mcdonalds appeal - day 6

The community has continued
to be passionate about this
application.

Day 6 of the hearing started at 2:15pm, in deference to Wilf Wharton’s funeral to allow community members to attend without having to make a decision between being at the tribunal or the funeral. I certainly thank the tribunal for their sensitivity and understanding.

First up some preliminary matters with Ms Mimi Marcus (for Yarra Ranges council) around the planning application for 1525 Burwood Hwy (Saffron Cottage), a locality plan showing where objectors are located (for some reason McDonalds seem to think our objectors aren’t local) and a schedule of signage, indicating that the signage application for approval equals 47.7 sq mtrs, clearly exceeding that allowed as of right.

Next Mr Townshend SC for McDonalds reported that in the context of two additional days of hearing with reflection of the number of submissions and the hope to have a resultant well crafted permit condition, the applicant was working on a revised permit conditions (with tracked changes) for consideration around the lighting to represent a more dynamic light management plan with a short memo to explain the detail of the proposal.

Member Carew asked for the information to be ready by 24 Aug as it is quite complex for residents.

Member Rundell suggested to community members there today that they look at the permit conditions and make comments and include as part of the right of reply.

At 2:31 Ms Porter (for McDonalds) introduced Landscape Architect, Mr Atkinson from Urbis. Mr Atkinson went through the detail of how he came to develop the landscape plan, taking into the account the design objectives, visiting the site taking note of the context and broader surrounding area. On his inspection he made a number of changes to the original landscape plan submitted with the planning application.

Those changes include change of plants along the car park boundary, particularly in the garden bed which had been widened. He talked about the planting along the residential interface which includes Blackwoods intended to grow up above the acoustic fence to a height of 8mt. He went on to talk about plantings in the garden beds, near the disabled car park and in the planter boxes, the materials used on the building, suggesting that the stacked stone was in character within Yarra Ranges. He also said that the veranda blends with the character of the existing streetscape and the flat roof was pleasing as it continued to feature hills to the north.

Ms Mimi Marcus was the first to cross examine Mr Atkinson around the species selected and their fire resistance, she also raised questions around a eucalyptus on a neighbouring private property.

Anne Elizabeth, community submitter, was next to cross examine Mr Atkinson. She raised issues around the existing Liquidamber suggesting that putting a path and seating under the tree had inherent dangers due to the size of seed pods dropped by this species and encouraging pedestrians more so than what occurs on site now. Mr Atkinson said that these were issues to be considered as part of the maintenance program for the site.

Anne went on to query the use of White Cedars along the driveway, also known for their prolific seed pods. Mr Atkinson explained that these were a subspecies that produce less seeds, however confirmed that they do produce seeds. When the issue of pedestrian safety was raised by Anne, Mr Atkinson said he doesn’t expect many people to be walking through this area, however did concede that people would be walking through (the drive through is also the access to car parking), he once again reiterated that the seed pods were an issue to be taken up as part of the maintenance program.

Anne raised issues around the use of Convolvulus, a member of the bindweed family, Mr Atkinson said it was a cultivar for use in planter boxes and garden beds and concluded it was a very safe weed, drought resistant and very hardy. Anne suggested that the use of Convolvulus send a message to people that it’s alright to plant this species, a known weed in Yarra Ranges, Mr Atkinson accepted what she was saying and said it could be easily modified on the plan but stands by it not being an environmental weed.

Anne asked if the plants in the EVC Mountain Grey Damp Forest had been incorporated into the design. Mr Atkinson said the Lightwoods (Acacia) and Yellow Box (Eucalyptus) were included in the EVC, but he also drew upon the McDonalds Landscaping Guidelines to inform the plan.

Anne raised issues around the White Cedar becoming a problem along local waterways, of most concern the nearby Monbulk Creek, however Mr Atkinson did not agree they were a threat and read a brief explanation of the habit of the species out of the Metropolitan Trees Handbook. Anne went on to ask if Mr Atkinson understood the environmental sensitivity of the Yarra Ranges which is greater than metropolitan Melbourne, Mr Atkinson said he had approached the plan that way.

Community submitter, Roz Yeung, also raised a query around the use of Chinese Star Jasmine, Mr Atkinson said the plan was suggested planting at a concept phase.

After the cross examination the Tribunal Members raised a number of issues around the landscape plan.

Member Carew asked about the Liquidambar and pedestrian access to the area, the acoustic fence treatment proposed for 1535 Burwood Highway (on land outside of the proposal – at DVD Destination) where Mr Atkinson confirmed there was consent from the owner to build the fence, the landscape buffers, the ability to relocate the weeping birch (outside Saffron Cottage) and a range of other questions.

