Proposed McDonald's Restaurant Development, Toukley/Noraville: An Updated Independent Analysis

This post is for the information of our local community, including those who support the proposed McDonald's development and those who oppose it.

I am an independent researcher with substantial experience in analysing issues from a higher-level systems perspective, focusing on practical outcomes rather than emotion or politics.
On 23 November 2025, I attended the protest outside the proposed McDonald's site. My original posts of 18 November 2025 and 23 November 2025 remain available in the Blog section of www.MarcusMark.org. They provide background to this article and illustrate how my analysis has broadened as further information and events have emerged.

The main concerns raised by members of the community included:

I: Safety concerns and traffic congestion, considering the site is opposite a primary school on the main road.
II: Protecting the livelihoods of nearby food businesses.
III: The restaurant operating 24 hours a day.
IV: Concerns that the proposed car park is too small compared with other larger McDonald's restaurants.
V: Possible impacts on native wildlife.
VI: Concerns that McDonald's encourages unhealthy eating.

I was neutral then, and I remain neutral today. I am neither for nor against this development. As I stated in my previous posts of 18 and 23 November 2025, many of the concerns raised by protesters are valid from a personal perspective. However, in my opinion, they are not sufficient, from a legal and planning perspective, to permanently prevent this development from proceeding where it falls within the approved zoning.

Rather than opposing the development and risking expensive litigation in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, I proposed what I believed was a practical solution.

My suggestion was for McDonald's, the affected local food businesses and Council to work together. Nearby food businesses could have been permitted to install better-positioned, illuminated signage, with Council providing the necessary approvals and McDonald's contributing towards the cost as a gesture of goodwill.

This would likely have cost McDonald's considerably less than lengthy proceedings in the Land and Environment Court while generating goodwill and helping existing businesses attract additional customers. Since many of those businesses close well before evening, they would receive valuable advertising exposure from passing traffic and McDonald's customers throughout the night, potentially increasing turnover during their daytime trading hours.

In my opinion, this proposal would have benefited everyone involved. Unfortunately, it was completely ignored, and many protesters believed they had achieved a complete victory when Council rejected the development application on 12 December 2025.

The reality is somewhat different.
I understand how councils and large corporations operate. While the applicant appears to be operating under the McDonald's franchise system, the proposal is likely supported by one of the world's largest corporations, and they will defend planning decisions through the legal process when they believe a proposal has merit. Like any applicant, they must ultimately satisfy the Court that the proposal complies with the relevant planning requirements and is appropriate for the site. I have confidence in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales determining the matter on its legal merits.

Below are my views on each of the concerns raised.

1. Safety and Traffic
The site previously operated as Steve Kennedy Smash Repairs together with a spray-painting workshop. For many years there were constant vehicle movements, trucks entering and leaving the premises, reversing vehicles and industrial activities.
Importantly, this type of business falls within a light industrial land use, which is generally regarded as a more intensive use than a commercial restaurant.
The fact that McDonald's may attract more customers is not, by itself, likely to determine the outcome of proceedings in the Land and Environment Court. The Court generally considers whether the development has been properly designed and whether appropriate traffic management and safety measures have been incorporated.
Unlike the former smash repair business, the proposed McDonald's would also incorporate modern surveillance cameras and safety features that encourage more careful driving behaviour.
Another point raised was that serious road accidents have occurred in this area in the past. Ironically, this may strengthen McDonald's argument rather than weaken it. Those incidents occurred while the site operated as an industrial smash repair business, not as a modern fast-food restaurant. McDonald's could reasonably argue that the proposed development incorporates improved traffic design and safety measures, making the location safer than it previously was.

2. Protecting Existing Food Businesses
This is the one concern with which I largely agree.
That is precisely why I proposed improved illuminated signage funded by McDonald's as compensation for nearby businesses.
Unfortunately, once significant legal proceedings commence, goodwill negotiations become much less likely. Money that could have assisted local businesses may instead be spent on legal costs.
It is important to note that McDonald's was never under any legal obligation to provide assistance to surrounding businesses. My proposal was simply a practical goodwill solution that I believed would have benefited everyone involved.
Even if some nearby food businesses were affected by the new restaurant, a goodwill contribution towards improved illuminated signage would have helped offset that impact by increasing their visibility to passing motorists and McDonald's customers. In my opinion, this would have been a practical and relatively inexpensive solution for McDonald's compared with the cost of lengthy legal proceedings, while also fostering stronger community support for the development.
It is also worth remembering that while some nearby food businesses may experience increased competition, many other local businesses could actually benefit from the additional customer traffic generated by McDonald's. Businesses such as nearby pharmacies, medical services, retail stores and other service providers may receive greater exposure from the increased number of people visiting the area.
Likewise, members of our community who enjoy fast food late at night would finally have that option available when most other nearby food businesses are closed.

3. Twenty-four Hour Trading
In my opinion, this is unlikely to be a decisive issue.
There are very few nearby residences, and those that do exist are sufficiently distant that they are unlikely to be directly affected. The surrounding properties are predominantly commercial and are closed overnight, while the primary school is also closed during the evening.
From a planning perspective, this is very different from locating a 24-hour restaurant within a residential neighbourhood where noise and vehicle movements could directly affect nearby residents.
Even if the Land and Environment Court were to conclude that 24-hour trading was inappropriate for this particular location, that would not necessarily mean the development itself should be refused. In many planning matters, operational conditions can be imposed or modified to address specific concerns. If the Court considered reduced trading hours necessary to minimise impacts on the surrounding area, that could be one option available while still allowing the development to proceed.

