MCU15/0095 & REC15/0022 PM Submission Object - Petition

                                                                                                                  <-

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 to 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 Deveiopment 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) Palicy 2008 (EPP). THE EPPsets 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.


The Develapment proposal does nat pravide safeguards to those for whom we have a high level of
duty of care:
A significant safety concern results from the risks posed by certain types of individual often attracted by
service stations and who would not otherwise have reason to be near our school grounds or within close
proximity to the school and it's sports amenities. Unsavoury, simply curious and unwanted members of
the public can wander through the school property during or after school hours as a spill over from the
proposed service station. At very least this activity is disruptive and inappropriate    for children, at worst
these unwelcome visitors may cause harm through criminal and unlawful activity. Unwanted people
walking around the school during break-times will be extremely difficult for the school to manage and


                                                                                                              4