Member Rundell also asked questions around the Liquidambar, whether the climbers would need netting or support to grow along the fence line, how many years before the trees would be an effective screen to the site, irrigation and the use of water tanks, the dependence on a good maintenance scheme, the ability of the drive through planting to grow to its full potential, whether landscape bonds were an appropriate mechanism to get effective outcomes, finishing his questions by saying landscaping was a very important part of this development.

Ms Porter (for McDonalds) then continued her re-examination and asked about the width of landscape planting and how it interfaces with neighbouring properties and also made mention of the large outstand to the rear which includes a Eucalyptus Melliodora (Yellow Box).

After the examination was over Mr Townshend SC suggested we were on a reasonably tight leash and should not proceed beyond what we’d agreed. He invited tribunal members to visit other stores and said at a corporate level an internal set of guidelines were in use. Mr Townshend SC went on to say the corporate application to landscaping was driven by a desire to use less water, so there’s an internal return. The plans are over a span of 30 – 40 years and take on a generic quality and with that tabled a set of McDonalds Landscape Guidelines for the tribunal’s consideration.

The day ended with Ms Marcus reporting back that it was council’s view that no permit was required for the fence under Clause 53.

The day ended a little earlier at around 4pm.

The hearing will continue on Monday 3rd September and has been listed for two days (3 and 4 Sept). Next up, traffic experts and if it sticks to what was first intended it will be Mr Hunt from Cardno.

I’ll keep you posted.

mcdonalds appeal - day 5



Community members came out in droves to the
No McDonalds meeting held in May 2011.

Last day of the hearing for this week, it opened with the community refuting the claims that the community had attacked the brand throughout the submission process, this clearly hasn’t been the case.

Mr Townshend SC continued his submission on behalf of McDonalds. He spoke about the need for tribunal members to look at objective facts around the attributes of the building and highlighted that much of what had been heard so far related to use, such as intensity, activity, role and function, all issues of use raised by a number of objectors.

He went on to urge the tribunal members not to gauge the response by the number of objectors, saying those who support the application aren’t inclined to participate in the process and spoke to one letter of support he’d seen suggesting this Tecoma local was looking forward to a “decent cup of coffee”.

He made particular reference to the submission by Jamie Walvisch, saying that this proposal and the Romsey proposal (for pokie machines) were not the same and cannot be compared in terms of measuring social effect.

He said the proposal will provide a multipurpose function in the town, providing convenience needs in the centre, that it would rejuvenate Tecoma by bringing additional customers to the centre and support local employment for younger people. He went on to say the proposal included an attractive dining place for all ages and mobility, it would reduce car trips and provided safe and clean surrounds. 

Mr Townshend SC went on to mention the permit issued for Saffron Cottage (note: this permit has not been issued as it is being taken to appeal by objectors). At that point Member Rundell asked for futher detail. Mr Townshend SC did say  it was a Section 2 use (note: this means permit required) in a Low Density Residential Zone, that council had accepted activity extended on the end of the Business Zone and was interested in the attitude and approach of that new building in the street, suggesting the application got through because Saffron Cottage weren’t selling hamburgers.

He talked about the residential interface saying that it was an existing interface and relationship which was not changing materially due to the proposal.

He talked about the Supermarket decision/application saying it was a hopeless comparison and there was no basis for this building (McDonalds) to be characterised as large, borne out by a simple comparison of the plans, he then proceeded to compare the footprint of plans, frontage and elevations of this proposal and the supermarket.  He reminded tribunal members that the ultimate decision by the tribunal was that is could be a supermarket but a smaller supermarket. He said the proposal was balanced, compatible with the established character, with generous setback and landscaped car park.
He made particular mention of the council officer’s report and with regard to the Shire’s Urban Design internal referral (requested by Member Carew on Thursday) said it was hopelessly flawed and generic in the comments. He said that Mr Radisich had made a cheap point with regard to the hang over public land (the veranda signage).
Mr Townshend SC went on to talk about the articulation of facades, the contemporary version of canopy which defines the street and maintains the existing fine grain vertical articulation as well as signage, lighting, amenity, scale and impact.

Member Rundell asked Mr Townshend SC as the land abuts Low Density Residential Zoning (LDRZ) does that elevate amenity standards. Mr Townshend SC said no, neither in potential or practical terms, that zoning was in name only as there were medium density developments to the rear of the site. You can’t say you have to be kinder because it’s LDRZ.
He went on to say that any permit conditions that apply must be fair and reasonable, and questioned whether a reduction of operating hours (from 24 hours per day) was fair and reasonable.

Both tribunal members asked a number of questions that covered off on the Patron Management Plan (PMP), conditions about turning off signage at night, noise from CODs at night, closure of half the drive through at night time, the Torquay case (where protecting the foreshore amenity was discussed).

