Original source · versioned page text
Submission MCU 15_0095 - Multisign
Attached to the e-mail MCU15/0095 & REC15/0022 PM Submission Object - Kristen Paengoe (Cashmore) Principal Submitter.
By Hand: 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 Road Noosaville (Development) Dear Assessment Manager, The undersigned strongly oppose the Application for Material Change of Use of Premises at 115 Eumundi Road Noosaville. We have assessed the proposed Development under the Impact Assessment procedure of the Noosa Plan and all relevant State Planning Policies. On the basis of our detailed assessment we believe sufficient planning grounds exist to warrant that the proposal and the application is rejected and not recommended for Council approval. The Application should be rejected on the following grounds: 1. The proposed Development is an INCONSISTENT USE within the Industry Zone1, which is protected for industrial functions to the exclusion of most Retail Business Uses including, but not limited to, Type 2 Retail Business use2; 2. The proposed Development is inconsistent with the objectives of the Noosa Plan in that: a. IS NOT compatible with other adjacent uses; b. DOES NOT maintain safety of people, and more specifically children; and c. DOES NOT avoid significant adverse impacts on, and compromises, the amenity enjoyed by the users of other premises in the adjoining Community Services, Housing and Open- space Recreations Zones; 3. The proposed Development not consistent with the outcomes required by the Noosaville Locality Plan, Noosaville Locality Code, and Overall Outcomes for the Noosaville Locality in that is NOT compatible with the existing and proposed amenity and development of the immediate neighbourhood3 consisting of Community Services, Housing and Open-space Recreations Zones, and is NOT appropriate given the existing and likely future traffic movements in the area.4 1 Noosa Plan 2 Noosa Plan, Part 2 - Interpretation 3 Noosa Plan, Part 14 – Assessment Criteria for Development for a Stated Purpose or of a Stated Type – For Service Stations - Siting 4 ibid 1
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 27 pages
Page 2
4. There are no matters of public interest to bear in relation to the proposed Development that
are grounds to accept the non-complying Application under s326 of the Sustainable Planning
Act (2009) (SPA), and indeed the Development is detrimental to the public interest.
5. The Application DOES NOT COMPLY, or fails to provide creditable supporting evidence to
substantiate claims of compliance, with over thirty (30) aspects of relevant planning instruments.
1. INCONSISTENT USE:
A shop is identified as an inconsistent use within the Industry Zone, being a Retail Business Type 2, and
the Application must be rejected on those grounds. Under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 The
assessment manager's decision must not conflict with a relevant instrument, unless there are there are
sufficient favourable public interest grounds to justify the decision, despite the conflict.
Section 326(1)(b) of the SPA sets out sufficient grounds for departing from a relevant instrument. The
SPA provides that an assessment manager may decide a development application in a way that conflicts
with a relevant instrument only in certain circumstances, the relevant of which here is where there are
sufficient grounds to justify the decision, despite the conflict. This means that an assessment manager
may approve an application, even though the proposed development conflicts with a relevant
instrument, only if there are sufficient grounds for approving the development despite the conflict.
Conflict means to be “at variance or disagree with“ and must be plainly identified. In the current
circumstances the proposed Development is in direct conflict with the planning scheme, being an
inconsistent use for the Industry zone. The planning scheme does not provide for a co-located service
station/retail convenience shop in the Industry zone.
The term ‘grounds’, in the context, is defined in the SPA to mean matters of public interest. Apart from
defining the term grounds, the SPA does not provide any guidance about what grounds are sufficient for
justifying a decision that may conflict with a relevant instrument. The matters ‘public interest’, derive
from the subject matter being considered which includes the community need, wellbeing, protection,
health and safety of the community or affected classes of persons. In determining whether a conflicting
Development should be Approved he Assessment Manager may also consider negative impact on
matters of public interest.
The Development does not meet a substantiated community need
A development may be said to be needed if, on balance, it improves community 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 community
wellbeing. It is not compatible with surrounding uses in terms of amenity, the environment or
economics.
There is no economic need for a convenience shop or indeed for a service station in the location. The
area is well serviced given the proximity to Noosa Civic and other adjoining retail facilities. The recent
approval of a convenience shop and service station nearby at 139 Eumundi-Noosa Road provides for an
2
Page 3
additional retail outlet a few hundred meters from the Property. Further addition of retail facilities is not
needed, and certainly not in such close proximity to the sensitive School area.
The Applicant has not demonstrated a need for the inconsistent use within the subject zone. The
Applicant provides no grounds that would justify the granting of an exception and indeed in this specific
case there are no grounds on which approval of this type of Development on the Property could be
justified by the Assessment Manager and/or Council’s elected representatives. Furthermore, in conflict
with Division 17 of the Noosaville Locality Plan, the New Use is located and designed whereby its
operation will cause significant adverse impact on the School.
A development may be said to be needed if, on balance, it improves community 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.
Furthermore in assessing the public interest the Assessment manager may give weight to the negative
impacts of a proposed Development on the community and neighbourhood.
The Applicant provides no substantive data or justification based on community need or anything else to
substantiate why the School’s children should be exposed to inappropriate and significant adverse
impacts on, and compromises to, the amenity they should be allowed to enjoy unhindered by retail
intrusion into the school environment. The applicant indicates the service station and the convenience
shop would operate 24 hours, given that it is primarily proximate, not to other industrial uses, but to the
School and nearby residential use this raises real concerns for parents, children and the entire
surrounding neighbourhood.
