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.
..,
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
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalUsed 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.