MCU15/0095 & REC15/0022 PM Submission Object - Petition

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

  2. The nearest structure               on the school         The relevance of this statement is unclear and if
       boundary is the pump house for the                      anything demonstrates the proximity of the proposed
       school pool                                             service station to the School pool facilities used by
                                                               toddlers and young children.

  3. The         proposed       service      station      is   Visual distinction is the least of the concerns that are
       orientated away from the school and                     associated with the location of a service station
       towards      the  Eumundi- Noosa Road adjacent to, indeed adjoining, a School and its
       frontage,     providing visual distinction associated health and physical education facilities.
       between both sites.

  4. The service station refuelling area is The Applicant provides no justification                               for   its
       sufficiently distanced from the school                  assertion    that   the   Development    "is   sufficiently
       boundary which is greater than 25m.                     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.

  5.   All vehicle accessrelating to the service The relevance of this statement is once again unclear.
       station     and future          proposed Lot 2          The access being off Eumundi-Noosa Road, which is
       development is obtained via Eumundi-                    the same as the accessto the School and only a short
       Noosa Road which is more than suitably                  distance away creates the potential for increased
       distanced from the school access                  off   traffic   queuing and obstruction       along the short
       Walter Hay Drive.                                       stretch of road between the two entrances.

  6. A dedicated pedestrian pathway from                       Again the relevance of this statement is unclear. The
       Walter      Hay Drive      is proposed. This            pathway provides no additional protection for the
       pathway connects           Walter      Hay Drive        School children. Indeed it provides further unwanted
       directly    to     the   site     and the       store   opportunity for children to accessthe shop, which is
       building, thus reducing any potential                   undoubtedly the main purpose of the development,
       conflict     between            pedestrians      and    that is to encourage the school children to purchase
       vehicles.                                               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 Hazardsin 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