Jen Drysdale submission 17 Dec 15

 

Code Objective

Developer’s Assessment

Objectors’ Assessment

 

School children of the vapour
emission from the facility.

Detail provided elsewhere in this
document demonstrates s clear link
between service station proximity and
harm to children. The Applicant fails
to address these matters or to
provide any credible data to support
their contention. Neither does the
Applicant does provide creditable, or
indeed any, material to show that
acceptable and safe exposure levels
can and will be maintained during the
operation of the service station.

 

LANDSCAPING CODE

 

 

028 Landscaping of
carparking areas ...

 

028 Complies

It is considered that one
advanced tree for every 6
parking spaces is not
appropriate given that the car
parking area is located
between the petrol building
and the fuel court. It is
considered that trees will limit
casual surveillance of this

area.

The site comprises 30%
landscaping. This is considered
more than suitable.

 

Does not Comply

The Development proposal is
noncompliant and not suitable for the
neighbourhood.

The phrase “it is considered” is clearly
an obfuscation, without qualification,
justification or validation of the
credentials of the person holding the
consideration. The siting of the car
parking area is the responsibility of
the Applicant. Furthermore it is the
Applicant’s responsibility to design a
compliant solution in all respects,
including provision of required trees
AND sufficient casual surveillance to
comply with the planning scheme.
Council has determined by way of the
planning scheme what is ‘suitable’.
The Applicant provides no
qualification, expert opinion or
justification to allow a conclusion that
the amount proposed is “... more than
suitable.” The Applicant furthermore
provides no justification for its
derived value of 30% other than it is

 

19