MCU15/0095 & REC15/0022 PM Submission Object - Natalie Ferrigno

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

028 Landscaping of     028 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