Council archive · source document
MCU15/0095 & REC15/0022 PM Submission Object - Nadine Love
Very large file (10.5 MB): the original may take a few minutes to open or download. The page text below is quick to read.
Development Counter
24 Carroo Lane
1 8 DEC 2015 Ridgewood, OLD 4563
POSTAL:PO BOX 855. Cooroy.OLD 4563
By Hand: Tewantin
Noosa COu'l2h!::.cc!,!.il ...J
Level 3. 9 Pelican Street
TEWANTIN, OLD 4565
By email: [email protected]
cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; frank. pa [email protected];
tony. [email protected]; fran [email protected];
noel. [email protected]
Submission: MCU 15/0095 - 115 Eumundi Road Noosaville
Dear Assessment Manager,
The undersigned strongly oppose the Application for Material Change of Use of Premises at
115 Eumundi Road Noosaville. We have assessed the proposed Development under the
Impact Assessment procedure of the Noosa Plan and all relevant State Planning Policies.
On the basis of our detailed assessment we believe sufficient planning grounds exist to warrant
that the proposal and the application is rejected and not recommended for Council approval.
The Application should be rejected on the following grounds:
1. The proposed Development is an INCONSISTENT USE within the Industry Zone'. which
is protected for industrial functions to the exclusion of most Retail Business Uses
including. but not limited to. Type 2 Retail Business use2;
2. The proposed Development is inconsistent with the objectives of the Noosa Plan in that:
a. IS NOT compatible with other adjacent uses;
b. DOES NOT maintain safety of people, and more specifically children; and
c. DOES NOT avoid significant adverse impacts on, and compromises, the amenity
enjoyed by the users of other premises in the adjoining Community Services,
Housing and Open-space Recreations Zones;
3. The proposed Development not consistent with the outcomes required by the Noosavifle
Locality Plan, Noosavifle Locality Code, and Overall Outcomes for the Noosavifle
Locality in that is NOT compatible with the existing and proposed amenity and
development of the immediate neighbourhood' consisting of Community Services,
Housing and Open-space Recreations Zones, and is NOT appropriate given the existing
and likely future traffic movements in the area'
1 Noosa Plan
2 Noosa Plan. Part 2 - Interpretation
'Noosa Plan, Part 14 - Assessment Criteria for Development for a Stated Purpose or of a Stated Type-
For Service Stations - Siting
4 ibid
B
C._l
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalFull text of the other 26 pages
Page 2
4. There are no matters of public interest to bear in relation to the proposed Development
that are grounds to accept the non-complying Application under s326 of the
Sustainable Planning Act (2009) (SPA), and indeed the Development is detrimental to
the public interest.
5. The Application DOES NOT COMPLY, or fails to provide creditable supporting evidence
to substantiate claims of compliance, with over thirty (30) aspects of relevant planning
instruments.
1. INCONSISTENT USE:
A shop is identified as an inconsistent use within the Industry Zone, being a Retail Business
Type 2, and the Application must be rejected on those grounds. Under the Sustainable Planning
Act 2009 The assessment manager's decision must not conflict with a relevant instrument,
unless there are there are sufficient favourable public interest grounds to justify the decision,
despite the conflict.
Section 326(1)(b) of the SPA sets out sufficient grounds for departing from a relevant instrument.
The SPA provides that an assessment manager may decide a development application in a way
that conflicts with a relevant instrument only in certain circumstances, the relevant of which
here is where there are sufficient grounds to justify the decision, despite the conflict. This
means that an assessment manager may approve an application, even though the proposed
development conflicts with a relevant instrument, only if there are sufficient grounds for
approving the development despite the conflict.
Conflict means to be "at variance or disagree with" and must be plainly identified. In the current
circumstances the proposed Development is in direct conflict with the planning scheme, being
an inconsistent use for the Industry zone. The planning scheme does not provide for a co-
located service stationlretail convenience shop in the Industry zone.
The term 'grounds', in the context, is defined in the SPA to mean matters of public interest.
Apart from defining the term grounds, the SPA does not provide any guidance about what
grounds are sufficient for justifying a decision that may conflict with a relevant instrument. The
matters 'public interest', derive from the subject mailer being considered which includes the
community need, wellbeing, protection, health and safety of the community or affected classes
of persons. In determining whether a conflicting Development should be Approved he
Assessment Manager may also consider negative impact on matters of public interest.
The Development does not meet a substantiated community need
A development may be said to be needed if, on balance, it improves community wellbeing.
Wellbeing may be improved by access to new services or facilities or a range of other ways.
However, any new uses must be compatible with surrounding uses in terms of amenity, the
environment and economics. As is demonstrated through this document the proposed
Development does not improve community wellbeing. It is not compatible with
surrounding uses in terms of amenity, the environment or economics.
There is no economic need for a convenience shop or indeed for a service station in the
location. The area is well serviced given the proximity to Noosa Civic and other adjoining retail
2
Page 3
facilities. The recent approval of a convenience shop and service station nearby at 139
Eumundi-Noosa Road provides for an additional retail outlet a few hundred meters from the
Properly. Further addition of retail facilities is not needed, and certainly not in such close
proximity to the sensitive School area.
The Applicant has not demonstrated a need for the inconsistent use within the subject zone.
The Applicant provides no grounds that would justify the granting of an exception and indeed in
this specific case there are no grounds on which approval of this type of Development on the
Property could be justified by the Assessment Manager and/or Council's elected
representatives. Furthermore, in conflict with Division 17 of the Noosaville Locality Plan, the
New Use is located and designed whereby its operation will cause significant adverse impact on
the School.
A development may be said to be needed if, on balance, it improves community wellbeing.
Wellbeing may be improved by access to new services or facilities or a range of other ways.
However, any new uses must be compatible with surrounding uses in terms of amenity, the
environment and economics. Furthermore in assessing the public interest the Assessment
manager may give weight to the negative impacts of a proposed Development on the
community and neighbourhood.
The Applicant provides no substantive data or justification based on community need or
anything else to substantiate why the School's children should be exposed to inappropriate and
significant adverse impacts on, and compromises to, the amenity they should be allowed to
enjoy unhindered by retail intrusion into the school environment. The applicant indicates the
service station and the convenience shop would operate 24 hours, given that it is primarily
proximate, not to other industrial uses, but to the School and nearby residential use this raises
real concerns for parents, children and the entire surrounding neighbourhood.
Furthermore the proposed Shop has not been objectively demonstrated by any credible
analysis to be ancillary to the service station. The Application is deliberately misleading in
attempting to minimise the true area allocated to retail floor space and hence to hide the fact
that the Shop is a significant part of the Development and supporting business model. The
Applicant acknowledges that the Shop component is in total 197m2, the majority, if not all of
which is available for retail use, and not the 1DDm2 mentioned by the Applicant, an assertion
simply designed to play down and hide the true nature of this venture as a retail development.
