Notice of Submission Service Station

To: Chief Executive Officer
Noosa Shire Council
PO Box 141 Tewantin QLD 4565
Att: Dennis Wallace
Assessment Officer

By Email: [email protected]

Date: 14 December 2015

1. Application details
File No
Application Number
MCU15/0095

Details
115 Eumundi Noosa Rd Noosaville - Vehicle Uses Type 5 - Service station Retail Business Type 2 Shop - Synergy Property Partners - TFA Project Group

Property Address
115 Eumundi Noosa Rd NOOSAVILLE QLD 4566

Postal address of Land (as above)
Nature of Proposed Development - Material Change of Use - Vehicle Uses Type 5/Service Station + Type 2/Retail

2. Submitter details
Full name of Submitter - Aaron Denis White
Email Address:  [email protected]
Postal address: 77 Bunneys Lane
Suburb – Kin Kin	State  -  Queensland	Postcode   4571
Ph: (07) 54 854 096 Mob: 0487 658 497

3. Details of Submission
I make the following submission:
Executive Summary
I am requesting the Noosa Council recommend for refusal of the above application MCU 15/0095 on the grounds the applicant, Synergy Property Partners/Tim Faragher and Associates Project Group (TFA) has failed to identify the hazardous nature of a refuelling facility sited adjacent to a Community Uses precinct, being the Good Shepherd Lutheran College (GSLC).  The Applicant has also failed to submit a Traffic Management Plan that accurately recognises the impacts of the proposal on existing peak traffic congestion.

The application must be refused on the basis:
TFA failed to recognise the potential harm of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC’s) on children
TFA failed to adequately identify or mitigate the hazards associated with unavoidable release of VOC’s in day to day operations, minor fuel spillages, or major accidents
The GSLC boundary is approximately 25 metres from the refuelling area with the swimming pool sited less than 50 metres from the hazardous use
TFA failed to provide adequate buffers or setbacks from the GSLC facility in its application
TFA’s Traffic Management Plan fails to adequately address the impact of traffic congestion in an area already incapable of maintaining normal thoroughfare at school pick-up and drop off times

TFA failed to recognise the potential harm of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC’s) on children
The applicant contends siting a refuelling facility adjacent to GSLC poses no considerable threat to human health. I note a 2009 NSW Dept of Environment, Climate Change and Water report “Expansion of Vapour Recovery at Petrol Service Stations in the NSW Greater Metropolitan Region”.  This detailed and referenced report into the hazards associated with vapour released from service stations states there is no safe level for exposure to VOC’s and describes the detrimental  effect on human health of benzene exposure:
 “As well as contributing to ozone formation, VOCs in petrol vapour can have direct health and odour amenity impacts on service station employees, and people living and working in the vicinity of a service station. Petrol contains 1% benzene. Benzene is a human carcinogen and there is no safe level of human exposure to benzene. Long-term exposure to benzene has been linked with increased incidence of leukaemia. Recent Australian research (Horton et al. 2006) has found that vehicle refuelling is associated with exposure to benzene concentrations up to 3 orders of magnitude (1,000 times) higher than typical ambient concentrations.”

In the case of a petrol refuelling facility in close proximity to a school, the specific impact of chemical exposure on children must also be considered. There are numerous peer reviewed scientific studies into the adverse impacts of low level chemical exposure on children which prove, due to body mass and undeveloped immune systems, children are far more susceptible to adverse effects of chemical exposure than adults.  I note the 2011 World Health Organisation (WHO) report “Children's Health and the Environment WHO Training Package for the Health Sector World Health Organization”
“We now recognize that children, including the embryo, foetus, infant and all life stages until the completion of adolescence, are often at different and increased risk from environmental hazards than adults, for reasons that can be divided into four major categories.
1. Children often have different and sometimes unique exposures to environmental hazards from those of adults.
2. Due to their dynamic developmental physiology, they often receive higher exposures to pollutants found in air, water and food which may be handled quite differently by an immature set of systems from the ways they are dealt with in adults. Furthermore, the developmental component of a child’s physiology is changing, maturing, differentiating and growing in phases known as developmental windows. These critical windows of vulnerability have no parallel in adult physiology and create unique risks for children exposed to hazards which can alter normal function and structure.
3. Children have a longer life expectancy. They have longer to manifest disease with a long latency period (e.g. cancer), and longer to live with toxic damage.
4. Finally, children are politically powerless; they are defenceless. With no political standing of their own, they must rely on adults to protect them from toxic environmental agents.”

