Jen Drysdale submission 17 Dec 15

 

practice demands that service station facilities be set
back a far greater distance from the School.

 

The nearest structure on the school
boundary is the pump house for the
school pool

The relevance of this statement is unclear and if
anything demonstrates the proximity of the proposed
service station to the School pool facilities used by
toddlers and young children.

 

The proposed service station is
orientated away from the school and
towards the Eumundi- Noosa Road
frontage, providing visual distinction
between both sites.

Visual distinction is the least of the concerns that are
associated with the location of a service station
adjacent to, indeed adjoining, a School and its
associated health and physical education facilities.

 

The service station refuelling area is
sufficiently distanced from the school
boundary which is greater than 25m.

The Applicant provides no justification for its
assertion that the Development “is sufficiently
distanced from the school boundary which is greater

than 25m.”

In the contrary we have demonstrated elsewhere in
this document that international and Australian best
practice demands that service station facilities be set
back a far greater distance from the School.

 

All vehicle access relating to the service
station and future proposed Lot 2
development is obtained via Eumundi-
Noosa Road which is more than suitably
distanced from the school access off
Walter Hay Drive.

The relevance of this statement is once again unclear.
The access being off Eumundi-Noosa Road, which is
the same as the access to the School and only a short
distance away creates the potential for increased
traffic queuing and obstruction along the short
stretch of road between the two entrances.

 

 

A dedicated pedestrian pathway from
Walter Hay Drive is proposed. This
pathway connects Walter Hay Drive
directly to the site and the store
building, thus reducing any potential
conflict between pedestrians and
vehicles.

 

Again the relevance of this statement is unclear. The
pathway provides no additional protection for the
School children. Indeed it provides further unwanted
opportunity for children to access the shop, which is
undoubtedly the main purpose of the development,
that is to encourage the school children to purchase
from the shop and increase the profits to the owner
at the expense of - and threat to - the School
children.

 

 

The Applicant has also failed to respond seriously and comprehensively to Council’s request for further

information regarding the Airborne Hazards in proximity to the School identified by Council as an area of

critical importance to the Development application:

 

Applicant’s Response

Objectors’ Response

 

1. Benzene as an active

 

 

The Applicant provides mere idle assertion in the face of the evidence

 

24