Elderly couple William and Janet Pitty live next door to the site of the proposed fast food giant’s development and have been in a costly battle with the Bega Valley Shire Council over its contentious approval of it.

On Monday, the NSW Land and Environment Court dismissed their formal objections, clearing the way for construction of the McDonald’s to begin.

The Pittys’ submission to the court primarily objected to a high-density business being placed in a low-density residential zone “where it will have unacceptable impacts”.

McDonald’s first submitted a development application in February 2011.

After numerous delays, councillors approved the development in October 2011 in a split vote, despite the BVSC staff’s recommendation to refuse it on planning grounds (BDN, 21/10/2011).

At the time, council staff advised the restaurant was not in keeping with the character of the residential zone it bordered and cited issues of design, visual impact, traffic 

and noise.

Regional planning consultant Fiona Whitelaw addressed the October council meeting at which the DA was approved, saying, “If council ignores the sound advice of its staff and approves the McDonald’s DA, it will most likely be defending that decision in the Land and Environment Court.”

Then-mayor Tony Allen used his casting vote to break a deadlock and approve the DA, with a number of conditions.

That approval came under fire, from the Pittys in particular, who said the granting of consent breached the council’s own Local Environment Plan regulations and eventually took their grievances to the courts.

On Monday, Justice Sheahan concluded “that the applicant has not established any basis for the court to find that the council’s decision to grant consent should be held to be invalid”.

He dismissed the Pittys’ summons and costs were reserved. 

At a public “meet the candidates” forum at Tarraganda Hall prior to the recent local government election, William and Janet’s son Hugh Pitty said “it is not fair that an 80-year-old couple has to go to the Land and Environment Court at their own expense - $50,000 of their own money – to get the council to abide by its own planning documents”. 

At that meeting a number of then-candidates indicated their opposition to the development, with comments such as it being an “unfortunate decision” and “the right development in the wrong place”.

In a statement to the media in response to Monday’s court ruling, the Pitty family called on the elected councillors to “stand by their word...honour their stated opposition to the development proceeding on the Swan St site, and overturn the development consent”.

However, Mayor Bill Taylor said as the consent has been upheld by the Land and Environment court, it was now out of the council’s hands.

“It was a decision of the previous council to grant consent, given conditions,” Cr Taylor said.

“There has been some suggestion that the current council could get involved.

“However, if someone now tried to rescind that consent, the council would expose itself to considerable damage claims and costs.”

Cr Taylor said stances taken at the candidates’ forum should be considered in the context of “had we been there [on the council] at the time”.

“We are in a different position now as elected councillors.

“Once a decision is made, whether we vote for or against it, we’re bound to support that decision of council.”