Industry data shows that a service station without a significant retail component is an unviable
business model. The retail component is therefore not ancillary to, but a major component of the
proposed Development. It has as an target market, not the servicing of the refuelling motorist,
but the children of the School who will be attracted to the facility. This is an unacceptable
intrusion into, and interference with, the amenity of the School.
The Applicant has not subjected the proposal to an economic needs and impact assessment of
even the most rudimentary kind. The need for a development is commonly recognised to be
related to community wellbeing. A development may be said to be needed if, on balance, it
improves community wellbeing. Wellbeing may be improved by access to new services or
facilities or a range of other ways. However, any new uses must be compatible with
surrounding uses in terms of amenity, the environment and economics. As is
demonstrated through this document the proposed Development does not improve, and
3
Page 4
,,
indeed is detrimental to, community wellbeing. It is not compatible with surrounding
uses in terms of amenity, the environment or economics.
On the basis of even the most rudimentary economic needs and impact assessment none of the
grounds advanced by the Applicant could justify approval, either individually or collectively.
The Development is detrimental to community health and safety
The Precautionary Principle demands that, particularly in relation to young children, we address
possible risks where scientific understanding is yet incomplete in a way that is not harmful. In
the absence of scientific consensus that the Development is not harmful, the burden of proof
that it is not harmful falls on the Developer and the Property Owner. The Applicant provides no
such evidence or assurance and in all the circumstances the Development must be rejected.
In Queensland, the health risk from benzene (and other pollutants) is recognized in the
Environmental Protection (Air) Policy 2008 (EPP). THE EPP sets exposure limits in air to
ensure protection of human and environmental health from those pollutants. The EPP objective
for benzene is a maximum concentration of 3 ppb (parts per billion) over a 1-year period.
According to research, Children are particularly at risk from breathing in toxic fumes, benzene
and noxious vapours that are inescapable from the close proximity of petrol pumps, increased
traffic and large underground storage tanks. A number of parents have identified that their
children already suffer with respiratory, heart, blood and liver conditions. Adding to these issues,
with the real threat of proven carcinogens causing cancers that can become apparent up to
twenty years after hazardous exposure and, therefore, makes the proposed development a
nightmare for parents who naturally want their children to grow up to be well.
Simply filling one's tank with petrol at a service station can cause one to feel dizzy, light headed
and sick. Would it be reasonable to approve a service station within such close proximity to the
school and it's amenities? The service station would be within 25 meters of the swimming pool
used by babies and toddlers and 30 meters from the main GSLC swimming pool. Swimmers
would be breathing in gulps of benzene and toxic vapour between swimming strokes. The
proposed 2 m wall will not contain toxic vapour that, due to the higher temperatures in
Queensland, is more expansive and more active than in cooler climes.
Invisible petrol and diesel leakages from underground tanks and pipes put students and GSLC
facility users at risk, as well as contaminating soil and underground water. Children play on the
ground in open areas such as the oval, and conduct outdoor science experiments in the area
directly behind the toddler swimming pool which is directly adjacent to the area of the proposed
development.
The Development proposal does not provide safeguards to those for whom we have a
high level of duty of care:
A significant safety concern results from the risks posed by certain types of individual often
attracted by service stations and who would not otherwise have reason to be near our school
grounds or within close proximity to the school and it's sports amenities. Unsavoury, simply
curious and unwanted members of the public can wander through the school property during or
after school hours as a spill over from the proposed service station. At very least this activity is
4
Page 5
disruptive and inappropriate for children, at worst these unwelcome visitors may cause harm
through criminal and unlawful activity. Unwanted people walking around the school during
break-times will be extremely difficult for the school to manage and monitor. Students enjoy
some freedom of movement in their designated recess areas. School staff already has a high
level of responsibility overseeing students during these times.
The school swimming pools have changing areas that are exposed and easily accessed by
unwanted members of the public, posing a threat to the safety of children who have, to date
enjoyed a peaceful, safe space to shower, change and relax before or after swimming classes.
The changing areas serving the school swimming pools and Health and Physical Education
Centre remain open from 5 am to 7 pm open so that children can make use of these facilities.
They are within very close proximity to the pools and sports complex. These are extremely high-
risk areas in terms of vulnerability and exposure as children are showering, changing and
naturally focused on their sports activities.
It is unthinkable to put children at risk of being interfered with, abused or abducted because of
the close proximity of the service station and the threats posed to their privacy and entitlement
to safe, secure facilities. The changing facilities and showers are currently unsupervised as well
as unlocked. The safety issue would warrant these spaces to be policed at all times throughout
the day - from 5 am to 5.30 pm daily. The toilet facilities for students and staff of GSLC remain
open during the day for use as required. Unwanted trespassers from the proposed service
station could easily access these essential facilities, which makes our children and school staff
easy targets and unnecessarily vulnerable to aberrant abuses, attacks and criminal activity.
Temptation for children to duck out of school and purchase food and drink, to play truant and to
innocently and unwillingly expose themselves to the raft of dangers as mentioned above, posed
by accessibility to a retail outlet and random members of the public frequenting the service
station.
Queensland is far from immune to the Australia wide drug supply and trafficking problem. Such
close proximity of a service station, with open public access could make our children an easy
target for drug supply and trafficking.
The service station is not wanted near our students who would be made vulnerable by easy
access. This issue can be avoided by rejecting the proposal for the service station in such close
proximity to the school.
Children and GSLC teachers will be exposed to the increased risk of fire, which can be
triggered as easily as by dropping a mobile phone. Shell Australia Health and Safety
documentation says: "Dropping a mobile phone or switching it on or off can cause sparks, which
may ignite petrol vapours".
Unlawful behaviour is all too frequent around service stations. November 2014 just down the
road in Eumundi,s Noosa gunman stole a Channel 7 television news car at gunpoint and
crashed it into a large gas tank at Eumundi Petrol Station.
5 http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/gueenslandfsunshine-cQast-aunman-f1ees-in-stolen.news-car-201411 05-
11hllu.hlml#ixzz3uCLo9800
5
Page 6
Clearly a site within such close proximity to the Good Shepherd Lutheran College is unsuitable
for the proposed development where children may be exposed to violence, terror and
recalcitrant choices from which they deserve to be protected. It cannot be in the public interest
to invite trouble of this nature within meters of a school where children have the right to learn in
peace and be safe.
2. PROPOSED SERVICE STATION DOES NOT ACCORD WITH OBJECTIVES THE NOOSA
PLAN:
Under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 the assessment manager's decision must not conflict
with a relevant instrument, unless there are there are sufficient public interest grounds to justify
the decision, despite the conflict. The Assessment manager can consider the negative effects of
a proposal on matters of public interest.