At 12:01pm, the first expert witness for McDonalds, Stuart McGurn took the stand to present evidence based on his expert planning report. He opened by saying the proposal meets the purposes of the State Planning Policy, meets the purposes of the zone and Melbourne 2030 which suggests activity centres should have a broader range of use over a greater spread of hours. He said, “I think we do meet the thrust of policy guidelines”. 

He talked about the proposal covering the elements of built form. He did criticise the southern wall of the corral suggesting that it should have either the timber or stacked stone treatment. He talked about the significant benefit of revamped car park which at the moment is unlit, not safe and quite poor and said the landscaping and lighting will be a significant benefit for the site and the centre.

When talking about the signage he said there was no detriment, it did not contribute visual clutter and in describing the blade, called it relatively restrained. Mr McGurn also highlighted 2 things he thought the PMP lacked, litter control was not included as well as regular patrols of the car park area, he thought they should be included. He went on the say he was supportive of the 24 hours operation as a reasonable proposition.

After a big morning we broke for lunch.

On return from lunch the community raised another point of clarification, as part of Mr Townshend SC’s submission he talked about the community consultation inferring it had been consultation. David Jewell said it was a PowerPoint presentation, not a consultation, about a McDonalds restaurant on the site. Member Rundell suggested to David that these were matters that could be pursued as part of the right of reply.

Member Carew said that they cannot give a lot of weight to it, as it relates to a past application.

At 2:20pm Mimi Marcus commenced her cross examination of Mr McGurn on behalf of council. Ms Marcus asked questions around the difference between amenity and character and how character could be defined and if there is agreement that cumulative aspects that contribute to neighbourhood character. She went on to ask about the building being like a corner site, particularly focussing on the blank wall greeting people to the West. Mr McGurn said he didn’t think the wall is particularly blank as it had a modulation in forms but could be improved with stacked stone or timber finish.

As part of cross examination by Ms Marcus, Mr McGurn agreed there were 12 signs along the frontage. Ms Marcus asked if he was familiar with clause 22.04 and the need to avoid repetitive signage. Mr McGurn said he didn’t agree the signs were repetitive.

Ms Marcus asked Mr McGurn if he’d visited the site at night time, which he confirmed once at midnight and once at 6pm, he confirmed it was certainly quiet at midnight. Ms Marcus went on to ask questions about the PMP, lighting and noise.

Next up to cross examine Mr McGurn was David Hall, owner of 1527 Burwood Hwy. He queried what materials were being used for the loading bay and highlighted concerns about the visual impact of the loading bay. Mr McGurn said he was not concerned about their amenity (the people in the offices/shops opposite the proposal), particularly as the height of the loading bay wall was 2.7mt and stepped in the middle.

Karl Williams was next to cross examine Mr McGurn. He raised questions around light spill, lighting, advertising signage, Mr McGurn's qualifications and the ability of the lighting to meet Australian Standards. On numerous occasions Mr McGurn stated he was not a lighting expert or engineer and suggested that permit conditions are the appropriate mechanism to ensure lighting compliance with Australian Standards.

Next to cross examine Mr McGurn was Claire Ferres-Miles. She asked questions around bushfire and fire management plans on Code Red days, the typical built form of Tecoma (where 77.8% of commercial buildings directly abut the footpath). She made mention of the new elevations designed to improve the interface, dated 27/06/12, that it had taken 6 weeks to have them circulated.

She went on to ask about the planter boxes at the front of the building, lowered to improve the public/private interface even though the McDonalds signage remained at a higher level. She asked questions about the relative scale of the building in comparison to others in Tecoma.

As part of the cross examination Mr McGurn said the blade is a useful architectural element and accepts that it also holds signage. Claire went on to ask about any other examples of stacked stone in Tecoma suggesting that it is not consistent with the character of Tecoma.

The issue of the two flagpoles was raised, as they don’t appear on any of the elevation plans. The visual bulk of the building was also questioned with specific mention of the blade protruding and interrupting the view line to the backdrop of Tecoma.  Mr McGurn confirmed he had come to the opinion that the building did not have an unreasonable impact on the view line from the forest, even though he hadn’t visited Sherbrooke Forest and looked toward the subject site.

Lastly Claire tackled the issue of whether McDonalds is a ‘destination’ venue, as we’d heard Mr Townshend SC declare that it was not the day before. Claire led Mr McGurn through a series of questions in relation to birthday parties, which saw him confirm that the venue is indeed a destination.

At 4:07pm Tim Radisich began his cross examination of Mr McGurn. He raised questions around the context of the site, the functionality of the disabled car park, the levels across the site and how to access the site once parked.

Mr McGurn said he couldn’t understand how it would be difficult to use the CODs at the current grade, when asked where other McDonalds drive throughs were located on a slope, Mr McGurn said he was not personally aware of one. Mr McGurn said that you might get some view of the CODs although there was significant landscaping on the site. 

