McCrappy Deal

They want more than fries with this one.

In an outrageous outburst at the hearing late this week, the legal team acting for McDonalds that want a Maccs situated on Martyn Street where a bunch of old Queenslanders are currently situation, told the judge that the town plan didn't help promote business growth.

They said that preserving three Queenslanders for the purpose they were built, i.e. to be lived in, was inconsistent and contrary to planning objectives.

Where do these people get off?

I have to congratulate the Council in this instance as it's a relatively rare occurrence when this Council has defended the removal / destruction of heritage buildings.

McDonalds believes they have a clear case to win this one and pump up another fast food outlet on a area that is synonymous with character residential homes.

Coming from a Council that has some such consistency on demolishing most heritage buildings where a apartment block was being built, is probably the reason why they are going to the bother to defended the development approval ban.

In what can only be described as phenomenal, Rod Litster acting as the Council's legal adviser said that having a Maccas on that prime corner area, was "not sympathetic to the area."

Rate revenue from an apartment complex, far outweighs what is retrieved from a single business dwelling, and therefore there is more reason to be seen that, rarely, this Council is interested in protecting our older buildings.

It's also interesting that Council would defend this decision in court when the might Maccas lawyers will be rather aggressive, however the opposing arguments are rather weak in this instance.

It's rather amazing that Council picked to fight one, yet there are many more credible ones where this is a larger public vote to stop development or at least improve the plans.

One bad example of approval that should have been challenged, but Councillors were asleep on the job, is the appalling Hedley apartment complex at the lower Freshwater roundabout area. Talk about being "not sympathetic to the area."

Or the Glenwood 4 story 280 apartments at Worre, wrapped around the BP Servo.. talk about "not sympathetic to the area."

Call me cynical, but I reckon it's all about what's compatible with the income stream derived or able to be derived from a development application.