MCU15/0095 & REC15/0022 PM Submission Object - Nadine Love

,,



     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