4. Car Parking
Whether the proposed car park is adequate is ultimately a technical planning issue.
Personal opinions or speculation generally carry little weight unless supported by professional traffic engineering evidence. If the Land and Environment Court determines that the parking arrangements or traffic flow require improvement, these matters can generally be addressed through modifications to the development rather than rejecting the proposal entirely.

5. Native Wildlife
Another concern raised by some members of the community related to possible impacts on native wildlife.
This is an area in which I have considerable experience, particularly with Yellow-tailed Black-Cockatoos and birds of prey. Over many years I have worked with both State and Federal environment departments on conservation-related matters.
Interestingly, I did not hear concerns raised specifically about Yellow-tailed Black-Cockatoos, despite them being one of Australia's more significant native bird species from a conservation perspective.
From my own observations over many years, Yellow-tailed Black-Cockatoos frequently fly through this area. On several occasions I have even heard flocks travelling around midnight.
Although these birds are not predominantly nocturnal, they are highly intelligent and are capable of navigating using existing man-made structures and lighting.
While additional lighting may have varying effects on different native species, it may also provide benefits to species of higher conservation priority, such as the Yellow-tailed Black-Cockatoo. From my own observations, these birds are capable of navigating using man-made lighting when travelling after dark. In my opinion, additional lighting may assist them in locating suitable roosting areas and navigating more safely.
Any environmental assessment should therefore consider both the potential disadvantages for some native species and the potential benefits for others.

6. McDonald's is Unhealthy
Some protesters argue that McDonald's encourages unhealthy eating.
In my opinion, this argument carries very little legal or planning weight. There are already numerous takeaway food businesses throughout the area selling products of varying nutritional value. Depending on the food selected, some may offer greater nutritional value than comparable McDonald's products, some similar nutritional value, while others may offer less nutritional value. For this reason, I do not consider this to be a particularly helpful argument when assessing the proposed development.
McDonald's is not inherently unhealthy. Like most foods, it can form part of a balanced diet when consumed in moderation. Millions of people around the world enjoy McDonald's responsibly as part of an otherwise balanced lifestyle, which is one reason the brand continues to be so popular. Like almost every food, excessive consumption may contribute to health issues, but moderation is the key.
For these reasons, I do not believe this argument is likely to influence a planning decision.

Other Planning Considerations
If McDonald's were permanently rejected solely because it is a fast-food restaurant, rather than because of any deficiencies in the development design, this could establish a planning precedent that may affect future food-related developments on the site.
For example, if McDonald's were refused on principle but another fast-food business were later approved on the same land, significant legal issues could potentially arise concerning consistency and fairness in planning decisions. Depending on the circumstances, McDonald's may argue that it has suffered substantial financial and reputational loss.
This land is expensive, relatively small and has limited development options. In my opinion, it is unlikely someone would invest millions of dollars to build a public children's park, library, gym, a single dwelling or a duplex on privately owned commercial land of this value because such developments would be unlikely to be economically viable.
The more realistic alternatives are likely to be another commercial food business with a similar level of traffic generation, reflecting the economic realities of developing land of this value, or residential apartments.  

Personally, I believe that if the site were ultimately developed as residential apartments instead, it would be a less desirable outcome for the local community. Rather than creating predominantly customer traffic associated with a professionally managed commercial operation, residential apartments could generate a less predictable pattern of vehicle movements throughout the day and night.
If some apartments were later used for short-term accommodation, such as Airbnb, there could also be a higher proportion of drivers unfamiliar with local roads and traffic conditions compared with local residents. In my opinion, this has the potential to create greater road safety concerns, particularly given the site's proximity to the nearby primary school. By comparison, a McDonald's restaurant would typically operate under well-established corporate procedures, with regular staff presence, extensive lighting, CCTV surveillance and a strong focus on public safety and risk management.

More broadly, if land of this nature cannot be put to an economically viable commercial use, one of the more realistic alternatives may ultimately be residential development. At a time when many Australians are already struggling with housing affordability, and younger Australians and lower-income workers, including many employed in essential industries, are finding it increasingly difficult not only to pay rent but also to save for a home deposit, these broader community considerations are, in my opinion, also relevant when assessing the long-term merits of land use decisions.  

My concern has always been practical outcomes.
If Council ultimately loses in the Land and Environment Court, the development may proceed anyway. Existing food businesses are unlikely to receive any assistance because the opportunity for cooperation has been lost, and the legal costs associated with defending the proceedings may ultimately be borne by ratepayers.
That is simply a possibility that should be considered.
I also welcome respectful disagreement. If anyone believes I have overlooked an important issue or reached an incorrect conclusion, I would genuinely appreciate hearing an alternative viewpoint.
Finally, I wish to emphasise once again that I remain completely neutral. I do not mind whether this development proceeds or not. My objective has simply been to analyse the practical, legal and community issues as objectively as possible, and to explain why I believe the applicant has a relatively strong legal position if this matter is determined by the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. Ultimately, however, the decision rests with the Court, and I respect its role in determining the matter according to the evidence and the applicable planning law.  
With the Court conducting its on-site inspection on 1 July 2026, I hope this post encourages respectful discussion and a broader consideration of the legal, environmental, commercial and community issues involved, regardless of whether you support or oppose the proposal.
​
© Marcus Mark, MarcusMark.org. All rights reserved.