Tim continued to ask questions around lighting, the terrace lighting and the views from neighbouring residential properties. Member Carew asked questions around the PMP and conditions around closing the back of the drive through.

Member Carew went on to ask about the materials and finishes. She said she was driving on Victoria Parade last night and noticed a McDonalds there which also had stacked stone pillars. Mr McGurn said that this store (Tecoma) was particularly different, different to others highlighting the Malvern store didn’t have that style. He went on saying he’s not saying it’s not in other McDonalds stores, the fact it’s been used in other stores doesn’t mean it’s rolled out in all stores and that the stacked stone treatment seemed appropriate for this site.

Member Carew went on to ask about the interior layout, the pedestrian connections and the disconnect between the car park and frontage.

At 5pm Member Rundell thanked everyone for the contribution over the week in the spirit of respect. Prior to closing Member Carew requested a copy of the 1525 Burwood Hwy planning application (Saffron Cottage), a map plan of council/VCAT objectors and confirmation of the signage applications council believes are necessary.

Mr Radisich advised the tribunal that the 1525 Burwood Hwy application was a matter before the tribunal. He also said that as he had no issue with the landscape response he would not be in attendance on Monday.

As part of final comments the community thanked the tribunal members for allowing us to go to our friend’s funeral.

Member Rundell reaffirmed that Monday’s hearing would commence at 2:15pm to hear the landscape evidence and passed on the tribunal’s condolences to the community and the family.

I’m thankful of the Tribunal’s sympathy around the issue of Wilf’s funeral and thank them for their thoughtfulness in adjusting their schedule around what is a sensitive issue in our local community.

mcdonalds appeal - day 4

Prior to the council meeting, community members rallied
outside the venue. For the second time only in it's
history Yarra Ranges had to shift the meeting
venue due to the anticipated crowd numbers.

Day four of the hearing sees the end of the community submitters and onto McDonalds presenting their expert witness reports.

We started the day with Erwin Jahn, an engineer, Erwin took us through his concerns in relation to traffic  movements in and around the site. In particular Erwin highlighted the opposing two right hand turns, one into the site from Burwood Hwy and the one into McNicol Rd from Burwood Hwy.  He highlighted the inherent danger and threat to driver safety with this configuration. 

Next up was Roz Yeung, who gave an indepth presentation on the character and philosophy of the area and the strong connection to sense of place. 

This was followed by environmental volunteer, Anne Elizabeth, who talked first hand about the deficiencies of the design of the disabled car park as a person with a disability. Anne highlighted the dangerous location of the carpark, the limitations in terms of reversing out of the carpark due to sightline restrictions and being so close to the entry and exit points to Burwood Hwy. Anne also highlighted the impossibility of reversing into the car park (as shown in McDonalds photo montage), both in terms of safety (it’s too close to the Burwood Hwy entry and exit driveway) and restricting the ability to access walking aids located in the boot of motor vehicles.  Anne also queried the grade of the carpark as it appears as if it is on a slope in the montage, raising further concerns of issues around accessibility and functionality of the disabled carpark.

As Anne is an environmental volunteer with the Friends of Hazelvale Valley she spoke about the countless hours volunteers spend improving the environment throughout the Dandenongs. In particular she raised concerns about additional litter in the environment as a result of the proposal and the great burden and workload this will put on our environmental volunteers. Anne presented photos of a recent Clean Up Australia Day collection from Hazelvale Valley, which showed a staggering amount of rubbish already, let alone what could be contemplated with this development. 

Next was Barbara Crisp who spoke about the key importance of tourism to the region, making up 4.22% of the Yarra Ranges economy and contributing $381million every year to the local economy . She made specific reference to the objection lodged by the Villages of Mt Dandenong association who outlined their concerns about the detrimental impact this development would have,  as part of the council planning process.  

Local resident, Stuart Thompson was next. Stuart gave a compelling presentation about traffic across the McNicol Rd, Burwood Hwy and Sandells Rd intersections using photos taken only yesterday morning. He talked about the traffic light sequence at Sandells Rd which only allows 15 cars to cross at a time and detailed that there is often 50+ cars in the queue meaning it would take 3 sets of lights to cross the intersection if you were car 45 in the queue.  Stuart also raised the issue of Knox City Council’s  proposed widening of Burwood Hwy and that modeling had not taken this into account in the traffic reports in terms of it’s impact further up the road in Tecoma. 

Stuart reiterated a common theme throughout the hearing, that Tecoma is lights off at 10pm, a nice quiet township, a 24 hour business just doesn’t fit in. 