The Development is in conflict with the Noosa Plan and its derivatives the Noosaville Locality
Code and Overall Outcomes for the Noosaville Locality, in that the proposed New Use on a
property does not avoid significant adverse impacts on, and indeed compromises, the amenity
enjoyed by the users of the School including in particular the school children as well as users of
other premises in the adjoining Community Services, Housing and Open-space Recreation
Zone.
While it is acknowledged that a service station is a consistent development in the Industry zone,
we draw attention to table 14-15 of the Noosa Plan, which laces restrictions on the siting of a
service station. The Objectives set out in the Plan state that the specific outcomes required for a
service station development are:
076 - Service stations are located ONLY where they are compatible with the existing
and proposed amenity and development of a neighbourhood and where they are
appropriate given the existing or likely future traffic movements in the area; AND
080. Buildings, structures, driveways, tanks and fuel bowsers are sited (c) to provide
adequate separation to adjoining land uses; and (d) not cause an environmental
nuisance to neighbouring properties.
The proposed Development is neither compatible with the existing and proposed amenity and
development of the School and surrounding neighbourhood NOR is it appropriate given the
existing or likely future traffic movements in the area.
Furthermore the tanks and fuel bowsers are proposed to be sited such that they DO NOT to
provide adequate separation to the adjoining School AND are likely to cause an environmental
nuisance to the School and neighbouring properties. The Assessment Manager must,
particularly in relation to young children and where scientific understanding is yet incomplete,
take due consideration of the precautionary principle and consider the possible risks to make a
decision that is not in any way harmful. In the absence of scientific consensus that the
Development is not harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on the Developer and
the Property Owner. Neither has satisfied that burden of proof.
6
Page 7
Emissions from petrol stations are widely acknowledged to contain compounds harmful to
health, including, toluene, xylenes; and benzene which is a known health risk and carcinogen.
Exposure to emissions from petrol stations has been shown to be associated with increased
risks of childhood leukaemia, independent of other risk factors.6
A Spanish study published in the US Journal of Environmental Management in December 2010'
shows that emissions from evaporated petrol or fuel, generally when petrol is being transferred
or has been spilt, contaminates the surrounding area with volatile materials, including the
carcinogen benzene. This means that the atmosphere in the immediate vicinity of service
stations can be contaminated up to 50 metres away. The study recommends that a minimum
distance of 50 metres should be maintained between petrol stations and housing, and 100
metres for "especially vulnerable" facilities such as hospitals, health centres, schools and old
people's homes.
In 2014, Dr Ian Francis Musgrave, Lecturer in Pharmacology, University of Adelaide, referred
to the Spanish Study stating that the radius of significant levels of hydrocarbons of concern was
of the order of approximately 75m from the station. For example the levels of benzene at 75
meters were 4 ~g/m3, which is 25% of the EPA yearly exposure limit of 16 ~g/m3.
Professor Lidia Morawska at OUT has been conducting studies in Brisbane into the health
effects of exposure of children to airborne nano and ultrafine particles (UFP) emitted from motor
vehicles. Owing to their small size, UFPs are able to penetrate deep into the lungs, where they
may cause adverse respiratory, pulmonary and cardiovascular health effects. Her studies show
that the impact is significant and visible. In addition to the emissions from vehicles in the service
station, the proposed Development will generate more traffic in and around the School. These
emission sources are in such close proximity to the school that they pose and unacceptable
increased health risk to this vulnerable population group of school students.
The Western Australian Environmental Protection Authority (WAEPA) in its policy document,
Guideline for the Assessment of Environmental Factors, recommended separation distances for
Industrial Residual Air Emissions of 200 meters between a service station operating 24 hours a
day and a school. "Separation distance" is defined to be the shortest distance between the
boundary of the service station and the School.
The subject Property directly adjoins the School's 14m toddler outdoor pool and the 25m
outdoor pool used by all age groups. The fuel bowsers on the proposed development are
dangerously close to the Pool facilities being no more than an estimated 30 meters from the
outdoor toddler pool. The pool facilities, apart from constant school use, are utilised all year
round by the School's associated Swim School and are open for training and lor use from
5.30am to 7.30pm and used by babies from eight weeks old.
6 see e.g. C Steffenet al 2004- "Acute childhood leukaemia and environmental exposure to potential
sources of benzene and other hydrocarbons; a case-eontrol study" and manyother similarstudies
showingadverseeffectsparticularlyon younggrowingbodies.
'Terres et al
7
Page 8
The Property also adjoins the School's music rooms and the Health & Physical Education
Centre (HPEC), which is used continuously by the school. The HPEC is also available for
external hire, including basketball, netball, indoor soccer, volleyball, badminton and major
functions. In addition, the EFM Health Club, Noosaville operates out of the upper floor of the
HPEC, which is open for use between the hours of Bam to 7.30pm. The fuel bowsers on the
proposed Development are no ore than approximately 40 meters from the HPE Centre.
The proposed Development is in no way compatible with the existing amenity and development
of the neighbourhood. There is insufficient separation distance between the service station
facility and the School. International studies clearly show that benzene levels are harmful up to
at least a radius of SOm.
Given the proximity of the proposed Development to Schools open air pool facilities and the
health and physical education centre there is no satisfactory buffer to absorb the harmful air
emissions. As a consequence the buildings, structures, driveways, tanks and fuel
bowsers are NOT sited to provide adequate separation to adjoining land uses and will
cause an environmental hazard and nuisance to neighbouring School properly.
Traffic Congestion
Even at the current levels of congestion motorists entering the School experience abuse by a
drivers rushing to get through the roundabout whilst waiting in the pick-up line. This congestion
occurs daily and will only increase as parents will have no choice, but to drive though and pick-
up if the unofficial car park is developed. Cars travelling from Goodchap St regularly cut across
the two lanes of the round about to make the left hand turn into Walter Hay Drive.
The proposed Development will add significant pressure to the already fraught traffic as more
people frequent the service station. There are expected to be will be up to 129 visits per hour
during peak times, as stated in the proposed application. Peak times will be during school drop
off & pick up. This is on top of the current challenging volume of traffic travelling past the school
as well as entering the school grounds.
8
Page 9
Having only one manned crossing on the northern side of the school and no manned crossing
on the southern side of the school leaves students walking or riding to school in a very perilous
and dangerous position. No safety measures have been proposed to ensure the well being of
students and families travelling to the school.
Young children crossing busy roads, parking lots, internal roads and walking across the existing
lots where the proposed development is to take place, have their minds on their music bags,
sports bags, library bags, school bags, their friends and the expectations of the day ahead or
the day completed. It is fair to say that they can be scattered, unfocused, tired, excited, chatty or
dreamy as they wander around the familiar and hereto safe areas within and around their
school.