Furthermore the proposed Shop has not been objectively demonstrated by any credible analysis to be
ancillary to the service station. The Application is deliberately misleading in attempting to minimise the
true area allocated to retail floor space and hence to hide the fact that the Shop is a significant part of
the Development and supporting business model. The Applicant acknowledges that the Shop
component is in total 197m2, the majority, if not all of which is available for retail use, and not the
100m2 mentioned by the Applicant, an assertion simply designed to play down and hide the true nature
of this venture as a retail development. Industry data shows that a service station without a significant
retail component is an unviable business model. The retail component is therefore not ancillary to, but a
major component of the proposed Development. It has as an target market, not the servicing of the
refuelling motorist, but the children of the School who will be attracted to the facility. This is an
unacceptable intrusion into, and interference with, the amenity of the School.
The Applicant has not subjected the proposal to an economic needs and impact assessment of even the
most rudimentary kind. The need for a development is commonly recognised to be related to
community wellbeing. A development may be said to be needed if, on balance, it improves community
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.
3
Page 4
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 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
Protection (Air) Policy 2008 (EPP). THE EPP sets exposure limits in air to ensure protection of human and
environmental health from those pollutants. The EPP objective for benzene is a maximum concentration
of 3 ppb (parts per billion) over a 1-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 Development proposal does not provide 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
Page 5
monitor. Students enjoy some freedom of movement in their designated recess areas. School staff
already has a high level of responsibility overseeing students during these times.
The school swimming pools have changing areas that are exposed and easily accessed by unwanted
members of the public, posing a threat to the safety of children who have, to date enjoyed a peaceful,
safe space to shower, change and relax before or after swimming classes. The changing areas serving
the school swimming pools and Health and Physical Education Centre remain open from 5 am to 7 pm
open so that children can make use of these facilities. They are within very close proximity to the pools
and sports complex. These are extremely high-risk areas in terms of vulnerability and exposure as
children are showering, changing and naturally focused on their sports activities.
It is unthinkable to put children at risk of being interfered with, abused or abducted because of the close
proximity of the service station and the threats posed to their privacy and entitlement to safe, secure
facilities. The changing facilities and showers are currently unsupervised as well as unlocked. The safety
issue would warrant these spaces to be policed at all times throughout the day – from 5 am to 5.30 pm
daily. The toilet facilities for students and staff of GSLC remain open during the day for use as required.
Unwanted trespassers from the proposed service station could easily access these essential facilities,
which makes our children and school staff easy targets and unnecessarily vulnerable to aberrant abuses,
attacks and criminal activity.
Temptation for children to duck out of school and purchase food and drink, to play truant and to
innocently and unwittingly expose themselves to the raft of dangers as mentioned above, posed by
accessibility to a retail outlet and random members of the public frequenting the service station.
Queensland is far from immune to the Australia wide drug supply and trafficking problem. Such close
proximity of a service station, with open public access could make our children an easy target for drug
supply and trafficking.
The service station is not wanted near our students who would be made vulnerable by easy access. This
issue can be avoided by rejecting the proposal for the service station in such close proximity to the
school.
Children and GSLC teachers will be exposed to the increased risk of fire, which can be triggered as easily
as by dropping a mobile phone. Shell Australia Health and Safety documentation says: “Dropping a
mobile phone or switching it on or off can cause sparks, which may ignite petrol vapours”.
Unlawful behaviour is all too frequent around service stations. November 2014 just down the road in
Eumundi,5 Noosa gunman stole a Channel 7 television news car at gunpoint and crashed it into a large
gas tank at Eumundi Petrol Station.
Clearly a site within such close proximity to the Good Shepherd Lutheran College is unsuitable for the
proposed development where children may be exposed to violence, terror and recalcitrant choices from
5
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/sunshine-coast-gunman-flees-in-stolen-news-car-20141105-
11hllu.html#ixzz3uCLp9800
5
Page 6
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. PROPOSED SERVICE STATION DOES NOT ACCORD WITH OBJECTIVES THE 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 Noosaville Locality Code and
Overall Outcomes for the Noosaville Locality, 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
O80 - Buildings, structures, driveways, tanks and fuel bowsers are sited (c) 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 fuel 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
Page 7
emissions from petrol stations has been shown to be associated with increased risks of childhood
leukaemia, independent of other risk factors.6
A Spanish study published in the US Journal of Environmental Management in December 20107 shows
that emissions from evaporated petrol or fuel, generally when petrol is being transferred or has been
spilt, contaminates the surrounding area with volatile materials, including the carcinogen benzene. This
means that the atmosphere in the immediate vicinity of service stations can be contaminated up to 50
metres away. The study recommends that a minimum distance of 50 metres should be maintained
between petrol stations and housing, and 100 metres for "especially vulnerable" facilities such as
hospitals, health centres, schools and old people's homes.
In 2014, Dr Ian Francis Musgrave , Lecturer in Pharmacology, University of Adelaide, referred to the
Spanish Study stating that the radius of significant levels of hydrocarbons of concern was of the order of
approximately 75m from the station. For example the levels of benzene at 75 meters were 4 µg/m3,
which is 25% of the EPA yearly exposure limit of 16 µg/m3.