Anita Dealy followed Stuart and presented an extensive submission on the built form of Tecoma and the characteristics that make Tecoma unique (in terms of built form). She spoke about the fine grain treatments, buildings fitting into the attractive landscape, pitched and gabled roofs, verandahs, windows with sensitive design with attention to finishes. She highlighted more recent developments in Tecoma which reinforce the character of and respond sensitively to Tecoma. She also highlighted the rear of the established Tecoma shops which look residential in nature and provide a good interface between the business and residential zones of the township. 

Anita highlighted that the DVD Destination built form was an anomaly in the town in terms of character and was a good demonstration of a poor design outcome given it’s size and bulk. She highlighted that buildings need to reflect neighbourhood character to mitigate any adverse effects.

She finished her presentation by reinforcing the fact that a contemporary building does not respond to the character of Tecoma with its bulky, bland, boxy look.

Member Carew asked Anita how the frontages and window treatments of the proposed building could be addressed. Anita answered saying given the continuous, large long profile of the building it was very difficult to achieve the fine grain treatment that is representative of Tecoma.

Next up was Melissa Koch who was there submitting for Tecoma Preschool on behalf of Wilf Wharton who died suddenly on Friday 3 August. Wilf was a key member of the core committee formed to fight the appeal in VCAT. Melissa presented Wilf’s submission as written by Wilf which was a very emotional occasion for onlookers in the gallery who had been close to Wilf through his work in the community or through the VCAT appeal.

Melissa highlighted the development was grossly disproportionate to the needs and wants of our community. She talked about the values and philosophy of Tecoma Preschool and the work to develop a sense of place with the preschoolers. She raised the issue of localism, in that McDonalds say they buy local but in their case that’s in Australia, whilst in the hills, local means local. She also raised concerns about the aggressive marketing to children given the preschool is located adjacent to the development across Burwood Highway.  It was a wonderful tribute to Wilf, Melissa you most certainly did him and his family proud.

The last speaker on behalf of the community was Tim Radisich, a town planner representing a number of objectors.

Tim started by posing the questions about the building and works, is the design solution appropriate, is it the right contextual response, does it deliver what is contemplated in Vision2020 by Design?

He pointed out sign S5 and suggested it was an oversight by council as it was on the front fascia of the road reserve on land that doesn’t form part of the application, he also highlighted that the landscape plan included the installation of a 1.75mt fence at the rear of DVD Destination, also on land that isn’t part of the application.

He raised issues around the acoustic fence treatments, the 8 to 9 metre fall across the site, the significant constraints on design, the fact the plans are missing details on materials to be used, the lack of detail on how Customer Ordering Devices (CODs) are meant to function and sit.

He said the plans indicated that the drive through configuration impacts on the land at 1527 Burwood Highway which results in a loss of at least 4 car parks (at Bonsai Bali) and that there has been no assessment of this by the expert witnesses.

In a comprehensive submission he talked about the:

- overall loss of car parking available to the township in the order of 64 spaces;

- loss of buildings that relate to the built form of Tecoma to be replaced with a blocky, busy building;

- brutal blade sign, the irregular verandah which was discordant with the general form of Tecoma;

- issues that arise in the design of the building and how it responds to the site in that it’s poorly designed, particularly the disabled car park and convenient pedestrian access;

- principal access being from the rear, not something you see in Tecoma;

- 43mt frontage which is unlike other land parcels in the business zone, the largest frontage in the shopping centre;

- impact of the fence on 2/89 Sandells Rd and their private open space and that the height of the fence is not common in Tecoma, in addition there doesn’t seem to be recognition that the land falls an additional 700mm from the edge of car park to the boundary line – the reason why Tim has been urging the tribunal to get a levels plan of the car parks;

- terrace is higher than the existing verandah at Saffron Cottage and will be seen clearly with Tim reiterating again how important it is to have a levels plan;

- south side of the site where 1528 and 1530 Burwood Highway are located (across the road), it is residential and the relationship between this residential area and the site have not been fully explored;

- the height of the signage, the ugly building with no contextual response – “I don’t think it is working”.

He raised the issue of the built form of DVD destination, how it defines the mistakes that we don’t want to repeat. He covered off on issues around acoustics and lighting, particularly the lack of attenuation of light emissions from CODs, light poles, advertising signage.

At that point we reached lunch with Member Rundell deciding a shorter lunch break to allow us to get to hear opening submissions by McDonalds.

On resumption Tim continued his submission. At first he spoke of how a proposal for the site should be moderated in temper, footprint and extent. In particularly he raised the stacked stone on the building and blade, that there was a lack of the overriding and overwhelming character of Tecoma.

