The development was approved by the council on February 17 and the window for lodging appeals closed last week. At a council workshop on Thursday night, general manager Stephen Mackey said he had not been notified of the existence of any appeals but he understood that both the developer and opponents of the project were likely to have lodged formal objections.
An advertisement in yesterday's issue of the Mercury newspaper advised that a directions hearing would be held on March 21 at the Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal in Hobart.
Get it built!- lets start pushing the valley forward.Those opponents need to accept the umpires decision.There is enormous potential in this municipality for growth and jobs.The Maccas development is only the beginning.
ReplyDeleteHi Anon, if you read the original story correctly you may have noticed that the developer has lodged an appeal against the decision as well. The developer doesn't want to have to alter the design of the building as requested by Cr Bester and endorsed by a majority of councillors.
ReplyDeleteThe opponents were clearly in the minority. Why won't they accept it? They are on record as objecting to being described as antidemocratic, yet they have no respect for majority opinion.
ReplyDeleteComment number 2 (AKA RAID member).Besters opinions are irrelevant,he has already had his nose smacked for his naughty behaviour.
ReplyDelete"...on record as being undemocratic"? Who said that? How does it become truth if it was said?
ReplyDeleteBester's opinions are not irrelevant, he is a councillor afterall, and the 'smacking' he received was for another matter entirely. Unlike certain councillors who face action against them for their behaviour and actions on the evening of the decision.
Given that the majority of counillors voted for Cr. Bester's amendment how is that not acepting the majority decision by McDonalds? Oh, they don't have to accept the majority decision, just us? Your attempt at reasoning hasn't worked.
@Anon 10:24, it is important to read quotes carefully, especially when debates get heated. Your statement "on record as being undemocratic" is a major misquote. Note the item at 07:23 said "on record as OBJECTING TO", not "on record as undemocratic". The 07:23 item therefore says something completely different to what you are saying. This is known as a strawman logical fallacy - build an incorrect argument and then "prove" it wrong. Please be careful with your logic.
ReplyDeleteOops, Anon 11:20, I'll stand corrected for having misread the original post by Anon 7:23.
ReplyDeleteMy objections to the statement will therefore reflect the new reality.
Where are 'we' on record as objecting to being described as undemocratic?
How is it undemocratic to be involved in the democratic process?
If as Anon 7:23 infers 'we' are undemocratic, why would 'we' have respect for a majority decision?
Again why hasn't the developer accepted the majority decision?
@Anon 01:11 Once again your reading is faulty. There is a difference between "undemocratic" and "antidemocratic". For those for whom the end justifies the means, the difference is too small to see. For most others, the difference is that the former means "not derived from democratic principles" whereas the latter means "opposed to democratic principles". In other words, ignore what most people want. and just pursue your own ends. It was quite clear from the petitions presented to council what most people want with this development.
ReplyDeleteSurely the question for today is why the DEVELOPER would appeal against the approval of its proposal. We all have a fair idea why the RAID mob might have objected (if they have) but why would the developer (Mr Rockefeller and his agents)? They got their approval, so why would they be trying to have the council decision overturned? If it's true that they have appealed then they too are objectors stopping the place from getting built. Crazy.
ReplyDeleteThe only thing this whole debate boils down to in the beginning and the end of Council's argument is "Money Talks". There are many other developments that have not gotten off the ground, nor anywhere near Council approval - let alone had consideration from the Council simply because there is not the big bucks behind them that McDonalds are perceived to have to throw at a project.
ReplyDeleteThe question is - will it be spent and stay in our Community?
All that the developer needs to do to fit in with the Royal Derwent site is to smash or board up a few windows and leave to run down for 10 years and then ask for and waste money to unsuccessfully develop.
ReplyDeleteits mr bester it got to look like royal derwent
ReplyDeleteRAID,RAID Go away ,come again another day.
ReplyDeleteAlmost fell off my chair laughing at Anon March 16 1113am.
ReplyDeleteToo damn right! You got it in one.