Professor Lidia Morawska at QUT has been conducting studies in Brisbane into the health effects of
exposure of children to airborne nano and ultrafine particles (UFP) emitted from motor vehicles. Owing
to their small size, UFPs are able to penetrate deep into the lungs, where they may cause adverse
respiratory, pulmonary and cardiovascular health effects. Her studies show that the impact is significant
and visible. In addition to the emissions from vehicles in the service station, the proposed Development
will generate more traffic in and around the School. These emission sources are in such close proximity
to the school that they pose and unacceptable increased health risk to this vulnerable population group
of school students.
The Western Australian Environmental Protection Authority (WAEPA) in its policy document, Guideline
for the Assessment of Environmental Factors, recommended separation distances for Industrial Residual
Air Emissions of 200 meters between a service station operating 24 hours a day and a school.
“Separation distance” is defined to be the shortest distance between the boundary of the service station
and the School.
The subject Property directly adjoins the School’s 14m toddler outdoor pool and the 25m outdoor pool
used by all age groups. The fuel bowsers on the proposed development are dangerously close to the
Pool facilities being no more than an estimated 30 meters from the outdoor toddler pool. The pool
facilities, apart from constant school use, are utilised all year round by the School’s associated Swim
School and are open for training and /or use from 5.30am to 7.30pm and used by babies from eight
weeks old.
6
see e.g. C Steffen et al 2004 – “Acute childhood leukaemia and environmental exposure to potential sources of
benzene and other hydrocarbons; a case-control study” and many other similar studies showing adverse effects
particularly on young growing bodies.
7
Terrés et al
7
Page 8
The Property also adjoins the School’s music rooms and the Health & Physical Education Centre (HPEC),
which is used continuously by the school. The HPEC is also available for external hire, including
basketball, netball, indoor soccer, volleyball, badminton and major functions. In addition, the EFM
Health Club, Noosaville operates out of the upper floor of the HPEC, which is open for use between the
hours of 6am to 7.30pm. The fuel bowsers on the proposed Development are no ore than approximately
40 meters from the HPE Centre.
The proposed Development is in no way compatible with the existing amenity and development of the
neighbourhood. There is insufficient separation distance between the service station facility and the
School. International studies clearly show that benzene levels are harmful up to at least a radius of 50m.
Given the proximity of the proposed Development to Schools open air pool facilities and the health and
physical education centre there is no satisfactory buffer to absorb the harmful air emissions. As a
consequence the buildings, structures, driveways, tanks and fuel bowsers are NOT sited to provide
adequate separation to adjoining land uses and will cause an environmental hazard and nuisance to
neighbouring School property.
Traffic Congestion
Even at the current levels of congestion motorists entering the School experience abuse by a drivers
rushing to get through the roundabout whilst waiting in the pick-up line. This congestion occurs daily
and will only increase as parents will have no choice, but to drive though and pick-up if the unofficial car
park is developed. Cars travelling from Goodchap St regularly cut across the two lanes of the round
about to make the left hand turn into Walter Hay Drive.
The proposed Development will add significant pressure to the already fraught traffic as more people
frequent the service station. There are expected to be will be up to 129 visits per hour during peak times,
as stated in the proposed application. Peak times will be during school drop off & pick up. This is on top
of the current challenging volume of traffic travelling past the school as well as entering the school
grounds.
8
Page 9
Having only one manned crossing on the northern side of the school and no manned crossing on the
southern side of the school leaves students walking or riding to school in a very perilous and dangerous
position. No safety measures have been proposed to ensure the well being of students and families
travelling to the school.
Young children crossing busy roads, parking lots, internal roads and walking across the existing lots
where the proposed development is to take place, have their minds on their music bags, sports bags,
library bags, school bags, their friends and the expectations of the day ahead or the day completed. It is
fair to say that they can be scattered, unfocused, tired, excited, chatty or dreamy as they wander
around the familiar and hereto safe areas within and around their school.
It is of grave concern to add increased traffic to the area, which is already bursting at the seams with the
vehicles of parents or staff all of whom have a vested interest in keeping the children safe. It is fair to
say that members of the public using the proposed service station would not necessarily have such
awareness, or vested interest. In fact small children are hard to see for those people driving large
vehicles, articulated trucks, utilities and so forth. Trucks and tankers will have extreme difficulty entering
and exiting the service station given the configuration of the roadway causing more congestion and
further traffic delays in the area.
The parking area where school busses drop of students in the morning for the start of school and pick
up students at 3pm is adjacent to the proposed development. Students are unattended as they are
dropped of and collected. This makes students vulnerable to risks of interference, abduction and
temptation to purchase food and drink from the service station.
The increased traffic in the area due to the proposed development would pose an increased risk of
accidents and injury in a location that is already over congested at peak times.
The proposed Development is in conflict with the planning scheme as set out in table 14-15 of the
Noosa Plan and therefore should be rejected as there are there are no sufficient favourable public
interest grounds to justify the decision, despite the conflict. The proposed service station is to be
located in an area where it is incompatible with the existing and proposed amenity and development
of a neighbourhood and it is inappropriate given the existing or likely future traffic movements in the
area.
