The planning permit application for a change of use of land at 44 High St, once the site of McSwain’s Joinery and now the base for a photography business, was put forward by Happy Valley Two Pty Ltd, a declared interest of Cr Ned Jeffery.
Cr Jeffery left the meeting on Monday, March 2, during the discussion of this item.
Traffic was the primary concern of objectors, with the site’s entry situated on a roundabout in a residential street.
“To repurpose an existing exit on the circulating lane of a roundabout for a commercial drive-through could lead to serious transport accidents,” local resident Anna Pinnuck said.
“This is a major arterial road, it is a designated truck and heavy vehicle route through Seymour.
“This roundabout, with a proposed exit for a commercial venture, has the potential to contribute to making this an extremely dangerous intersection for all users.”
The expected 5.30am start of the business and noise impacts, as well as the potential risk for pedestrians, were also mentioned in the objectors’ submissions.
On behalf of the applicant, James Cavill said council’s approval should depend on whether the proposal would have greater amenity impacts than the site’s previous use as a joinery.
“I don’t think I need to twist your arm to suggest that the cabinet-making facility is going to cause much more noise than a drive-through coffee shop,” he said.
He added that traffic management could be mitigated with “a right-only exit on to Butler St”, and the applicant had engaged a traffic engineer, whose study of a site in Melbourne suggested seven cars was the maximum number banked at any given time.
“We have sufficient banking from the order window, not inclusive of the pick-up window, for seven vehicles,” he said.
“A Melbourne coffee shop is probably going to generate significantly more traffic than a Seymour coffee shop.”
Peter Malane, who lives opposite the site, said it was an inappropriate area for the proposal.
“I support cafes, I support drive-throughs, in appropriate commercial zones ... the issue at this site is the drive-through,” he said.
“There’s no unique site feature that it needs to be here, and it’s not meeting an unmet need.
“This design fails basic safety principles and should not be supported.”
Butler St resident Carol Smith told council she was concerned about the poor line of sight for vehicles exiting the site in relation to pedestrians and other vehicles, impacts to learner drivers, as VicRoads uses the street for driving tests, and the fact that a current councillor was the applicant.
“I do not believe that a councillor should promote their own business interests while being a member of council,” she said.
“I see it as a conflict of interest, which has been stated tonight, and I think that the councillor’s role is to serve the community ahead of their own purposes.”
Mr Cavill said he could “foresee a world where (pedestrian safety) would be problematic”, but it could be addressed by the lowering of fencing and the implementation of convex mirrors.
Speaking as the applicant, Mr Jeffery told The Telegraph the project would bolster private investment in Seymour and support an existing local business, which would operate the drive-through.
“Only big business has the financial muscle to force things through council and so many projects like this never happen in Seymour,” he said.
“You can see that everywhere with the demise of family business and the establishment of large corporate players.”
He said, if the application was approved, he would collaborate with the community to achieve an optimal solution.
“Waiting for an ‘ideal’ location to host something is just not viable in a relatively small town ... we need to focus on the best outcomes available, with the resources available, in a timely manner,” he said.
“James listed a number of very collaborative solutions that, we believe, could contribute to public amenity.
“But, I would like to remind everyone that, despite our engaging approach to this project throughout, we have not received one invitation to engage in solutions, only mass engagement of support and a small, but vocal, group who just want to see the site stay as unoccupied as possible.”
Council has received 38 submissions objecting to the proposal and seven in support.
The application will be voted on during an upcoming council meeting.
27°C