The Sydney suburbs falling out of love with fast food
Some residents, in submissions to the City of Sydney Council, argued King Street was already home to five chicken shops and the addition of a sixth would 'undermine the culinary diversity and community atmosphere that makes King Street so special'.
Meanwhile, Guzman y Gomez was forced to scale back plans for a 24/7 outlet in Mosman after concerns were raised by council planners regarding the possible impact of noise.
In May, the City of Sydney Council rejected plans for a 24-hour McDonald's in Redfern following resistance from residents and police.
The planning battles come as new figures show fast food companies are rapidly increasing the number of outlets across Australia, with Guzman y Gomez opening 27 restaurants in 2024, followed by KFC with 23, McDonald's with 19, Domino's with 18 and Hungry Jack's with 16.
The figures, published by ANZ in its food, beverage and agribusiness insights report, estimated there could be at least 30,000 quick service and fast food outlets in Australia by 2030 – the equivalent of one restaurant for every 1000 Australians.
Business Sydney executive director Paul Nicolaou has criticised the opposition to fast food applications, arguing the refusals can rob consumers of choice.
'For a restaurant to be refused over noise and crime is wrong – these stores employ a lot of people and if there's demand, they should be able to operate,' he said.
In a statement, a spokeswoman for McDonald's said the company is 'committed to engaging with councils and communities to ensure we're listening to feedback'.
Loading
'This includes limiting the impact of common concerns such as traffic, noise, and waste, and promoting our potential to contribute as a local employer and a business committed to giving back to the neighbourhood,' she said.
McDonald's has not ruled out challenging the Northern Beaches Council's decision to refuse its application in the Land and Environment Court.
'We will take our time to review council's decision and feedback before considering next steps,' the spokeswoman said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
West Australian
34 minutes ago
- West Australian
Whose shout? Why splitting the bill could actually make you happier
When an outing calls for upfront payment — such as admission to the cinema, a play or a theme park — the question of who covers it can shape the tone before the fun even begins. Navigating payment with others — whether colleagues, close friends or new acquaintances — can be tricky and interrupt the social dynamic that makes shared experiences so valuable. Our new research, published in Psychology and Marketing, suggests the way you approach splitting upfront costs could have some surprising impacts. In some cases, despite the dent in your bank account, covering the full cost of an experience for yourself and someone else could actually make you happier. But this won't always be the case. And it likely comes down to the different norms and expectations we have for different kinds of relationships. When times are tough financially, psychology suggests people would prefer to spend their money on material goods rather than experiences. Yet despite ongoing cost-of-living pressures, there's evidence to suggest many Australians are prioritising experiences. Experiences are not just services, but rather about creating memorable events. Compared with material goods, experiences are consistently linked to improved happiness. A big part of the benefit we derive from such experiences hinges on the fact that we share them with other people. Putting money towards experiences lets us spend time with other people and relate to them in ways just buying 'stuff' often can't match. So much so, that factors like who we go with, the quality of conversations an experience leads to, or the clarity we have about the other person's interests can have as much of an effect on happiness as the experience content itself. In shared experiences, where money is unavoidable, how does 'who pays' affect their wellbeing benefits? This is the question we posed in our latest research, co-authored with Belinda Barton and Natalina Zlatevska. We conducted three experiments with 2640 people and presented them with a common scenario: they would be going to the cinema with either their best friend or a casual acquaintance. We told half of the participants they would split the cost (that is, pay only for their own admission). The other half were told they would cover the whole cost for both themselves and the other person. We then asked them how happy they would be with this purchase. Across the three studies, when participants were with their best friend, they reported they would be happier paying the full amount than they would be splitting the cost. In contrast, when participants were with an acquaintance, we found that how the cost was split had no effect on happiness. With closer friends, unlike acquaintances and strangers, we often have a different set of norms and expectations — especially surrounding reciprocity. Interactions with close friends usually follow 'communal norms'. This is where people help each other based on care and need, without expecting something in return. On the other hand, interactions with strangers and acquaintances are more likely to follow 'exchange norms', which prioritise balance and direct repayment. In line with this, we found when participants were with their best friends, their expectations of repayment were lower than with acquaintances when they paid for them. Where participants had higher expectations of repayment, they noted they would be less happy. We also tested other ideas, such as whether who pays would affect how smooth the conversation felt or whether it created awkwardness in the dynamic. We also examined whether the payment felt like an investment in the relationship, or whether it made the other person think more positively of the participant. We found that none of these really changed depending on who paid and how close the two people were, so they didn't seem to explain why paying for a close friend felt better. Instead, norms around reciprocity in different types of relationships can make paying feel more transactional than a kind gesture. This, in turn, affects how happy it makes us feel. While our research suggests paying for others can make you happier, we don't recommend budgeting your life savings for this cause. We limited our experiments to inexpensive experiences (that is, the cinema). So, it's unlikely paying for your friend's 2026 Europe trip will bring you ultimate happiness. Also, if your friend already owes you money, you might expect them to pay you back sooner, and footing the bill again could start to wear thin on your happiness. Aimee E. Smith is a postdoctoral research fellow in the Net Zero Observatory at the University of Queensland. This article first appeared at The Conversation