Inappropriate Zoning
Statutory Guideline 05/09 identifies certain ‘grounds’ that the Assessment Manager may consider
including, but not limited to:
a. whether the relevant instrument is out of date due to its age or changing circumstances in the
area and the proposal reflects or responds to these changed circumstances;
b. The relevant instrument is incorrect in terms of its substance or underlying assumptions for the
circumstances of the particular proposal
The Noosa Plan and associated planning scheme is due for review and does not reflect the current
circumstances in neighbourhood of the proposed Development. The planning scheme may have
9
Page 10
envisaged Industrial development in the area at one time however Community Use, Openspace and
Residential development that has been approved in the area since 2004 when the Noosa Plan was
prepared makes it an incompatible use of the land due to community amenity, health and safety
concerns.
The subject Property is currently located in an
Industry Zone. It contains no infrastructure of an
industrial nature and is not adjoined by other
Industry Zoned property. It (Fig. 1) is bounded on two
sides by Eumundi-Noosa Road and Walter Hay Drive.
The land which immediately adjoins the Property is
zoned Community Uses, occupied by the School to
the east and an electrical substation to the north.
Immediately adjoining the school as you progress
along Walter Hay Drive is an oval used for sporting and recreational purposes (zoned Open Space
Recreational) and a retirement village (zoned Residential Use).
The Noosa Plan is now almost twelve years old and well past the recognised use-by-date for such an
instrument. A reasonable assessment of the site as it currently stands would indicate that it is
incorrectly zoned based on the way the site, and the surrounding neighbourhood, has evolved over the
years.
As a matter of legacy rather than intent the remainder of the former Noosa Shire Council Depot, being
the subject Lot 30 on SP 170751 (the Property), continued to be zoned “Industry”. The Church
purchased the Property from Noosa Shire Council on 20 December 2007. The Property shares a common
boundary with the School Health and Physical Education Centre and Childrens’ Swimming Pool,
It is a matter of public record8 that in 2007 the Church was concerned about the possible development
of the site. The School stated at the time that a prospective developer “…could establish a service
station on the site.. We are somewhat alarmed by the prospect of fuel storage tanks and fuel vapours
being so close”.9
There is further contention10 that there was a verbal agreement at the time of the purchase in 2007
between the Church and Noosa Shire Council that the Property “…would not be made available to other
commercial enterprises” 11 and that the Property would provide a buffer zone between the School
Community Services Zone and the nearby Industry Zone. The alleged verbal agreement struck between
the Noosa Shire Council and the Church “…never envisaged that [the] land would be made available for
a service station”.12 The veracity of this agreement is consistent with the demonstrated cooperation
between the Church and the Noosa Shire Council in the School’s development over many years13. It
8
https://www.gslc.qld.edu.au/news.aspx?article=99
9
ibid
10
Counsellor Frank Pardon quoted in Gardner P, Noosa News, 9 December 2015
11
ibid
12
ibid
13
ibid
10
Page 11
would seem evident that the School and the Church had intended the area to be protected for the
benefit and protection of the children at the School. This arrangement would appear consistent with the
Church’s publicised desire, and Council’s demonstrated willingness to cooperate, at the time of
purchase to prevent the construction of a proposed service station on the lot. This agreement is
suggestive the parties intent to creating a negative equitable servitude or negative easement over the
property.
The planning scheme exists, among other things, to provide some certainty to the community in relation
to the types of development that can be approved for a specific property. Deviating from the planning
scheme and in particular deviating from this very inconsistency has already caused significant problems
for Noosa Council. As has been extensively reported the Council is currently attempting to deal with lax
adherence to the planning scheme related to retail intrusion into the industry zone.
Noosa Council’s Infrastructure and Planning Director Martin Drydale said in May 2015 that “It’s
important that we protect this area for industrial functions. Residences, community organisations,
commercial and retail business, and most sport and recreational land-use activities, should not operate
from industrial premises,” He furthermore added that: “The reason for having a town plan is so that we
can ensure that various land-use types are appropriately located to best serve the community. Calling for
community and industry support he said: “Property owners and real estate agents play an important
role in helping to uphold the town plan’s integrity” … adding: “Just as the community would likely object
to a factory opening up in a retail precinct such as Noosa Junction, retail shops and professional offices
are not appropriate in industry zoned areas.”
It is incumbent upon the Assessment Manager and the Council at large in this situation to uphold the
plan’s integrity and to do anything other than rejecting this Application is making no reflective of
Council’s attempts to hold the industry and community to account in relation to the maintenance of
appropriate zoning in the region.
Any decision of the Assessment Manager must not conflict with the planning scheme, unless there are
sufficient grounds to justify the decision despite the conflict. Conflict means to be “at variance or
disagree with“ and must be plainly identified. The proposed Development is clearly in conflict with the
planning scheme, a fact that is well demonstrated throughout this document. The conflict with the
planning instruments is not insignificant. Any sufficient grounds to justify approval under SPA s 326(1)(b),
must be of public interest, excluding the personal circumstances of the Applicant, owner or interested
party. The Applicant has shown no public interest grounds, nor do any exist, sufficient to justify approval
in the event of the conflict.
The Application must therefore be rejected as is required under the planning instruments as to allow it
by exception is not only contrary to SPA but a denial of the rights of the School’s parents not to have
their children exposed to negative impacts of this inconsistent development.
