MCU15/0095 & REC15/0022 PM Submission Object - Alison Asher - Principal Submitter - Petition

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 detrimental    ta community health and safety
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 Environmental
Protectian (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