It is of grave concern to add increased traffic to the area, which is already bursting at the seams
with the vehicles of parents or staff all of whom have a vested interest in keeping the children
safe. It is fair to say that members of the public using the proposed service station would not
necessarily have such awareness, or vested interest. In fact small children are hard to see for
those people driving large vehicles, articulated trucks, utilities and so forth. Trucks and tankers
will have extreme difficulty entering and exiting the service station given the configuration of the
roadway causing more congestion and further traffic delays in the area.
The parking area where school busses drop of students in the morning for the start of school
and pick up students at 3pm is adjacent to the proposed development. Students are unattended
as they are dropped of and collected. This makes students vulnerable to risks of interference,
abduction and temptation to purchase food and drink from the service station.
The increased traffic in the area due to the proposed development would pose an increased risk
of accidents and injury in a location that is already over congested at peak times.
The proposed Development is in conflict with the planning scheme as set out in table 14-
15 of the Noosa Plan and therefore should be rejected as there are there are no sufficient
favourable public interest grounds to justify the decision, despite the conflict. The
proposed service station is to be located in an area where it is incompatible with the
existing and proposed amenity and development of a neighbourhood and it is
inappropriate given the existing or likely future traffic movements in the area.
Inappropriate Zoning
Statutory Guideline 05/09 identifies certain 'grounds' that the Assessment Manager may
consider including, but not limited to:
a. whether the relevant instrument is out of date due to its age or changing circumstances
in the area and the proposal reflects or responds to these changed circumstances;
b. The relevant instrument is incorrect in terms of its substance or underlying assumptions
for the circumstances of the particular proposal
The Noosa Plan and associated planning scheme is due for review and does not reflect the
current circumstances in neighbourhood of the proposed Development. The planning scheme
may have envisaged Industrial development in the area at one time however Community Use,
Openspace and Residential development that has been approved in the area since 2004 when
9
Page 10
the Noosa Plan was prepared makes it an incompatible use of the land due to community
amenity, health and safety concerns.
The subject Property is currently located in an Industry Zone. It contains no infrastructure of an
industrial nature and is not adjoined by other Industry Zoned property. It (Fig. 1) is bounded on
two sides by Eumundi-Noosa Road and Walter
Hay Drive. The land which immediately adjoins
the Property is zoned Community Uses,
occupied by the School to the east and an
electrical substation to the north. Immediately
adjoining the school as you progress along
Walter Hay Drive is an oval used for sporting and
recreational purposes (zoned Open Space
Recreational) and a retirement village (zoned
Residential Use).
The Noosa Plan is now almost twelve years old and well past the recognised use-by-date for
such an instrument. A reasonable assessment of the site as it currently stands would indicate
that it is incorrectly zoned based on the way the site, and the surrounding neighbourhood, has
evolved over the years.
As a matter of legacy rather than intent the remainder of the former Noosa Shire Council Depot,
being the subject Lot 30 on SP 170751 (the Property), continued to be zoned .Industry •. The
Church purchased the Property from Noosa Shire Council on 20 December 2007. The Property
shares a common boundary with the School Health and Physical Education Centre and
Childrens' Swimming Pool,
It is a matter of public record" that in 2007 the Church was concerned about the possible
development of the site. The School stated at the time that a prospective developer "... could
establish a service station on the site.. We are somewhat alarmed by the prospect of fuel
storage tanks and fuel vapours being so close"."
There is further contention 10 that there was a verbal agreement at the time of the purchase in
2007 between the Church and Noosa Shire Council that the Property •... would not be made
available to other commercial enterprises"" and that the Property would provide a buffer zone
between the School Community Services Zone and the nearby Industry Zone. The alleged
verbal agreement struck between the Noosa Shire Council and the Church •... never envisaged
that [the] land would be made available for a service station".'2 The veracity of this agreement is
consistent with the demonstrated cooperation between the Church and the Noosa Shire Council
in the School's development over many years 13. It would seem evident that the School and the
Church had intended the area to be protected for the benefit and protection of the children at
the School. This arrangement would appear consistent with the Church's publicised desire, and
" https:/Iwww.gslc.qld.edu.au/news.aspx?arlicle=99
" ibid
10 CounsellorFrank Pardonquotedin GardnerP, NoosaNews,9 December2015
" ibid
'2 ibid
13 ibid
10
Page 11
:
Council's demonstrated willingness to cooperate, at the time of purchase to prevent the
construction of a proposed service station on the lot. This agreement is suggestive the parties
intent to creating a negative equitable servitude or negative easement over the property.
The planning scheme exists, among other things, to provide some certainty to the community in
relation to the types of development that can be approved for a specific property. Deviating from
the planning scheme and in particular deviating from this very inconsistency has already caused
significant problems for Noosa Council. As has been extensively reported the Council is
currently attempting to deal with lax adherence to the planning scheme related to retail intrusion
into the industry zone.
Noosa Council's Infrastructure and Planning Director Martin Drydale said in May 2015 that "It's
important that we protect this area for industrial functions. Residences, community
organisations, commercial and retail business, and most sport and recreational land-use
activities, should not operate from industrial premises," He furthermore added that: "The
reason for having a town plan is so that we can ensure that various land-use types are
appropriately located to best serve the community. Calling for community and industry support
he said: "Property owners and real estate agents play an important role in helping to uphold the
town plan's integrity' ... adding: "Just as the community would likely object to a factory opening
up in a retail precinct such as Noosa Junction, retail shops and professional offices are not
appropriate in industry zoned areas."
It is incumbent upon the Assessment Manager and the Council at large in this situation to
uphold the plan's integrity and to do any1hing other than rejecting this Application is making no
reflective of Council's attempts to hold the industry and community to account in relation to the
maintenance of appropriate zoning in the region.
Any decision of the Assessment Manager must not conflict with the planning scheme, unless
there are sufficient grounds to justify the decision despite the conflict. Conflict means to be "at
variance or disagree with" and must be plainly identified. The proposed Development is clearly
in conflict with the planning scheme, a fact that is well demonstrated throughout this document.
The conflict with the planning instruments is not insignificant. Any sufficient grounds to justify
approval under SPA s 326(1 )(b), must be of public interest, excluding the personal
circumstances of the Applicant, owner or interested party. The Applicant has shown no public
interest grounds, nor do any exist, sufficient to justify approval in the event of the conflict.
The Application must therefore be rejected as is required under the planning instruments as to
allow it by exception is not only contrary to SPA but a denial of the rights of the School's parents
not to have their children exposed to negative impacts of this inconsistent development.
4. NON COMPLIANCE WITH RELEVANT PLANNING INSTRUMENTS:
11
Page 12
:
The Applicant has ccmpletely failed to address the numerous and significant potential impacts
of the proposed Development on the adjoining School. The following specific areas of non-
compliance are noted:
Code Objective Developer's Assessment Objectors' Assessment
RECONFIGURING A LOT CODE
09 The subdivision layout 09 Complies: Does not Comply
is designed to facilitate The proposal will comply The phrase "reasonably
linkages with adjoining where reasonably applicable" is unclear and the
sites in the immediate applicable. specific linkages with adjoining
area. sites in the immediate area have
not been considered or adequately
addressed.