11
Page 12
4. NON COMPLIANCE WITH RELEVANT PLANNING INSTRUMENTS:
The Applicant has completely failed to address the numerous and significant potential impacts of the
proposed Development on the adjoining School. The following specific areas of non-compliance are
noted:
Code Objective Developer’s Assessment Objectors’ Assessment
RECONFIGURING A LOT CODE
O9 The subdivision layout is O9 Complies: Does not Comply
designed to facilitate The proposal will comply The phrase “reasonably applicable” is
linkages with adjoining sites where reasonably applicable. unclear and the specific linkages with
in the immediate area. adjoining sites in the immediate area
have not been considered or
adequately addressed.
O10 Where the lots are to be O10 Complies : Does not Comply
used for Industrial business Landscaped buffering has The layout does not provide for
or Commercial business been provided along all appropriate buffer areas, to mitigate
uses, the layout provides for boundaries adjoining the possible impacts on the adjacent
appropriate buffer areas, to school to the east. School. Landscape buffering is
mitigate possible impacts on insufficient and ineffective to mitigate
nearby residences or other the negative impacts, including those
noise sensitive uses of fugitive emissions, of the
Development.
O12 An adequate and S12.1- 12.2 Complies Does not Comply
accessible water supply is Will comply as applicable. The Applicant has not adequately
provided for fire fighting addressed the issue of fire safety and
purposes. its potential impacts, particularly
given the proximity of the
Development to the adjacent School.
O32 Access easements are in S32.1 Complies Does not Comply
appropriate locations for It is considered that the The proposed access is not
safe access and egress, and proposed access easement appropriate for the Development and
supply appropriate widths has been designed in does not provide safe access and
and levels of service for the accordance with Sections 2 egress nor does it provide for the
number of vehicles that will and 3 of PSP5 Engineering appropriate level of safety of school
utilise them Design Standards – Roads, children given its proximity to the
Drainage and Earthworks. School
O33 Traffic generated by the S33.1 Complies Does not Comply
development is within the The development will comply “reasonably applicable” is
acceptable capacity of where reasonably applicable. indeterminate. The proposed
external roads and does not Development does have an adverse
have an adverse impact impact upon the functioning of the
upon the functioning of the road network. The Applicant has
12
Page 13
Code Objective Developer’s Assessment Objectors’ Assessment
road network failed to provide an objective
evidence or argument to show
otherwise.
BUSINESS USES CODE
O20 Development is O20 Complies Does not Comply
designed and sited to avoid The proposed development is The proposed Development is not
noise emissions that suitably distanced and suitably distanced or buffered from
unreasonably diminish the buffered through landscaping the adjacent School which is a
amenity of the area or from sensitive land uses. sensitive land use.
surrounding uses. Further, as the site is located Statements to the effect that “it is
on a busy road and considered” that there will be no
roundabout, it is considered worsening effects in terms of noise
that there will be no are conjecture without supporting
worsening effects in terms of evidence such as detailed studies
noise. showing existing background noise
levels and projected additional noise
generation, particularly given the
proposed Development’s proximity to
the noise sensitive study environment
of the School
O27 Buildings and structures S27.1 Complies Does not Comply
are designed to minimise The proposed development All such facilities are conducive to
opportunities for vandalism. will incorporates a building loitering and provide opportunities
design and layout which will for concealment which poses an
provide for non-graffiti unacceptable danger to the students
friendly development, going to and from the school
structures and layout through particularly in early mornings or
design within an absence of evenings before or after
natural ladders, minimal extracurricular school activities.
unbroken vertical surface Furthermore the close proximity of
areas, CCTV surveillance, a such a facility poses and unacceptable
small retail and fast food risk opening the way for graffiti,
component (not conducive to vandalism, theft, damage to the
loitering), a layout which will security of the School premises and
promote passive surveillance harm to its students.
over the site, be well
illuminated and comprise
minimal opportunities for
concealment.
13
Page 14
Code Objective Developer’s Assessment Objectors’ Assessment
TABLE 14-15 SERVICE STATION
O76 Service stations are O76 Complies Does not Comply
located only where they are It is considered that the For reasons detailed elsewhere in this
compatible with the existing proposed development is document the proposed service
and proposed amenity and suitably located, given that the station Development is completely
development of a immediate locality comprises incompatible with the existing and
neighbourhood and where predominantly industry zoned proposed amenity and development
they are appropriate given land with a variety of uses of a neighbourhood and where they
the existing or likely future including retail and are appropriate given the existing or
traffic movements in the commercial. likely future traffic movements in the
area. area.
The contention the Applicant by that
the immediate locality comprises
predominantly industry zoned land
with a variety of uses including retail
and commercial is completely
inaccurate. The Property is not
adjoined by other Industry Zoned
property. It is bounded on two sides
by Eumundi-Noosa Road and Walter
Hay Drive. The land which
immediately adjoins the Property is
zoned Community Uses, occupied by
the School to the east and an
electrical substation to the north.
Immediately adjoining the school
along Walter Hay Drive is an oval used
for sporting and recreational
purposes (zoned Open Space
Recreational) and a retirement village
(zoned Residential Use)
O79 Service stations ensure S79.1-S79.2 Not Applicable Does not Comply
the amenity of neighbouring The site does not adjoin a The area immediately adjacent to the
residential areas is residential use or zone. School includes and a retirement
protected. village (zoned Residential Use) and
significant residential development all
of which are impacted by the
proposed Development.
