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

which they deserve to be protected. It cannot be in the public interest to invite trouble of this nature
within meters of a school where children have the right to learn in peace and be safe.


2. PROPOSEDSERVICESTATION DOESNOT ACCORD WITH OBJECTIVESTHE NOOSA PLAN:

Under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 the assessment manager's decision must not conflict with a
relevant instrument,      unless there are there are sufficient public interest grounds to justify the decision,
despite the conflict.      The Assessment manager can consider the negative effects of a proposal on
matters of public interest.


The Development is in conflict with the Noosa Plan and its derivatives the Noasaville Locality Code and
Overall Outcomes for the Noosaville Lacality, in that the proposed New Use on a property does not
avoid significant adverse impacts on, and indeed compromises, the amenity enjoyed by the users of the
School including in particular the school children as well as users of other premises in the adjoining
Community Services, Housing and Open-space Recreation Zone.


While it is acknowledged       that a service station is.a consistent development          in the Industry zone, we
draw attention      to table 14-15 of the Noosa Plan, which laces restrictions            on the siting of a service
station. The Objectives set out in the Plan state that the specific outcomes required for a service station
development      are:


           076 - Service stations are located ONLY where they are compatible with the existing and
           proposed amenity and development of a neighbourhood               and where they are appropriate given
           the existing or likely future traffic movements in the area; AND


           080 - Buildings, structures, driveways, tanks and fuel bowsers are sited (cl to provide adequate
           separation to adjoining land uses; and (d) not cause an environmental          nuisance to neighbouring
           properties.


The proposed        Development         is neither   compatible   with   the existing and proposed     amenity   and
development      of the School and surrounding neighbourhood              NOR is it appropriate given the existing or
likely future traffic movements in the area.


Furthermore      the tanks and fuei bowsers are proposed to be sited such that they DO NOT to provide
adequate separation to the adjoining School AND are likely to cause an environmental                 nuisance to the
School and neighbouring        properties. The Assessment Manager must, particularly            in relation to young
children    and where      scientific     understanding    is yet   incomplete,    take due consideration     of the
precautionary     principle and consider the possible risks to make a decision that is not in any way 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. Neither has satisfied that burden of proof.


Emissions from petrol stations are widely acknowledged                   to contain compounds    harmful to health,
including, toluene,      xylenes; and benzene which is a known health risk and carcinogen. Exposure to




                                                                                                                     6