010 Where the lots are to 010 Complies: Does not Comply
be used for Industrial Landscaped buffering has The layout does not provide for
business or Commercial been provided along all appropriate buffer areas, to
business uses. the layout boundaries adjoining the mitigate possible impacts on the
provides for appropriate school to the east. adjacent School. Landscape
buffer areas. to mitigate buffering is insufficient and
possible impacts on ineffective to mitigate the negative
nearby residences or other impacts. including those of fugitive
noise sensitive uses emissions. of the Development.
012 An adequate and S12.1- 12.2 Complies Does not Comply
accessible water supply is Will comply as applicable. The Applicant has not adequately
provided for fire fighting addressed the issue of fire safety
purposes. and its potential impacts,
particularly given the proximity of
the Development to the adjacent
School.
032 Access easements S32.1 Complies Does not Comply
are in appropriate It is considered that the The proposed access is not
locations for safe access proposed access easement appropriate for the Development
and egress, and supply has been designed in and does not provide safe access
appropriate widths and accordance with Sections 2 and egress nor does it provide for
levels of service for the and 3 of PSP5 Engineering the appropriate level of safety of
number of vehicles that Design Standards - Roads, school children given its proximity
will utilise them Drainage and Earthworks. to the School
033 Traffic generated by S33.1 Complies Does not Comply
the development is within The development will "reasonably applicable" is
the acceptable capacity of comply where reasonably indeterminate. The proposed
external roads and does applicable. Development does have an
not have an adverse adverse impact upon the
impact upon the functioning of the road network.
functioning of the road The Applicant has failed to provide
network an objective evidence or argument
12
Page 13
Code Objective Developer's Assessment Objectors' Assessment
to show otherwise.
BUSINESS USES CODE
020 Development is 020 Complies Does not Comply
designed and sited to The proposed development The proposed Development is not
avoid noise emissions that is suitably distanced and suitably distanced or buffered from
unreasonably diminish the buffered through the adjacent School which is a
amenity of the area or landscaping from sensitive sensitive land use.
surrounding uses. land uses. Further, as the Statements to the effect that "it is
site is located on a busy considered" that there will be no
road and roundabout, it is worsening effects in terms of noise
considered that there will be are conjecture without supporting
no worsening effects in evidence such as detailed studies
terms of noise. showing existing background noise
levels and projected additional
noise generation, particularly given
the proposed Development's
proximity to the noise sensitive
study environment of the School
027 Buildings and S27.1 Complies Does not Comply
structures are designed to The proposed development All such facilities are conducive to
minimise opportunities for will incorporates a building loitering and provide opportunities
vandalism. design and layout which will for concealment which poses an
provide for non-graffiti unacceptable danger to the
friendly development, students going to and from the
structures and layout school particularly in early
through design within an mornings or evenings before or
absence of natural ladders, after extracurricular school
minimal unbroken vertical activities.
surface areas, CCTV Furthermore the close proximity of
surveillance, a small retail such a facility poses and
and fast food component unacceptable risk opening the way
(not conducive to loitering), for graffiti, vandalism, theft,
a layout which will promote damage to the security of the
passive surveillance over School premises and harm to its
the site, be well illuminated students.
and comprise minimal
opportunities for
concealment.
TABLE 14-15 SERVICE STATION
076 Service stations are 076 Complies Does not Comply
located only where they It is considered that the For reasons detailed elsewhere in
are compatible with the proposed development is this document the proposed
13
Page 14
Code Objective Developer's Assessment Objectors' Assessment
existing and proposed suitably located, given that service station Development is
amenity and development the immediate locality completely incompatible with the
of a neighbourhood and comprises predominantly existing and proposed amenity and
where they are industry zoned land with a development of a neighbourhood
appropriate given the variety of uses including and where they are appropriate
existing or likely future retail and commercial. given the existing or likely future
traffic movements in the traffic movements in the area.
area. The contention the Applicant by
that the immediate locality
comprises predominantly industry
zoned land with a variety of uses
including retail and commercial is
completely inaccurate. The
Property is not adjoined by other
Industry Zoned property. It is
bounded on two sides by
Eumundi-Noosa Road and Walter
Hay Drive. The land which
immediately adjoins the Property is
zoned Community Uses, occupied
by the School to the east and an
electrical substation to the north.
Immediately adjoining the school
along Walter Hay Drive is an oval
used for sporting and recreational
purposes (zoned Open Space
Recreational) and a retirement
village (zoned Residential Use)
079 Service stations S79.1-S79.2 Not Applicable Does not Comply
ensure the amenity of The site does not adjoin a The area immediately adjacent to
neighbouring residential residential use or zone. the School includes and a
areas is protected. retirement village (zoned
Residential Use) and significant
residential development all of
which are impacted by the
proposed Development.
080 Buildings, structures, S80.1 Complies Does not Comply
driveways, tanks and fuel Fuel pumps are greater The Application fails to address the
bowsers are sited to- a) than 8m away from the specific requirements of the
ensure the safe and street frontages. Objective
efficient use of the site; b)
maintain visual amenity S80.2 Complies For reasons elaborated elsewhere
and streetscape character; Refer Appendix A, Tanker in this document the Buildings,
c) provide adequate plan. structures, driveways, tanks and
separation to adjoining fuel bowsers are NOT sited to c)
14
Page 15
Code Objective Developer's Assessment Objectors' Assessment
land uses; and d) not provide adequate separation to
cause an environmental uses; and d) not cause an
nuisance to neighbouring environmental nuisance to the
properties adjacent School
083 The associated sale 083 Complies Does not Comply
of goods, including The associated sale of good The Applicants assertion is
foodstuffs, is ancillary to will remain ancillary to the unsubstantiated and misleading in
the service station use. service station use. the extreme. This assertion is
simply designed to play down and
hide the true nature of this venture
as a retail development. Industry
data shows that a service station
without a significant retail
component is an unviable business
model.
The Applicant acknowledges that
the Shop component is in total
197m2, the majority, if not all of
which is available for retail use.
The Applicant claims, although
provides no justification for its idle
assertion, that the retail floor area
is some 100m2 This means that the
gross floor area used for the
associated retail sale of goods is
more than 50% of the gross floor
area available in the shop.
084 The layout of the site S84.1. S85.1 Not Does not Comply
facilities and vehicular Applicable The Applicant fails to address this
accesses result in Objective of the code. Vehicle
unrestricted vehicle access to and egress from the site
access to and egress from will be severely restricted by
the site. existing vehicle and pedestrian
traffic in the area.