O80 Buildings, structures, S80.1 Complies Does not Comply
driveways, tanks and fuel Fuel pumps are greater than The Application fails to address the
bowsers are sited to— a) 8m away from the street specific requirements of the Objective
ensure the safe and efficient frontages.
14
Page 15
Code Objective Developer’s Assessment Objectors’ Assessment
use of the site; b) maintain For reasons elaborated elsewhere in
visual amenity and S80.2 Complies this document the Buildings,
streetscape character; c) Refer Appendix A, Tanker structures, driveways, tanks and fuel
provide adequate separation plan. bowsers are NOT sited to c) provide
to adjoining land uses; and adequate separation to uses; and d)
d) not cause an not cause an environmental nuisance
environmental nuisance to to the adjacent School
neighbouring properties
O83 The associated sale of O83 Complies Does not Comply
goods, including foodstuffs, The associated sale of good The Applicants assertion is
is ancillary to the service will remain ancillary to the unsubstantiated and misleading in the
station use. service station use. extreme. This assertion is simply
designed to play down and hide the
true nature of this venture as a retail
development. Industry data shows
that a service station without a
significant retail component is an
unviable business model.
The Applicant acknowledges that the
Shop component is in total 197m2,
the majority, if not all of which is
available for retail use. The Applicant
claims, although provides no
justification for its idle assertion, that
the retail floor area is some 100m2
This means that the gross floor area
used for the associated retail sale of
goods is more than 50% of the gross
floor area available in the shop.
O84 The layout of the site S84.1- S85.1 Not Applicable Does not Comply
facilities and vehicular The Applicant fails to address this
accesses result in Objective of the code. Vehicle access
unrestricted vehicle access to and egress from the site will be
to and egress from the site. severely restricted by existing vehicle
and pedestrian traffic in the area.
O85 The use of land for a S84.1- S85.1 Not Applicable Does not Comply
service station— a) does not The Applicant fails to address this
impair traffic flow or road Objective of the code.
safety; b) facilitates safe and The proposed service station a) DOES
convenient movement to impair traffic flow and road safety; b)
and from the site through does NOT facilitate safe and
the design and arrangement convenient movement to and from
15
Page 16
Code Objective Developer’s Assessment Objectors’ Assessment
of vehicular crossovers; and the site through the design and
c) provides adequate, safe arrangement of vehicular crossovers;
and functional on-site and c) DOES NOT provide adequate,
parking and manoeuvring safe and functional on-site parking
areas and manoeuvring areas.
NOOSAVILLE LOCALITY CODE
O1 Uses are located, O1 Complies Does not Comply
designed and operated to The proposed development The Applicant provides not objective
avoid significant adverse includes all believed necessary evidence or analysis to demonstrate
changes to the light, air mitigation measures to ensure the mere qualified conjecture that the
quality, noise, accessibility or that the amenity of adjoining Development includes all “believed”
other conditions enjoyed by uses is maintained. necessary mitigation measures to
users of associated, ensure that the amenity of adjoining
adjoining or nearby uses. uses is maintained.
In the contrary, for reasons detailed
elsewhere in this document, the
Development is NOT located,
designed or can be operated to avoid
significant adverse changes to the
light, air quality, noise, accessibility
and other conditions enjoyed by users
and particularly the student children
of the School.
O3 The visual amenity and O3 Complies Does not Comply
character surrounding the The proposed development The proposed Development will have
major road network is will not adversely impact on a significant adverse effect on
protected and enhances the Eumundi- Noosa Road which is Eumundi-Noosa Road, which is a
recognisable entrance to a council owned road and is council owned road and is classified
Noosaville through— a) classified as a major road. as a major road.
retaining and enhancing the The proposed development
visual and physical will not dramatically affect the The current traffic congestion created
separation of Noosaville visual amenity and character particularly during peak hours will be
from other localities; and b) of this road. greatly exacerbated by the entry to
ensuring development does The site comprises established and egress from the proposed
not encroach upon existing landscaping that is to be Development.
native vegetation along the retained where possible,
road frontage other than for further the proposal
access ways. comprises additional
landscaping along this road to
enhance visual amenity.
16
Page 17
Code Objective Developer’s Assessment Objectors’ Assessment
O4 The separate identities of O4 Not Applicable Does not Comply
the various residential The area immediately adjacent to the
neighbourhoods remain The subject site is not School includes and a retirement
important and distinct residential neighbourhood. village (zoned Residential Use) and
elements of the residential significant residential development all
character of Noosaville of which are impacted by the
proposed Development.
O7 The density of O7 Complies Does not Comply
development within the site The proposed development is For reasons detailed elsewhere in this
area— considered to be compatible document the proposed Development
with the surrounding is incompatible with the surrounding
development. The proposed development. The proposed
development is appropriately Development is NOT appropriately
located on the subject site located on the subject site with
with suitable setbacks from suitable setbacks from the adjoining,
the adjoining community use Community Use School.
(school).