He talked about:
- the character of Tecoma already acknowledged by the Tribunal in the VCAT decision around the supermarket application;
- the relationship of the size of the building and works and intensity of use;
- the disabled car park;
- the excessive advertising, raising the issue that the blade has no other function than to advertise;
- that no community car park in Tecoma has pole lighting which is contemplated in this application;
- the drive through and how that will function on an incline, once again urging for level plans (at this point Mr Townshend SC for McDonalds interjected and suggested this was so insignificant and that Mr Radisich could ask the traffic engineers all about it);
- the site is currently around a 1:10 grade, so if the CODs aren’t on level ground it would require people to put their handbrake on to stop rolling back whilst they are ordering at the drive through and that to his knowledge all other CODs in McDonalds drive throughs are on level ground.

At this point Mr Radisich presented his hand drawn draft levels detailing the 4mt fall from the COD to the rear boundary, raising concerns about if the CODs need to be on a level grade, they would require a fill of 1.2mtrs, otherwise how could they be accessed safely, which would require a reconfiguration of the driveway surface to minimise the 1:10 grade or something in between, but the plan is silent on these matters. Mr Radisich said surely it’s the applicants desire to have CODs on level ground as the alternative has inherent dangers and risks.

At 3:10pm Member Rundell gave direction (this means it has to happen) that Mr Radisich go to his summary. In summary Mr Radisich said there was a strong and consistent policy thread for Tecoma and that the proposal did not acknowledge the fine grain character of Tecoma.

It was at this point Member Rundell said the tribunal would look for additional hearing dates (it was apparent to all of us that it was going to take longer than the two days allocated, especially if allowing for Wilf Wharton’s funeral).

At 3:23pm Chris Townshend SC commenced his submission for McDonalds. He made particular reference to the past Tribunal decision (the supermarket) and the limitations that apply to the tribunal. He said the Tribunal made an error in that past decision particularly around ‘role and function’ and that is was an incorrect assessment.

Is McDonalds paving the way for a Supreme Court challenge and is this their mechanism for doing so? To onlookers that is how it appeared.

Mr Townshend SC went on to say the decision should be about the scale of the building not the scale of use. He said it’s not busy because McDonalds made it busy, McDonalds are taking advantage of traffic driving through. He went on to say it was a low order convenience restaurant, it is a convenience not a destination, in that people who are already going by will go to the restaurant, it won’t be a destination in itself.

Mr Townshend SC said that tribunal needs to be disciplined about what it can do in relation to permit conditions (given this is a building and works permit and the use is as of right).  That conditions need to fairly and reasonably relate and implement planning policy and be based on any evidence that emerges as to necessitate the condition.

He said the proposal had been designed to meet convenience and needs, not to shut down and tell people when they have to go to bed.

At that point Mr Townshend SC finished and Member Rundell addressed some outstanding matters, in that we would hear Mr Townshend finish his submission tomorrow (Friday 10/8), Mr McGurn, planning expert would present his evidence followed by Mr Hunt, traffic expert. He also reported that the tribunal had found additional days for the hearing, the 3^rd and 4^th September.

Member Carew just prior to the close of the session requested a copy of the Shire’s internal referral of Urban Design Report as it was generally not supportive of the proposal.

The day closed at 4:40pm.

mcdonalds appeal - day 3

David Jewell of TVAG, presenting at the council
meeting in October, 2011. A crowd of 670 people
looked on, the largest attendance of any council
meeting in the history of Yarra Ranges.

Day three marks the midpoint of the appeal (that's if it goes according to the days set aside), today opened with a presentation from Claire Ferres Miles, who presented a comprehensive and detailed submission around key themes of traffic. She highlighted specific issues around bushfire with Burwood Highway being the key East/West arterial road in and out of the region.

Her presentation emphasised the low scale, local nature of Tecoma detailing that the town's businesses close on the earlier side of midnight, reinforcing it as a 'sleepy little village'.

Claire's experience as a traffic and transport engineer came to the fore, she went into specific detail about the highly complex traffic movements within a 300mt section of Burwood Highway, from Rutherford Rd to Sandells Rd. She presented the data from 2 community traffic surveys undertaken earlier this year. Data that had been validated and shown as robust. Her presentation so clearly articulated what we all know about this section of road, it's busy, it's a bottleneck and there are some intersections that are better avoided depending on the time of day.

Claire highlighted deficiencies in the expert reports supplied by McDonalds, they hadn't even picked up the public transport routes that impact on the road network.  The community traffic survey which found a peak traffic queue length on Burwood Hwy of 700mt, was at clear odds with the stated traffic queue length in the expert reports of 188mt (GTA Report) or 216mt (Cardno Report). We all know that queue often extends to Glenfern Rd. (If you're keen to look at the expert reports you can find them here.)

Claire went on to highlight the operation of Sandells and McNicol Roads and how they impact on Burwood Highway, in particular turning movements. Of particular note was her commentary around the design and location of the disabled car park which doesn't meet the Australian Standards for design.

