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

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