MITCHELL Shire Council (MSC) found itself in an apparent ‘no-win’ position last Monday night regarding the decision of a permit for a drive-through coffee shop, before sticking with a common theme of the meeting to grant business in Seymour an opportunity to thrive.
Despite hearing 38 applications against the proposal, as well as a recommendation from council officers to refuse to grant a permit, an amendment, proposed by Councillor Andrea Pace, allowed the proposed coffee shop to live on.
Earlier in the evening, a permit was granted for a cinema complex on Tallarook Street, as was a decision on the future Hilldene Employment Precinct – both carried unanimously.
However, the coffee shop for 44 High Street – heard by eight councillors, with Cr Ned Jeffery excusing himself due to a conflict of interest – generated much discussion.
Cr Pace proposed amendments which would boost safety for drivers and pedestrians, while also addressing previous residential concerns.
“This application has raised understandable concerns from both council officers and members of the community, particularly around residential amenity and traffic safety,” she said.
“The officer recommendation before us is for refusal, primarily due to concerns about the potential impact on nearby residents, and the location of the site entry point within the roundabout.
“Having carefully considered the report, the submissions receive and the planning issues involved, I believe there is a responsible and balanced pathway forward that addresses these concerns while still allowing the business to operate.”
Amendments proposed included the installation of an acoustic barrier, traffic safety to manage entry and exit, a no-left-turn restriction onto Butler Street and a convex traffic mirror.
“The amendment also proposes reducing the height of the fence near the entrances to improve pedestrian visibility and sightlines for both drivers and pedestrians,” Cr Pace said.
“It allows a local business the opportunity to operate, contribute to our local economy and provide employment opportunities.”
“Our role as councillors is to weigh these matters carefully and determine whether reasonable conditions can create a better overall outcome.”
Cr Riley Evans agreed with Cr Pace, saying he wanted to welcome small business, not price them out of the shire.
“It’s great to see employment and money coming into our shire, so I want to reiterate what I said before. If people are listening or keeping an eye on where to invest, we are open to business. We want your money; we want your employment,” he said.
Cr Nathan Clark had concerns about how council might be perceived as a result of this decision in speaking against the amendment.
“We have a refusal by officers, the experts and it carries 38 objections from the community as well, so there’s a significant level of concern with it,” he said.
“The test here is not just legal compliance, that we’re trying to make sure it matches the planning scheme and if it fits in, it’s really a test of public confidence, which is quite a concern for me.
“I think that a reasonable observer might not see this as a neutral process, I think it’s a no-win scenario for council. If we refuse, it looks like it’s personal and political, but if we approve, it might give the impression to the community that people are doing things for their mates.”
In response, Cr Pace said she was making this decision for the betterment of the town, not to satisfy councillor needs.
“Firstly, I don’t do things for mates in here. I’m here for the community, not for anybody else,” she said.
“I didn’t know any of you prior to sitting in this seat, and I do not socialise with any of you. So, everyone can clear that out of their minds straight away.
“I am purely here for the town of Seymour … It’s just a straight-forward, business proposition, a business wants to start in my town, I want to make it as easy as possible so I can help my town.”
A vote followed, with Crs Pace, Evans, Bob Humm, Bob Cornish and John Dougall voting for it, Cr Claudia James and Clark voting against it, and Cr Timothy Hanson abstaining, which was a no vote.
Seymour resident Peter Malane outlined his dismay at the result.
In a statement to North Central Review, he said: “People of Mitchell Shire who may feel their representatives are elected to represent ratepayers, carefully review relevant documents and uphold codes of conduct may like to look very carefully at the outcome.
“Professional planners and directly affected residents have been overruled by colleagues of the applicant.”