West Australian
34 minutes ago
- West Australian
Jovan Cvetkoski: Here's why every Australian worker should have income protection insurance
Have you ever thought about what might happen to you and your family if you suddenly couldn't work? Whether that's due to an illness, accident, redundancy or a sudden but important caring role. How would you cope without an active income? Would you sell your assets? Rely on government payments that are considerably less than your current income or move back in with your parents? Most of us would never consider driving around in our car uninsured, yet only one in three Australians insure their most important asset — their ability to earn an income. Many people I talk to say: 'Well, I own my house.' But unless you're one of the very lucky ones, unfortunately you don't own your house — the bank does. A mortgage is not a financial plan. In Australia we protect our health with private health cover, we protect our cars with car insurance, our home with home and contents insurance, so why don't we protect our income? Because when you really get back to basics, your income is your biggest asset. It pays for your home, your family, your weekends, puts food on the table and pays for the kids' school fees. I believe Aussies are chronically underinsured. Here's why you need to consider income protection insurance Aussies are known all over the world for our laconic 'she'll be right' attitude and most of us truly believe it won't happen to us. And while you have to admire our optimism, it does indeed happen to many of us. Australians suffer from a bit of inertia when it comes to insurance. Many of us have a general lack of awareness about what types of cover are available and what they're for. There's also confusion over costs. Many Australians believe insurance is expensive, but in reality it's very affordable and has become less inexpensive in recent years as we tend to live longer. While it's often a difficult topic to broach as it involves thinking about getting sick or even dying, it's the best gift you can give your family because they won't have to worry about paying the bills. But unfortunately, when cost of living is tight, that's when things like insurance — often seen as a non-essential — get cut from household budgets. But it's also when we need it most. 1. Life and Total and Permanent Disability insurance Covers you for: 2. Trauma cover Covers you for: 3. Income protection Covers you for: I unfortunately see a lot of people who need to claim income protection and (for those with it) the financial stress is alleviated, allowing them to focus on recovery. This heavily depends on your circumstances, but you generally require enough cover to pay out a mortgage, cover funeral and medical costs, maybe keep the kids in private school and/or provide an income for your spouse. You will require the most cover in your late 30s to early 50s when debt is at its highest, living off one income and paying for school fees. Insurance levels, like other parts of your financial life, should be reviewed regularly. As kids get older and debt is reduced the level of cover required can often also be reduced. We never know what's around the corner for us, but having income protection insurance is one thing we can control, and it means no matter what happens we can always roll the dice in our favour. Jovan Cvetkoski is a financial adviser and director at Knight Group in Perth
Perth Now
an hour ago
- Perth Now
Major step towards cutting maximum medicine cost to $25
Australians will pay no more than $25 for selected medicines for the first time in more than 20 years under a proposal to be brought before parliament. It will be the second cap on medicines on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) introduced by the Albanese government in three years, after it cut the maximum price of PBS prescriptions from $42.50 to $30. "The size of your bank balance shouldn't determine the quality of your health care," Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said. "My government will continue to deliver cost-of-living relief for all Australians." PBS medicines would be capped at $7.70 for pensioners and credit card holders until 2030. The bill's introduction is largely a formality, with its passage through the lower house all but assured thanks to Labor's massive 94-seat majority in the 150-seat House of Representatives. The election promise is the Albanese government's next priority after it introduced childcare safety and HECS debt reduction legislation. Federal Labor has been talking up plans to strengthen the PBS amid concerns the scheme will be targeted as a bargaining chip in US trade negotiations to ward off threatened pharmaceutical tariffs. Mr Albanese has repeatedly said the scheme was not up for negotiation. Australia eased its biosecurity restrictions on US beef imports last week, but the prime minister has denied the move was linked to US trade talks, noting it followed a 10-year review of Australian biosecurity rules. Beyond new legislation, conflict in the Middle East will likely prompt fierce debate on the parliamentary floor after Mr Albanese said Israel had breached international law by blocking the flow of food aid into Gaza. "Quite clearly, it is a breach of international law to stop food being delivered, which was a decision that Israel made in March," Mr Albanese said on ABC's Insiders program on Sunday. He stopped short of saying Australia would join France in recognising a Palestinian state, but said his government would decide at "an appropriate time". "Hamas can have no role in a future state," he said. "Hamas are a terrorist organisation who I find, their actions are abhorrent." Opposition foreign affairs spokeswoman Michaelia Cash said Mr Albanese failed to adequately condemn the role of the group in the ongoing conflict. The government is also likely to come under pressure regarding transparency when parliament resumes, after a Centre for Public Integrity probe revealed only a quarter of freedom of information request responses returned by the government in 2023-24 were un-redacted. By comparison, the Morrison government returned almost half of its FOI requests as complete documents in 2021-22.
