Development objection

Code Objective       Developer’s Assessment             Objectors’ Assessment

                                                        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

O28 Landscaping of   O28 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 the
                     parking spaces is not              neighbourhood.
                     appropriate given that the car
                     parking area is located            The phrase “it is considered” is clearly
                     between the petrol building        an obfuscation, without qualification,
                     and the fuel court. It is          justification or validation of the
                     considered that trees will limit   credentials of the person holding the
                     casual surveillance of this        consideration. The siting of the car
                     area.                              parking area is the responsibility of
                                                        the Applicant. Furthermore it is the
                     The site comprises 30%             Applicant’s responsibility to design a
                     landscaping. This is considered    compliant solution in all respects,
                     more than 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 “…more than
                                                        suitable.” The Applicant furthermore
                                                        provides no justification for its
                                                        derived value of 30% other than it is



                                                                                             19