085 The use of land for a S84.1. S85.1 Not Does not Comply
service station- a) does Applicable The Applicant fails to address this
not impair traffic flow or Objective of the code.
road safety; b) facilitates The proposed service station a)
safe and convenient DOES impair traffic flow and road
movement to and from the safety; b) does NOT facilitate safe
site through the design and convenient movement to and
and arrangement of from the site through the design
vehicular crossovers; and and arrangement of vehicular
c) provides adequate, safe crossovers; and c) DOES NOT
15
Page 16
Code Objective Developer's Assessment Objectors' Assessment
and functional on-site provide adequate, safe and
parking and manoeuvring functional on-site parking and
areas manoeuvring areas.
NOOSAVILLE LOCALITY CODE
01 Uses are located, 01 Complies Does not Comply
designed and operated to The proposed development The Applicant provides not
avoid significant adverse includes all believed objective evidence or analysis to
changes to the light, air necessary mitigation demonstrate the mere qualified
quality, noise, accessibility measures to ensure that the conjecture that the Development
or other conditions amenity of adjoining uses is includes all "believed" necessary
enjoyed by users of maintained. mitigation measures to ensure that
associated, adjoining or the amenity of adjoining uses is
nearby uses. maintained.
In the contrary, for reasons
detailed elsewhere in this
document, the Development is
NOT located, designed or can be
operated to avoid significant
adverse changes to the light, air
quality, noise, accessibility and
other conditions enjoyed by users
and particularly the student
children of the School.
03 The visual amenity and 03 Complies Does not Comply
character surrounding the The proposed development The proposed Development will
major road network is will not adversely impact on have a significant adverse effect
protected and enhances Eumundi- Noosa Road on Eumundi-Noosa Road, which is
the recognisable entrance which is a council owned a council owned road and is
to Noosaville through- a) road and is classified as a classified as a major road.
retaining and enhancing major road.
the visual and physical The proposed development The current traffic congestion
separation of Noosaville will not dramatically affect created particularly during peak
from other localities; and the visual amenity and hours will be greatly exacerbated
b) ensuring development character of this road. by the entry to and egress from the
does not encroach upon The site comprises proposed Development.
existing native vegetation established landscaping
along the road frontage that is to be retained where
other than for access possible, further the
ways. proposal comprises
additional landscaping
along this road to enhance
visual amenity.
04 The separate identities 04 Not Applicable Does not Comply
16
Page 17
Code Objective Developer's Assessment Objectors' Assessment
of the various residential The area immediately adjacent to
neighbourhoods remain The subject site is not the School includes and a
important and distinct residential neighbourhood. retirement village (zoned
elements of the residential Residential Use) and significant
character of Noosaville residential development all of
which are impacted by the
proposed Development.
07 The density of 07 Complies Does not Comply
development within the The proposed development For reasons detailed elsewhere in
site area- is considered to be this document the proposed
compatible with the Development is incompatible with
surrounding development. the surrounding development. The
The proposed development proposed Development is NOT
is appropriately located on appropriately located on the
the subject site with suitable subject site with suitable setbacks
setbacks from the adjoining from the adjoining, Community
community use (school). Use School.
09 Buildings and other S9.1 Complies Does not Comply
structures are The proposed buildings and The proposed buildings and
appropriately designed structures are setback more structures are designed and sited
and sited to- a) provide than 7m from the road detract from the amenity for users
amenity for users of the frontages in accordance School; does NOT preserve the
premises as well as with Schedule 1- Minimum visual and acoustic amenity of the
preserve the visual and Boundary Setbacks. School and DOES NOT provide
acoustic amenity of adequate distance from adjoining
adjoining and nearby School.
properties; b) provide
adequate distance from
adjoining land uses;
021 Buildings and other S21.1 Complies Does not Comply
structures use materials The proposed materials are The proposed Development is in a
and finishes that acceptable as the site is in neighbourhood compietely
complement the the Industry Zone, however surrounded by Community Service
Noosaville character and the petrol station buildings and Residential infrastructure.
integrate with the comprises a variety of There is no Industrial infrastructure
surrounding natural and materials and features such in the immediate vicinity and the
built environment as glazing and recessions petrol station building is completely
to create visual appeal. out of character and does not
integrate wit with the surrounding
natural and built environment.
0186 The following 0186- 0187 Complies Does not Comply
defined uses and use The proposed service The proposed shop is not a
17
Page 18
Code Objective Developer's Assessment Objectors' Assessment
classes are consistent station (Retail Type 5) is a consistent use. It is NOT ancillary
uses and are located in consistent use in this zone. but a major component of the
the Industry Zone ... The proposed shop (Retail service station business model
Type 2) while not listed as a without which the proposed service
consistent use, is ancillary station business model is un-
to the proposed service commercial and, therefore, the
station, therefore is Shop is in all respects an
considered to be incompatible use and any
compatible. exemption in this case is untenable
for reasons set out elsewhere in
this document.
0188 Uses are 0188 Complies Does not Comply
predominantly of an It is considered that the It is evident that the proposed
industrial nature ordinarily proposed use is Development is not in any way of
expected in an industrial predominantly of an an industrial nature nor is it an
estate with ancillary uses industrial nature. ancillary use compatible with
compatible with industrial industrial businesses.
businesses. Service stations are ordinarily
located in areas of high
commercial activity and large
volumes of passing traffic.
Service station facilities located in
industrial parks with no access to
non-industrial traffic would in no
way support a viable business.
The current proposal is simply an
attempt to take advantage of an
inadvertent zoning of the Property
in the industry zone and the
Development is not in any way of a
nature ordinarily expected in an
industrial estate or an ancillary use
compatible with industrial
businesses.
0196 Industrial 0196 Complies Does not Comply
development is conducted All measures to ensure that The Application fails to address in
in an environmentally environmental values are any credible detail how the
responsible manner, not compromised have Development can operate without
operating without been incorporated deleterious impacts on the
deleterious impacts on immediate, surrounding or
immediate, surrounding or downstream community, being the
duwnstream communities, School. In particular the
environments and Application provides mere opinion,
environmental processes. without recourse to validating the
credentials or expertise of those
18
Page 19
..
Code Objective Developer's Assessment Objectors' Assessment
making them, and fails to address
the potential impacts on the 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 028 Complies Does not Comply
carparking areas ... It is considered that one The Development proposal is
advanced tree for every 6 noncompliant and not suitable for
parking spaces is not the neighbourhood.
appropriate given that the
car parking area is located The phrase "it is considered" is
between the petrol building clearly an obfuscation, without
and the fuel court. It is qualification, justification or
considered that trees will validation of the credentials of the
limit casual surveillance of person holding the consideration.
this area. The siting of the car parking area
is the responsibility of the
The site comprises 30% Applicant. Furthermore it is the
landscaping. This is Applicant's responsibility to design
considered more than a compliant solution in all respects,
suitable. 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
19
Page 20
Code Objective Developer's Assessment Objectors' Assessment
•... more than suitable." The
Applicant furthermore provides no
justification for its derived value of
30% other than it is what will fit on
the site given its proposed
configuration.