TFA failed to adequately identify or mitigate the hazards associated with unavoidable release of VOC’s in day to day operations, minor fuel spillages, or major accidents.
The applicant contends any environmental hazard posed by release of VOC’s from refuelling is mitigated by the use of Vapour Reduction Pumps (VRP’s), designed to redirect vapours expelled from vehicle fuel tanks back into underground fuel tanks.  However TFA note in their own material that VRP’s allow release of up to 15% of VOC’s into the surrounding environment during refuelling.
I note a TFA letter dated 2 December 2015 (Ref: 15193) sent to GSLC, in which the applicant describes how refuelling such as described in the proposal, should not occur within 20 metres of a sensitive use area.  This correspondence also notes Development conditions indicating related refuelling activities should not occur within 50 metres of sensitive areas.  With its significant numbers of vulnerable children in close proximity to the site during peak vehicle refuelling times, the GSLC clearly qualifies as a sensitive use area. The applicant fails to consider these matters in their proposal.
As a sensitive site, the increased risks associated with a services station used by the public must be considered.  With human error and handling of hazardous materials by unqualified members of the public, it is inevitable spillages of fuel and associated release of vapours will occur.  Particularly on occasions when members of the public refill petrol cans, jerry cans and plastic bottles. Refilling the range of these containers frequently leads to spillages and also renders the VRP devices ineffective.  On such occasions, VOC release into the environment is unavoidable.
Regardless of workplace health and safety regulations and claims of best practice by the applicant, the possibility of a large scale accident caused by staff or members of the public will always be a possibility and should this occur within metres of significant numbers of children, the consequences could be catastrophic.
As a society we have a duty of care to ensure this risk is avoided.  The applicant has failed to provide a case of an overriding need for this facility in the public interest that outweighs the unacceptable risk to child safety.  There are alternative facilities in the region that provide fuel and other sites zoned for Type 5 Vehicle Use that do not pose a direct pollution and safety threat to children.
The GSLC boundary is approximately 25 metres from the refuelling area with the swimming pool sited less than 50 metres from the hazardous use.
It is noted in the applicant’s material that the refuelling area is within 50 metres of the GSLC swimming pool.  TFA accepts VOC’s have a tendency to settle at ground level. Therefore it is unavoidable during certain wind conditions that toxic and carcinogenic vapours will travel beyond the physical barrier between the properties and settle near the surface of the swimming pool.  Given the nature of breathing during swimming, at certain times it is inevitable children will take deep breaths of VOC’s. These circumstances provide an unacceptable threat to child health and safety.
It must also be noted the school buildings appear to be sited well within the 50 metre perimeter of the refuelling area.
The applicant contends the surrounding topography assists in reducing the impact of vapours associated with a refuelling facility.  This claim is an acknowledgement by the applicant that impacts from refuelling do exist and is contradictory to their proposition that the facility is non-hazardous in nature.
The reliance on topography to redirect VOC’s away from the GSLC will be ineffective, particularly during the months when the prevailing wind direction is westerly and will direct VOC’s towards and through the swimming pool and education facility.  I note TFA have failed to address this unavoidable hazard in their application.

TFA  has failed to provide adequate buffers or setbacks from the GSLC facility in its application
The service station has been designed to maximise the use of the restrictive site to accommodate vehicle refuelling and allow access for trucks to refill the underground fuel storage tanks.  This compressed layout provides insignificant space for effective buffers between GSLC and the refuelling area.  The design of the service station provides a manifestly inadequate barrier to mitigate hazards associated with handling of VOC’s, only a few metres away from where children swim play and learn.  Even with best practice and in a best case scenario of no accidental spills, it is preposterous to contend the smell of a service station would not be noticeable approximately twenty metres away.
I again refer to the NSW EPA report into service station hazards which states:
“There is a market failure to allocate the resource of clean air efficiently. Clean air is a public good and price signals fail to reflect true social benefits of clean air. A market intervention is justified to reduce the unintended effects of air pollution. The external cost of air pollution from petrol vapour emissions is not included in the price of petrol and there is no incentive to reduce the impact of fuel on pollution.”
TFA’s Traffic Management Plan has failed to adequately address the impact of traffic congestion in an area already incapable of maintaining normal thoroughfare at school pick-up and drop off times.
The Traffic Management Plan (TMP) fails to acknowledge the current problems associated with traffic build up around GSLC at pick-up and drop-off times and relies on average numbers to suggest the excess traffic associated with the service station will have no adverse impact on traffic flow.
It is well known that in the morning during school drop-off times, traffic builds up heavily around the school and backs up onto Eumundi-Noosa Rd.  The most common time for the general public to use service stations is also during weekday mornings.
I am advised by members of the community associated with GSLC that numbers of children enrolled at the college for the 2016 year has increased considerably from previous years.  This increase in enrolments will inevitably lead to further traffic impacts around the school.  I note the entrance to the school on Eumundi-Noosa Rd where the current traffic problems occur is only metres from the service station entrance.
The TMP conducted on behalf of the applicant fails to address the combination of peak service station traffic coinciding with peak traffic from GSLC. The TMP report disregard of these matters renders it deficient and therefore it must not be considered as evidence in support of the application.
Conclusion
The TFA application MCU15/0095 must be refused on the grounds it fails to identify or mitigate the hazardous nature of the proposal in a sensitive area, or accurately gauge traffic impacts.
Yours Sincerely,
Aaron White

Ref:  2009 NSW Dept of Environment, Climate Change and Water report “Expansion of Vapour Recovery at Petrol Service Stations in the NSW Greater Metropolitan Region”.
2011 World Health Organisation (WHO) report “Children's Health and the Environment WHO Training Package for the Health Sector World Health Organization”

Page 4 of 5

	Notice of Submission under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009
2015/16

Privacy
Council will use any personal information provided for the intended purpose only and for remaining in contact with you. Council is authorised to collect this information in accordance with the Local Government Act 2009 and other Local Government Acts. Your personal information is only accessed by persons authorised to do so. Your personal information is dealt with in accordance with council’s privacy policy.

www.noosa.qld.gov.au	[email protected]	T 07 5329 6500
PO Box 141 Tewantin Qld 4565
ABN 97 969 214 121
Page 1 of 5