McDonalds; another planning application

swingking

If the decision is appealed then surely someone will have to come up with something else to base their appeal on. As far as I can see all the objections filed are citing the same reasons (food near schools, traffic etc..) and these were most likely considered before the decision is made.

Alan_P

astrofluff wrote: »

You'll probably have to wait another 6 months to have the real answer from ABP (some people will be looking to appeal it, particularly the schools/parents of the school pupils).

What I think will happen is ABP will look at the application on its own merits and apply the development plan as it is. The recent motion not to have fast food restaurants near schools will take months to pass, if it passes. So for the current development plan, if McD's have addressed the problems ABP highlighted last time out, I'd be intrigued to see what is in this new application which isn't agreeable to them - I am thinking they've addressed those issues and there isn't much else to use as a basis for refusal!

ABP's main basis for refusal last time was that it's a very significant site, as one of the main gateways to Greystones, and it deserves better than a drivethru' McDonald's. They can still apply that argument.

And on the point of the proximity to schools :- ABP decided not to apply that national guideline last time because it wasn't in place when the application was submitted. (It actually came into force during the planning cycle for the previous application).

And far from being hamstrung by the LAP, ripping up and overruling LAP's is one of ABP's primary functions. They can overrule a LAP because they simply disagree it, let alone when there's a national guideline in place that ABP is explicitly required to enforce. From ABP's point of view, the fact that WCC adapted a LAP after the national guideline came into force and chose to ignore it is simply a screw-up on WCC's part, and correcting local authority screw-ups is one of ABP's basic job functions.

Alan_P

swingking wrote: »

If the decision is appealed then surely someone will have to come up with something else to base their appeal on. As far as I can see all the objections filed are citing the same reasons (food near schools, traffic etc..) and these were most likely considered before the decision is made.

ABP appeals aren't like legal appeals, where an appellant has to find new evidence or find something that the judge did wrong.

APB can (and frequently do) overturn local authority decisions simply because they disagree with them.

recedite

Alan_P wrote: »

And on the point of the proximity to schools :- ABP decided not to apply that national guideline last time because it wasn't in place when the application was submitted. (It actually came into force during the planning cycle for the previous application).
...And far from being hamstrung by the LAP, ripping up and overruling LAP's is one of ABP's primary functions. They can overrule a LAP because they simply disagree it

As mentioned above, the precise reason they didn't apply the national guideline was because it wasn't in the LAP. That's what they said themselves.
I agree they can overrule a LAP. They will be somewhat hamstrung now if they wish to pursue the proximity to schools aspect of the new planning application, because they previously said they would not overturn a decision based on this exact point.

I'm sure there will be plenty of wriggling and weaseling around the whole issue though. Maybe the timing of the local vote has something to do with WCC and the local councillors wanting to be able to say to local constituents that they did their part, while at the same time passing the buck to ABP. The whole thing looks very two-faced IMO.

pixbyjohn

recedite wrote: »

I'm sure there will be plenty of wriggling and weaseling around the whole issue though. Maybe the timing of the local vote has something to do with WCC and the local councillors wanting to be able to say to local constituents that they did their part, while at the same time passing the buck to ABP. The whole thing looks very two-faced IMO.

Political posturing by our councillors

Alan_P

recedite wrote: »

As mentioned above, the precise reason they didn't apply the national guideline was because it wasn't in the LAP. That's what they said themselves.
I agree they can overrule a LAP. They will be somewhat hamstrung now if they wish to pursue the proximity to schools aspect of the new planning application, because they previously said they would not overturn a decision based on this exact point.

I'm sure there will be plenty of wriggling and weaseling around the whole issue though. Maybe the timing of the local vote has something to do with WCC and the local councillors wanting to be able to say to local constituents that they did their part, while at the same time passing the buck to ABP. The whole thing looks very two-faced IMO.

No, that's inaccurate. ABP said they couldn't overrule the LAP because the national guideline wasn't in force when the application was submitted, and the LAP in force when it was submitted allowed this development.

The national guideline is clearly now in force, and was when this application was submitted.

And anyway, ABP's previous veto was based on their position that the site deserves better. Nothing has changed in that regard,.

Charlie-Bravo

Each site is different with its own unique characteristics, and it is a prominent site at Blacklion. ABP refused the application for a KFC in Galway because it was near a school citing grounds contrary to proper and sustainable development. There are 3 schools here, not one. Each application on its own merits. It will be an interesting fight.

recedite

Alan_P wrote: »

No, that's inaccurate. ABP said they couldn't overrule the LAP because the national guideline wasn't in force when the application was submitted, and the LAP in force when it was submitted allowed this development...

You're wrong; only the second part of that is true (the LAP zoned the Blacklion area as a "Neighbourhood Centre" which would include businesses such as fast food outlets).
Feel free to quote from ABP to back up your claims as to what they said, as I have done.

The national guideline you refer to came into force June 2013, after the first planning application was submitted, but while it was still being considered by WCC. So it was already in place before they made the first decision to grant permission.

recedite

I see this has now been appealed by McDonalds themselves. They are saying the planning condition placing a maximum height for any lettering on the signage of 40cm would make it illegible from any distance, and it would also look too small on a commercial building of this size. Fair point I suppose; the Lidl and the Esso signage nearby is much larger than that.