The design of the facility on the
Property as currently proposed
clearly is not suitable as the
Applicant is unable to comply with
the planning scheme and must be
rejected.
BUIDLING WORKS CODE
01 Buildings and other 51.1 Complies Does not Comply
structures are Setbacks comply with The setbacks specified in
appropriately designed Schedule 1. Schedule 1 address probable, but
and sited to- a) provide not definitively compliant solutions
amenity for users of the in the specific circumstances.
premises as well as Given the nature of the proposed
preserve the visual and Development the Applicant has not
acoustic privacy of demonstrated that structures are
adjoining and nearby land appropriately designed and sited to
uses; preserve the visual and acoustic
privacy of the adjoining School.
018 Lighting associated S18.1- S18.3 Not Does not Comply
with the use or works does Applicable 'where possible' is insufficient, an
not have an adverse obfuscation, and furthermore an
impact upon the amenity S18.4 Complies acknowledgement that it is not
enjoyed by users of All lighting will comply with possible for the Applicant in its
adjoining or nearby the relevant requirements current proposal to comply with
premises nor do it cause where possible. relevant requirements without
unreasonable disturbance qualification as required under the
to local fauna. planning scheme.
The Applicant has failed to show
by any reasonable objective
justification that Lighting
associated with the use or
operation of the proposed
Development does not have cHI
adverse impact upon the amenity
enjoyed by users of the adjoining
School.
20
Page 21
,'
Code Objective Developer's Assessment Objectors' Assessment
DRIVEWAYS & CAR PARKING CODE
01 Vehicular access does S1.1- S1.3 Complies Does not Comply
not adversely impact on Vehicle access is The Applicant fails to provide
safety, capacity and considered to be compliant objective evidence or verification of
operations of the existing with the relevant the source of its "considered"
or planned road network, requirements. The opinion that vehicle access is
the proposed driveway, development will comply compliant.
cycleways or pedestrian where applicable. In the contrary, the proposed
pathway systems. Development's vehicular access
adversely impacts on safety of
children using the pedestrian
pathway to and from the School.
The proposed Development will
significantly increase the amount
of traffic using the access
easement.
The Applicant fails to consider or
address how children will be able
to safely cross the access way to
the service station in a safe
manner.
04 Vehicular access does S4.1 Complies Does not Comply
not adversely impact on The development will The current proposal will have a
the capacity, operations comply as required. significant adverse impact on the
and maintenance of the operation of the existing road
existing infrastructure; network in and around the School.
07 Sufficient carparking is 07 Complies Does not Comply
provided to accommodate The proposed development The qualification "technically" is an
the number and type of will provide 10 car parking obfuscation. The proposed
vehicles likely to be spaces. Technically this is Development does not comply
generated by the below the minimum with the minimum requirements
development having according to Table 14-51 according to Table 14-51 Vehicle
regard to the specifics of Vehicle Parking Parking Requirements.
the use ... Requirements. However, it
is considered that 10 It is the Applicant's responsibility to
spaces are suitable given design a compliant solution in all
the ancillary nature of the respects, including provision of
proposed petrol building. required car parking spaces to
The likely number of users comply with the planning scheme.
of the service will be there Council has detenmined by way of
to refuel their vehicles, the planning scheme what is
which comprises leaving the 'suitable'. The Applicant provides
vehicle at the fuel no qualification, expert opinion or
21
Page 22
,.
Code Objective Developer's Assessment Objectors' Assessment
dispenser. The amount of justification to allow a conclusion
users specifically using the that the amount proposed is
site for the ancillary shop "suitable." The Applicant
component is considered to furthermore provides no
be low. It is there justification for its derived value of
considered that 10 spaces 10 other than it is what will fit on
is appropriate. the site given its proposed
configuration.
Furthermore the Applicant
provides no data or objective
evidence by way of survey,
industry statistics or otherwise to
justify its assessment of the likely
number of users of the service
station to refuel vehicles versus to
use the retail facility. The number
is simply derived to fit with the
number configurable on the
Property and within the design
proposed by the Applicant.
It is the Applicant's responsibility to
provide a compliant design - the
current design is clearly non-
compliant and must be rejected.
09 Parking areas are 09 Complies Does not Comply
located where they will not Car parking is located at the The Applicant states that the car
unduly connict with front of the building, the park is located to be "the most
pedestrians and will not most suitable location for a suitable location for a service
dominate the streetscape. service station use. station use" which is not the
requirement but a function of the
proposed design.
The Applicant has failed to
address the requirement and
demonstrate that Parking areas
are located where they will not
unduly connict with pedestrians.
The Applicant has failed to
address the requirement and
demonstrate that parking areas are
located where they will not unduly
connict with pedestrians and will
22
Page 23
.'
Code Objective Developer's Assessment Objectors' Assessment
not dominate the streetscape.
011 Access and egress Does not Comply
points do not impact on Given the nature of the
the safety and operations development and proximity to the
of the road system School the proposed access and
egress point does impact
adversely on the safety and
operation of the Eumundi-Noosa
Road.
014 Provision is made for 014 Complies Does not Comply
pedestrian and vehicular Can comply via condition The Applicants response is
queues at conflict points; where applicable. inconsistent and vague. The
Development will significantly
affect traffic on the Eumundi-
Noosa Road. the roundabout
outside the School and pedestrian
children on the footpath entrance
in the event of queuing to access
the proposed Development. The
Applicant has provided no
objective analysis of the likely
queuing frequency or extent. The
Applicant's response is indicative
of the fact that the Applicant has
not conducted the required
analysis and expects the
Assessment Manager to determine
what is appropriate. which is
unacceptable in the already
challenging circumstances.
017 Car parking areas are 017 Complies Does not Comply
landscaped ... Car parking areas have Cannot be compliant as they do
been suitably landscaped. not meet the requirements of the
Landscaping Code Objective 028.
The Application does not comply in the areas outlined above and has completely failed to
address adequately the potential impacts on the adjoining School. At 6.2 of its Town Planning
Report the Applicant makes unfounded. unqualified and unsupported opinion as to the potential
impacts on the adjoining School. The assessment is neither comprehensive nor soundly
validated for example:
Applicants Response I Assertion Objectors' Response
1. The proposed petrol store building is This is a statement of fact without justification as
located more than 10m form the to its relevance.
23
Page 24
.,
school boundary
10m is in effect too close to the School boundary
to ensure the safety of the children attending the
School. 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.
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
school pool proposed 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
orientated away from the school and are associated with the location of a service
towards the Eumundi- Noosa Road station adjacent to, indeed adjoining, a School
frontage, providing visual distinction and its associated health and physical education
between both sites. facilities.
