Original source · versioned page text
Jennifer Drysdale submission
Attached to the e-mail MCU15/0095 & REC15/0022 PM Submission Object - Jennifer Drysdale.
Jennifer Drysdale
7/81 Noosa Pde
NOOSA HEADS 4567
[email protected]
18 December 2015
Noosa Council
Level 3, 9 Pelican Street
TEWANTIN QLD 4565
By email: [email protected]
cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]
Submission: MCU 15/0095 - 115 Eumundi Noosa Rd Noosaville (Lot 30 on SP170751)
Dear Assessment Manager
1. I oppose the above Application for Material Change of Use of Premises – Retail
Business Type 2 - Shop & Salon (shop) and Type 5 -Vehicles Uses (the service station)
and urge Noosa Council to reject the development application (DA) on the basis that it
conflicts with the Noosa Plan in that it will have an adverse health impact on the
community.
2. The Good Shepherd Lutheran College (GSLC) pool is an OPEN AIR facility which will be
less than 30 metres away from the refuelling area of the proposed service station.
3. Emissions from service stations are widely acknowledged to contain compounds
harmful to health, including:
benzene1
toluene
xylenes; and
ethylbenzene
1
The Environmental Protection (Air) Policy 2008 Qld (EPP) sets exposure an objective for of 3 ppb (parts per
billion) over a 1-year period.
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalFull text of the other 1 page
Page 2
4. Air toxins emitted from service stations include significant quantities of benzene which
is a known health risk and carcinogen2.
5. Chlorobenze is formed when benzene comes into contact with Aluminium Chloride at
room temperature, and Aluminium Chloride is the primary flocking agent in swimming
pool additives.
6. Human exposure to Chlorobenzene causes damage to our central nervous system.
This exposure can be from inhalation (breathing at the pools surface) and
consumption of contaminated water.
7. Due to the severe, permanent health hazard to humans (particularly developing
infants and children) and the risk of exposure to Chlorobenzene, given the close
proximity of the pool facility, this risk MUST be investigated.
8. In the circumstances, I consider that the DA should be rejected given that on present
scientific evidence and having regard to the precautionary principle, the DA cannot be
acceptably conditioned to mitigate the adverse health impacts outlined above.
Regards
Jennifer Drysdale
2
(Morales Terrés et al, 2010). See file:///C:/Users/Kelly/Downloads/1-s2.0-S0301479710002574-
main%20(2).pdf