MCU15/0095 & REC15/0022 PM Submission Object- Velecha Lawrey

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 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 detrimentol    to community        heolth ond sofety

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 Environmentol
Protection    (Air) Policy 2008 (EPP). THE EPP sets exposure limits in air to ensure protection                 of human and
environmental       health from those pollutants.     The EPPobjective for benzene is a maximum concentration
of 3 ppb (parts per billion) over a I-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.




                                                                                                                              4