A CONTROVERSIAL service station development proposed for Stanthorpe's High St has been voted down by Southern Downs Regional Council in a decision which could have ramifications for future development applications in the region.

The Woolworths Service Station, which was proposed for the vacant site of McCosker Motors, attracted strong opposition from Stanthorpe residents including a number of local business owners and workers, and parents of an adjacent childcare centre.

More than 20 members of a local action group gathered in the gallery of Stanthorpe's council chambers to hear the decision on Wednesday.

Southern Downs mayor Peter Blundell told the meeting he had received 187 letters of opposition to the development.

"There was a lot of concern raised by similar businesses in the community," Cr Blundell said.

"Direct competition is not in itself grounds for why you wouldn't approve it.

"Our decisions are based on planning matters - the issue of competition is not taken into account."

Among the objections of those opposed included concerns over the proximity of the service station to a neighbouring child care centre.

The proposed development site however had been a provider of fuel for at least 60 years before it shut down earlier this year.

There was lengthy discussion between the councillors in yesterday's meeting, with most expressing a level of personal opposition to the establishment of the Woolworths service station.

Cr Glyn Rees expressed his opinion of how easy business can be affected by a competitor opening up locally.

"I don't see this potential development as necessary for Stanthorpe," Cr Rees said.

Also taking the floor was Cr Ross Bartley, who said there was nothing council could do to stop competition.

"Whilst I don't support it - I agree with the recommendation," Cr Bartley said.

"I've struggled to a find a planning reason to deny it."

After some tense debate councillors Bartley, Rees, Mackenzie and Gow voted against the application while councillors Pennisi and Ingram abstained from the vote citing a conflict of interests.

An apologetic Cr Neil Meiklejohn voted in favour of the development, stating only planning and environmental concerns warranted a refusal.

"It truly does gut me to know issues of competition can't be considered," he said.

No clear reasoning was given by councillors for their decision to reject the application, a move which could potentially have consequences for future developments as council is only allowed to reject applications on planning or environmental grounds.