O9 Buildings and other S9.1 Complies Does not Comply
structures are appropriately The proposed buildings and The proposed buildings and
designed and sited to— a) structures are setback more structures are designed and sited
provide amenity for users of than 7m from the road detract from the amenity for users
the premises as well as frontages in accordance with School; does NOT preserve the visual
preserve the visual and Schedule 1- Minimum and acoustic amenity of the School
acoustic amenity of Boundary Setbacks. and DOES NOT provide adequate
adjoining and nearby distance from adjoining School.
properties; b) provide
adequate distance from
adjoining land uses;
O21 Buildings and other S21.1 Complies Does not Comply
structures use materials and The proposed materials are The proposed Development is in a
finishes that complement acceptable as the site is in the neighbourhood completely
the Noosaville character and Industry Zone, however the surrounded by Community Service
integrate with the petrol station buildings and Residential infrastructure.
surrounding natural and comprises a variety of There is no Industrial infrastructure in
built environment materials and features such as the immediate vicinity and the petrol
glazing and recessions to station building is completely out of
create visual appeal. character and does not integrate wit
with the surrounding natural and built
environment.
O186 The following defined O186- O187 Complies Does not Comply
17
Page 18
Code Objective Developer’s Assessment Objectors’ Assessment
uses and use classes are The proposed service station The proposed shop is not a consistent
consistent uses and are (Retail Type 5) is a consistent use. It is NOT ancillary but a major
located in the Industry use in this zone. The proposed component of the service station
Zone… shop (Retail Type 2) while not business model without which the
listed as a consistent use, is proposed service station business
ancillary to the proposed model is un-commercial and,
service station, therefore is therefore, the Shop is in all respects
considered to be compatible. an incompatible use and any
exemption in this case is untenable
for reasons set out elsewhere in this
document.
O188 Uses are O188 Complies Does not Comply
predominantly of an It is considered that the It is evident that the proposed
industrial nature ordinarily proposed use is Development is not in any way of an
expected in an industrial predominantly of an industrial industrial nature nor is it an ancillary
estate with ancillary uses nature. use compatible with industrial
compatible with industrial businesses.
businesses. Service stations are ordinarily located
in areas of high commercial activity
and large volumes of passing traffic.
Service station facilities located in
industrial parks with no access to
non-industrial traffic would in no way
support a viable business.
The current proposal is simply an
attempt to take advantage of an
inadvertent zoning of the Property in
the industry zone and the
Development is not in any way of a
nature ordinarily expected in an
industrial estate or an ancillary use
compatible with industrial businesses.
O196 Industrial development O196 Complies Does not Comply
is conducted in an All measures to ensure that The Application fails to address in any
environmentally responsible environmental values are not credible detail how the Development
manner, operating without compromised have been can operate without deleterious
deleterious impacts on incorporated impacts on the immediate,
immediate, surrounding or surrounding or downstream
downstream communities, community, being the School. In
environments and particular the Application provides
environmental processes. mere opinion, without recourse to
validating the credentials or expertise
18
Page 19
Code Objective Developer’s Assessment Objectors’ Assessment
of those making them, and fails to
address the potential impacts on the
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
O28 Landscaping of O28 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
19
Page 20
Code Objective Developer’s Assessment Objectors’ Assessment
provides no justification for its
derived value of 30% other than it is
what will fit on the site given its
proposed configuration.
The design of the facility on the
Property as currently proposed clearly
is not suitable as the Applicant is
unable to comply with the planning
scheme and must be rejected.
BUIDLING WORKS CODE
O1 Buildings and other S1.1 Complies Does not Comply
structures are appropriately Setbacks comply with The setbacks specified in Schedule 1
designed and sited to— a) Schedule 1. address probable, but not definitively
provide amenity for users of compliant solutions in the specific
the premises as well as circumstances. Given the nature of
preserve the visual and the proposed Development the
acoustic privacy of adjoining Applicant has not demonstrated that
and nearby land uses; structures are appropriately designed
and sited to preserve the visual and
acoustic privacy of the adjoining
School.
O18 Lighting associated with S18.1- S18.3 Not Applicable Does not Comply
the use or works does not ‘where possible’ is insufficient, an
have an adverse impact S18.4 Complies obfuscation, and furthermore an
upon the amenity enjoyed All lighting will comply with acknowledgement that it is not
by users of adjoining or the relevant requirements possible for the Applicant in its
nearby premises nor do it where possible. current proposal to comply with
cause unreasonable relevant requirements without
disturbance to local fauna. qualification as required under the
planning scheme.
The Applicant has failed to show by
any reasonable objective justification
that Lighting associated with the use
or operation of the proposed
Development does not have an
adverse impact upon the amenity
enjoyed by users of the adjoining
School.
20
Page 21
Code Objective Developer’s Assessment Objectors’ Assessment
DRIVEWAYS & CAR PARKING CODE
O1 Vehicular access does not S1.1- S1.3 Complies Does not Comply
adversely impact on safety, Vehicle access is considered to The Applicant fails to provide
capacity and operations of be compliant with the relevant objective evidence or verification of
the existing or planned road requirements. The the source of its “considered” opinion
network, the proposed development will comply that vehicle access is compliant.
driveway, cycleways or where applicable. In the contrary, the proposed
pedestrian pathway systems. Development’s vehicular access
adversely impacts on safety of
children using the pedestrian pathway
to and from the School. The proposed
Development will significantly
increase the amount of traffic using
the access easement.
The Applicant fails to consider or
address how children will be able to
safely cross the access way to the
service station in a safe manner.