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 access relating to the The relevance of this statement is once again
service station and future proposed unclear. The access being off Eumundi-Noosa
Lot 2 development is obtained via Road, which is the same as the access to the
Eumundi- Noosa Road which is more School and only a short distance away creates
than suitably distanced from the the potential for increased traffic queuing and
school access off Walter Hay Drive. obstruction along the short stretch of road
between the two entrances.
6. A dedicated pedestrian pathway from Again the relevance of this statement is unclear.
Walter Hay Drive is proposed. This The pathway provides no additional protection for
pathway connects Walter Hay Drive the School children. Indeed it provides further
directly to the site and the store unwanted opportunity for children to access the
building, thus reducing any potential shop, which is undoubtedly the main purpose of
conflict between pedestrians and the development, that is to encourage the school
vehicles. children to purchase from the shop and increase
the profits to the owner at the expense of - and
threat to - the School children.
24
Page 25
..,
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
constituent of Motor evidence we have provided elsewhere in this document that
Spirit is 1% vivas clearly shows the adverse impacts of emissions and the danger to
legislated in Australia. children from being in close proximity to a service station.
This is a minor fraction of
total chemical The setback distances proposed in this development do not come
compounds in Motor close to meeting best practice either in Australia or overseas.
Spirit. With the advent of
modern VR 1 systems In Queensland, the health risk from benzene (and other
and fibreglass pollutants) is recognized in the Environmental Protection (Air)
underground tanks the Policy 2008 (EPP). THE EPP sets exposure limits in air to ensure
vapour fraction escaping protection of human and environmental health from those
to the environment has pollutants. The EPP objective for benzene is a maximum
reduced to extremely low concentration of 3 ppb (parts per billion) over a 1-year period.
levels that poses no
detrimental health The Applicant has failed to show by reasonable analysis that the
Impacts to those living in levels of exposure, particularly to young children in the adjacent
close proximity to Petrol School, will not harm their health.
Stations.
The Precautionary Principle demands that, particularly in relation
to young children, we address possible risks where scientific
understanding is yet incomplete in a way that is not harmful.
In the absence of scientific consensus that the Development is not
harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on the
Developer and the Property Owner.
2. The refuelling canopy This is indeed an indictment on the whole Development proposal.
is some 46m to the
boundary with the school The Applicant acknowledges that the refuelling canopy is a mere
that backs onto the 46m to the boundary with the school that backs onto the
sports hall and sports halt and swimming complex.
swimming. There are no
classrooms within at The Applicant further acknowledges that classrooms are within
least 1DO-150m of the 100-150m of the petrol station.
petrol station. This
separation distance The Applicant then makes yet another idle assertion without any
alone is more than objective evidence or scientific analysis; without measurement or
sufficient to neutralise I date; without evidence of the qualifications, expertise or
dilute any minor trace experience of the person making the assertion; that "This
25
Page 26
•
..-•
benzene particulates to separation distance alone is more than sufficient to neutralise I
such a degree and to be dilute any minor trace benzene particulates to such a degree and
undetectable. to be undetectable." This assertion is no more than an
unsubstantiated opinion and insufficient grounds on which to
approve the Development given that the setback distances
proposed in this development do not come close to meeting best
practice either here, in Australia, or overseas.
The Precautionary Principle demands that, particularly in relation
to young children, we address possible risks where scientific
understanding is yet incomplete in a way that is not harmful. In the
absence of scientific consensus that the Development is not
harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on the
Developer and the Property Owner. The Applicant provides no
such evidence or assurance and in all the circumstances the
Development must be rejected.
Conclusion
The Noosa Biosphere Reserve is sought after and special because of its natural beauty, range
of plants and animals, the committed groups who look after it - and the community that strives
towards becoming a healthy community in a healthy environment that can be enjoyed for
generations.
As parents we have chosen this environment in which to raise and school our children because
of the specific nature and life-style the Noosa Biosphere has to offer. It ill behoves a Developer,
from outside of our community, with very different values, to pillage our prized neighbourhood
and strip our children of the clean, green, safe privilege we have sought out for them.
A petrol station does not belong adjacent to our school.
Indeed our children have raised concerns for the frogmouth owls, possums, grey egrets,
whistling tree frogs, rosella, plovers, green tree snakes, ducks and lizards that frequent the
Good Shepherd Lutheran College's grounds, should there be an increase in traffic and a
hazardous increase in air pollution and poisonous fumes.
For all these reasons the proposed development application is NOT Compatible with other uses
and works. It:
a. DOES NOT Maintain the safety of people, specifically children and works;
b. DOES NOT Avoid significant adverse impacts on the amenity enjoyed by users of other
premises, specifically children, including acoustic and health and well being qualities;
c. DOES NOT Avoid significant adverse effects on the natural environment, including
native habitat removal, fragmentation and attrition and
d. DOES NOT avoid significant adverse impacts on, and compromises, the amenity
enjoyed by the users of other premises in the adjoining Community Services, Housing
and Open-space Recreations Zones.
26
Page 27
r
•
I/We urge you, the Assessment Manager, and/or the elected representatives to reject the
Development as it conflicts with the interests of the public and its obligation to protect the health
and safety of our school children. From the assessment above, the following contrary
conclusions are able to be drawn:
1. The proposed use is an inappropriate and unreasonable form of development within
the area in which it is located.
2. The proposed Development has, as a significant component, a use which is an
inconsistent use for the zone and inappropriate in all of the circumstances.
3. The proposed development is of a type, scale and intensity that is inconsistent with any
reasonably anticipated development on this Properly.
4. The application DOES NOT demonstrate compliance with all relevant local and state
provisions including all relevant codes.
Nadine Love: Author, Publisher, Mentor
MA
[email protected]
mob: 0411017234
MtrCA. Love
Mira Love: Student at Good Shepherd Lutheran College
As seen on Channel 7 TV News 6pm 16th December 2015
"I Lov~ ""'1 schooL, -"'1 h~o.l~ho.~d.so.f~~::lLs ""::l1'00r~~PsbL99u~
co~cu~ o.~c!~h~::l•••LLLfo.k~ ""~ ou~ Lf 0. [droL s~o.Ho~90U ~~lC.~ ~o
our schooL, f'L~o.s~••, 'Do~'~Ld ~h~ I'~ho s~o.~Lo~chok~ our schooL,.
-"Lro. Lov~, 0.9~ ~,
27
Used in these records
MCU15/0095 & REC15/0022 PM Submission Object - Nadine LoveRelated documentApplication case desk ↗
MCU15/0095 & REC15/0022 PM Submission Object - Nadine LoveRelated documentApplication case desk ↗
About this file
- File size
- 10.5 MB (very large file)
- File type
No other editions are linked here.
Original file
Log in to download the original file
The download may take a few minutes. On mobile data, it is best to wait for Wi-Fi.