wrote: »

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.

So I take it that you would have no issues with a non-drive thru McDonalds on the main street of Greystones. Fair enough.

Am correct to assume that you would also have no issue to having McDonalds, Burger King and KFC all in Blacklion?

If your answer is yes to both of the above, fair enough. I am not going to argue with you, it is just not the way I would like to see Greystones ending up.

recedite

Yes to both.
Have you got a problem with the existing fast food outlets on the main street, or is it just Mc Donalds you don't like?

2011

recedite wrote: »

Yes to both.

Fair enough.

Have you got a problem with the existing fast food outlets on the main street, or is it just Mc Donalds you don't like?

I have no issue with he existing fast food outlets.

They are not as "in your face" as the average non-drive through McDonalds is. I do not think that a McDonalds would be a positive addition to the main street. I like the look of many of the shops, cafes and restaurants on the main street and in my view a McDonalds would detract from these. I have admit that the McDonalds in Bray is the best looking (because it is the most discrete) that I have seen. But if I had my say and could have put it anywhere in Bray I would put it up beside Woodies. I have no issue with McDonalds / Burger King / KFC in the types of locations I described above.

recedite

I tend to agree, but as I said McDonalds can, and do, adapt their appearance to the requirements of the location. But in this situation there is no need for them to be on the main street. The Blacklion centre was described by the ABP inspector as an "edge of town" location, making it more suitable than the main street.
The woodies type location you mention is more an "out of town" location, and while several people on this thread have mentioned that they favour that type of place for a McDonalds, there are other problems with out of town shopping areas, mainly that they tend to kill off the existing businesses in a nearby town centre. They also encourage car use, and discourage pedestrians and cyclists. And if you remember, the same often quoted national planning guidelines which aim to improve the nation's health by instructing councils to consider putting restrictions on fast food outlets near schools when drawing up a LAP, also instruct councils to "prioritise" access to facilities for pedestrians and cyclists.

micandre

Jamie Oliver VS Fast Food, Food Revolution, Pink Slime, McDonald's

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbPK9mF4xqU

Coltard

micandre wrote: »

Jamie Oliver VS Fast Food, Food Revolution, Pink Slime, McDonald's

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbPK9mF4xqU

This is irrelevant, happened years ago and subsequently McDonalds have changed the ingredients.