Tribunal Member Carew was keen to know what the best time to visit the site was during the week, so Tribunal Members could see the area at peak time. It's good to know that tribunal members will be going out on a weekday.
  
Tribunal Member Rundell (Chair) was keen to explore if Burwood Highway has met its peak capacity.

Next speaker for the day was Zoe Glen-Norman, a young person, who spoke about growing up in Tecoma and how that resonates with her sense of identity and place. She talked about how the development would be an assault on identity for Tecoma.

Tribunal Member Rundell said it was very pleasing to see young people participating in the VCAT process.

Nearby neighbour Judy Woolf spoke next. Mentioning many issues, Judy also focussed on the accident data for this stretch of Burwood Hwy that she'd obtained from Victoria Police. In the past 5 years, there's been 30 reported traffic accidents, 8 of them personal injury, one of those a fatality, although the McDonalds Cardno report failed to report any fatalities. 

Next up, local Davey Heller spoke. His submission raised many issues including amenity and character, litter, light and noise. As local who uses McNicol Rd regularly as a driver and pedestrian he described his day to day experience where he approaches the turn right out of McNicol Rd 'with trepidation'.

Barbara Smith talked about the constraints of topography, the village character of Tecoma and the negative impact the development would have on Tecoma. 

The last submitter before lunch was Jamie Walvisch, a qualified lawyer, he put forward a compelling range of reasons why the development shouldn't proceed based on comprehensive research of many past tribunal decisions. He went into much detail about the planning scheme including the Yarra Valley and Dandenong Ranges Regional Strategy Plan.

Tribunal Member Rundell asked Jamie about the balancing act between the Business 1 zone and the character attributes and sense of place of Tecoma. Jamie answered the mere fact that the site is zoned Business 1 doesn't mean that the same intensity applies across all Business1 zones in the Shire at the same rate. Making the point it's about the context of the location, not just the zoning.

Jamie raised a full quota of issues, character, noise, detriment, transformation, safety, built form, tourism, landscape, sense of place, amenity. He said the development was the antithesis of what the Dandenongs are about.

After lunch, local artist Joy Serwylo, read a poem especially written for the hearing, Hambuggery. In true Joy style, she delivered it with heart and a little bit of tongue in cheek and after a heavy morning of submissions we were all happy for a bit of light relief.

Brian Gibb, a behavioural scientist and academic, gave a very interesting submission on character and 'brand character' as a set of mental associations and went on to talk about the special nature of the hills. At the point of his presentation where he was talking about the brand character of McDonalds (which is largely negative according to Brian), the McDonalds legal team interjected and urged the Tribunal members to consider the timetable of the hearing and the expedition of the balance of submitters to allow commencement of expert witnesses.

Tribunal Member Rundell said he was cognisant of the commitment made by Deputy President Gibson for the community to have 3 days to present, and he wanted to be fair to all parties and asked Brian to bring character back to built form.

Brian talked about the negative brand character of the applicant and how that clashes with the special character of the hills and how it was inconsistent with the community's aspirations.

Next was Karl Williams, who prosecuted a long case around how the proposal would not contribute to the Net Community Benefit test. He presented a detailed case as to why Tecoma is different and why the test of net community benefit needs to be demonstrably high for Tecoma.  Karl's creative telling of a 'tale of two suburbs', Hallam and Tecoma effectively demonstrated core community values and character. He highlighted the long history of conservation of the Dandenongs which began as early as 1882.

Karl recounted evidence presented in other McDonald's cases at VCAT where it had been asserted that McDonalds provide a net community benefit as they provide a service for the community. Karl went into much detail about the losses the community would experience from the development which ranged from health and wellbeing, odour, drive through impacts, in situ on a ridgeline, noise, lighting, tourism, gateway impacts, litter, neighbourhood character, amenity, wildlife disturbance, signage, going into particular detail about the 5.25mt sign on the rear of the building, scale and intensity.

The last speaker for the day was Tim Richard-West, Vice President of the Tecoma Primary School Council. School Principal, Rohan Thompson, was in the gallery along with other school councillors.  Tim's submission spoke about concern for student safety and he raised the recent Woodville McDonalds decision in which a significant factor was the failure to separate pedestrians and vehicles, something that this application replicates.

Tim also articulated concerns around safety, congestion, fumes, noise, intensity, vandalism, graffiti and litter. He spoke about the school's no rubbish policy, healthy eating policy and it's culture and values based on social responsibility and environmental awareness.

The most telling part of Tim's presentation was around enrolment figures for next year. Many parents are concerned about the McDonalds development and should the proposal go ahead it will affect their decision to enrol at Tecoma Primary School.