AFAIK this seizing of the initiative has the effect of preventing the objectors from launching their own appeal, though they can still pay €50 and make submissions to this one.

If an appeal has already been made by either the applicant and/or a valid third party, any other person can become an "observer" and make submissions or observations.

ABP decision is due by 14th Sept 2015.

radharc

recedite wrote: »

AFAIK this seizing of the initiative has the effect of preventing the objectors from launching their own appeal, though they can still pay €50 and make submissions to this one.
ABP decision is due by 14th Sept 2015.

Not true, anyone who objected to Wicklow CC could still have objected.

recedite

And have two appeals running simultaneously?

Jimjay

Decision due today.

LEIN

Jimjay wrote: »

Decision due today.

Any news? I lost the link.

Charlie-Bravo

Decision pushed back until 6th Oct so I believe.

pixbyjohn

Looks like An Bord Pleanala has approved planning permission
http://www.pleanala.ie/casenum/244883.htm

Jammyc

pixbyjohn wrote: »

Looks like An Bord Pleanala has approved planning permission
http://www.pleanala.ie/casenum/244883.htm

Great news!

recedite

pixbyjohn wrote: »

Looks like An Bord Pleanala has approved planning permission
http://www.pleanala.ie/casenum/244883.htm

If you follow the link in the top right corner, it goes back to WCC planning, then "view scanned files" there, the decision is the 4th one down listed under "appeals".
They have said it complies with the Local Area Plan (same as before).
The new "look" of the design in the 2nd application is just right apparently; not too low and/or not low enough as it was deemed to be in the first application. Its now "an appropriate design response" to the location.

People should take note of what really happened here. After the first planning application was appealed ABP made it clear that they could not turn down a fast food restaurant unless WCC amended the LAP to write that ban officially into it. ABP then overturned the planning based on some minor design details, which only bought some time for WCC to amend the LAP. Which WCC could have done, and they would have been complying with new national guidelines at the time by doing so.

WCC did nothing, and along came a second application from Mc Donalds, which addressed the design details. Still no ban on fast food in the LAP.
Greystones Municipal Councillors then saw the amount of local opposition to the fast food being beside the schools, and made a show of voting for a ban. But it was only a couple of days before the decision was granted, so it was obviously too little too late, and for show only. Then the Greystones Municipal District of WCC joined an appeal against the WCC decision to grant the permission. So they appealed against themselves basically.
I doubt that the amendment was ever approved or even seriously considered by the other councillors in WCC. It was all just political posturing for local votes.

In the end, time ran out, there was still no mention of fast food in the LAP, and ABP had no option but to approve the second planning application.

Anyway, as I mentioned at the start of this thread, I like a big mac now and again, so I've no problem with Mc Donalds.

Annasopra

Recedite that's not quite the full story. The Cllrs began the process of amending the local plan a good bit before May 2015. These things can take quite a long time. As far as I know WCC haven't yet voted on the amended plan.

Charlie-Bravo

Yes certainly an opportunity missed by WCC. But they can't be seen to strangle commercial enterprise and the rates they'll collect from it. As long as nothing untoward happened in the original grant of decision which is the first full step in gaining permission.

It'll be interesting to see the inspector's report and then the board's reason for grant.

pixbyjohn

It might be a bit early for this to happen, but you never know!
Quote:
"Originally Posted by The Durutti Column
Anyhow, it ain't gonna happen. Just watch.
And if I'm wrong, I will publicly and ceremonially eat my woolly winter hat in a McD's 'bun' with McD's ketchup and mustard on. While driving through."

LEIN

pixbyjohn wrote: »

It might be a bit early for this to happen, but you never know!
Quote:
"Originally Posted by The Durutti Column
Anyhow, it ain't gonna happen. Just watch.
And if I'm wrong, I will publicly and ceremonially eat my woolly winter hat in a McD's 'bun' with McD's ketchup and mustard on. While driving through."

I seriously wouldn't pay any attention to this person.

He loves a bandwagon to jump on board.

Annasopra

I'm half expecting a legal challenge.

Cerco

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I'm half expecting a legal challenge.

Do you believe there are grounds to mount a legal challenge?

recedite

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Recedite that's not quite the full story. The Cllrs began the process of amending the local plan a good bit before May 2015. These things can take quite a long time. As far as I know WCC haven't yet voted on the amended plan.

How long does it take to organise a vote?
I'm not saying they should insert a fast food ban into the LAP. Just that they could have.

Annasopra

recedite wrote: »

How long does it take to organise a vote?
I'm not saying they should insert a fast food ban into the LAP. Just that they could have.

Amending a local area plan isn't something that can be done overnight.

Annasopra

Cerco wrote: »

Do you believe there are grounds to mount a legal challenge?

I don't know.

Shazerina

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/mcdonalds-gets-planning-for-outlet-near-greystones-schools-1.2377999

Charlie-Bravo

Legal challenge could be a judaical review but there would need to have been a failing in the application of laws in determing the permission. Plus does anyone have the money to do it on the third party/objector's side?

greig

LEIN wrote: »

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

Lein, if anyone does not understand the traffic problems in the area I would suggest going down between 8.45 and 9.15 where it now takes me 30 minutes to get out my estate and on to the main road.

Alun

Whatever about a drive in fast food outlet on that site, once all the schools there get up to full speed, it's going to be total gridlock there at certain times of the day.