This year there's 56 students in prep at Tecoma Primary, next year there's only 26 confirmed enrolments, that's over half a loss of enrolments and equates to one or more class sizes, the consequences for the school concerning.

Tim ended by asking Tribunal Members to take these concerns into consideration. It was a very telling way to end day three.

It was a big day, with 11 community members submitting, I couldn't help but be inspired by their creativity, commitment and passion for our local area. There's another eight community submitters tomorrow, then we're on to expert witnesses for McDonalds.

mcdonalds appeal - day 2

Community Members protesting on the site
of the proposed McDonalds in Tecoma.

Day two of the hearing opened with David Jewell representing Tecoma Village Action Group (TVAG).

David put forward a substantial and comprehensive presentation covering a range of issues with the proposal.  He particularly focused on local planning policy which recognises the difference of the foothills to other places in the Shire of Yarra Ranges. He went on to say that the development was intensive for Tecoma and will dominate the township as it is twice as large as any other business in Tecoma.  He highlighted the negative impact of the proposal on the character of Tecoma and how this proposal would be an urbanisation of the township.

TVAG’s submission also highlighted issues around the 3mt high fence contemplated, no where in Tecoma is a fence that high. There was specific attention given to the frontage of the proposed development. It is 5 times larger than the average frontage of a shop front in Tecoma, 80% of shops fronting Burwood Highway have a frontage of less than 10mt in width.

TVAG drew heavily from prior VCAT decisions around the supermarket and Winscombe Avenue. Part of TVAG’s presentation included a video made by Tecoma local, Krissy Reinsfeld, which really showed the character of Tecoma.

As part of TVAG’s submission they called Dr Barry Clarke, an expert on lighting pollution. Dr Clarke asserted that the proposal would result in a detrimental impact in terms of light spill and detailed health impacts of light pollution on communities. Dr Clarke also gave evidence that he believed that McDonalds calculations were incomplete as they did not take into account all sources of light.

After Dr Clarke, David Jewell continued. He went on to highlight litter issues and made particular mention of an item of McDonalds rubbish 100 mts from an outlet that had remained in situ for over a week, questioning the efficiency of McDonalds Litter Management.



Signage was also a key issue, in terms of exceeding the square meterage outlined in the planning scheme, the planning scheme suggests 8.5 sq mtrs whilst this application contemplates 12.5 sq mtrs. In terms of internally illuminated signage the planning scheme describes a figure of 1.5 sq mtrs, whilst this application has 8 sq mtrs of signage.

The issues around the dangerous location of the disabled carpark came up, as well as lack of bicycle parking available on site.  The lack of a staff shower on site was another key issue, particularly given many staff will be of an age that ride bicycles in sometimes challenging conditions.

David went on to say Tecoma is part of a very special place, both for residents and tourists alike, a quiet town, which turns off the light, not a place for a 24 hour business and good urban design should help strengthen peoples sense of place.  He also said that should a permit be granted it will set a precedent across the Dandenong Ranges.

David finished by reiterating the special nature of the hills and that this development was not befitting of hills character.

Tribunal member Carew asked some questions about signage, front articulation and opening hours, whilst Tribunal member Rundell spoke about businesses getting larger in general and noting the number of vacancies in Tecoma and whether this may be an opportunity to be attractive and successful.

Member Rundell  also asked questions about Tourism, the contemporary nature of the building and the heart of the matter which is character, which was described as an urban township by the Shire’s strategic planners.

Next up was community submitter Rosalind Muralanda, who focused on the character of the hills and the strong sense of place, she also highlighted how important it is to not diminish environmental values from economic development.

Kaz McKay was next, she highlighted concerns about the development being a beacon for teenagers 24 hours a day and the implications for Tecoma station and surrounds from the impact of that.

Jenny Saulwick gave an extensive presentation outlining the State Planning Policy Framework, the Local Planning Policy Framework and the Municipal Strategic Statement. 

Kathleen Bosworth spoke about the safety for residents and asserted that the People Management Plan McDonalds has in place was currently failing due to the numerous incidents that have been recorded in McDonalds stores. She highlighted 94 incidents that have occurred in the last 3 years. 

Matt Lucas, teacher with Upwey High School, talked about traffic, the character of the area and more specifically about the impact of the development on young people. 

Mark Haviland, presented a very creative submission and raised issues around noise, crime, vandalism, litter, the vexatious nature of the bottleneck of Burwood Highway, tourism and how important it was to treasure what is unique.

Our last speaker for the day, Louis Smith, spoke about the traffic. As community member who lives close to the development he gave great insight into how the traffic currently moves in the area and the various ‘rat runs’ currently in use due to traffic congestion.  He ended by talking about the character of the hills and the reasons he has chosen to live in the hills.

Great job by our community submitters.