O4 Vehicular access does not S4.1 Complies Does not Comply
adversely impact on the The development will comply The current proposal will have a
capacity, operations and as required. significant adverse impact on the
maintenance of the existing operation of the existing road
infrastructure; network in and around the School.
O7 Sufficient carparking is O7 Complies Does not Comply
provided to accommodate The proposed development The qualification “technically” is an
the number and type of will provide 10 car parking obfuscation. The proposed
vehicles likely to be spaces. Technically this is Development does not comply with
generated by the below the minimum according the minimum requirements according
development having regard to Table 14-51 Vehicle Parking to Table 14-51 Vehicle Parking
to the specifics of the use… Requirements. However, it is Requirements.
considered that 10 spaces are
suitable given the ancillary It is the Applicant’s responsibility to
nature of the proposed petrol design a compliant solution in all
building. The likely number of respects, including provision of
users of the service will be required car parking spaces to comply
there to refuel their vehicles, with the planning scheme.
which comprises leaving the Council has determined by way of the
vehicle at the fuel dispenser. planning scheme what is ‘suitable’.
The amount of users The Applicant provides no
specifically using the site for qualification, expert opinion or
the ancillary shop component justification to allow a conclusion that
is considered to be low. It is the amount proposed is “suitable.”
21
Page 22
Code Objective Developer’s Assessment Objectors’ Assessment
there considered that 10 The Applicant furthermore provides
spaces is appropriate. no justification for its derived value of
10 other than it is what will fit on the
site given its proposed configuration.
Furthermore the Applicant provides
no data or objective evidence by way
of survey, industry statistics or
otherwise to justify its assessment of
the likely number of users of the
service station to refuel vehicles
versus to use the retail facility. The
number is simply derived to fit with
the number configurable on the
Property and within the design
proposed by the Applicant.
It is the Applicant’s responsibility to
provide a compliant design - the
current design is clearly non-
compliant and must be rejected.
O9 Parking areas are located O9 Complies Does not Comply
where they will not unduly Car parking is located at the The Applicant states that the car park
conflict with pedestrians and front of the building, the most is located to be “the most suitable
will not dominate the suitable location for a service location for a service station use”
streetscape. station use. which is not the requirement but a
function of the proposed design.
The Applicant has failed to address
the requirement and demonstrate
that Parking areas are located where
they will not unduly conflict with
pedestrians. The Applicant has failed
to address the requirement and
demonstrate that parking areas are
located where they will not unduly
conflict with pedestrians and will not
dominate the streetscape.
O11 Access and egress Does not Comply
points do not impact on the Given the nature of the development
safety and operations of the and proximity to the School the
22
Page 23
Code Objective Developer’s Assessment Objectors’ Assessment
road system proposed access and egress point
does impact adversely on the safety
and operation of the Eumundi-Noosa
Road.
O14 Provision is made for O14 Complies Does not Comply
pedestrian and vehicular Can comply via condition The Applicants response is
queues at conflict points; where applicable. inconsistent and vague. The
Development will significantly affect
traffic on the Eumundi-Noosa Road,
the roundabout outside the School
and pedestrian children on the
footpath entrance in the event of
queuing to access the proposed
Development. The Applicant has
provided no objective analysis of the
likely queuing frequency or extent.
The Applicant’s response is indicative
of the fact that the Applicant has not
conducted the required analysis and
expects the Assessment Manager to
determine what is appropriate, which
is unacceptable in the already
challenging circumstances.
O17 Car parking areas are O17 Complies Does not Comply
landscaped… Car parking areas have been Cannot be compliant as they do not
suitably landscaped. meet the requirements of the
Landscaping Code Objective O28.
The Application does not comply in the areas outlined above and has completely failed to address
adequately the potential impacts on the adjoining School. At 6.2 of its Town Planning Report the
Applicant makes unfounded, unqualified and unsupported opinion as to the potential impacts on the
adjoining School. The assessment is neither comprehensive nor soundly validated for example:
Applicants Response / Assertion Objectors’ Response
1. The proposed petrol store building is This is a statement of fact without justification as to
located more than 10m form the school its relevance.
boundary
10m is in effect too close to the School boundary to
ensure the safety of the children attending the
School. We have demonstrated elsewhere in this
document that international and Australian best
23
Page 24
practice demands that service station facilities be set
back a far greater distance from the School.
2. The nearest structure on the school The relevance of this statement is unclear and if
boundary is the pump house for the anything demonstrates the proximity of the proposed
school pool service station to the School pool facilities used by
toddlers and young children.
3. The proposed service station is Visual distinction is the least of the concerns that are
orientated away from the school and associated with the location of a service station
towards the Eumundi- Noosa Road adjacent to, indeed adjoining, a School and its
frontage, providing visual distinction associated health and physical education facilities.
between both sites.
4. The service station refuelling area is The Applicant provides no justification for its
sufficiently distanced from the school assertion that the Development “is sufficiently
boundary which is greater than 25m. distanced from the school boundary which is greater
than 25m.”
In the contrary we have demonstrated elsewhere in
this document that international and Australian best
practice demands that service station facilities be set
back a far greater distance from the School.
5. All vehicle access relating to the service The relevance of this statement is once again unclear.
station and future proposed Lot 2 The access being off Eumundi-Noosa Road, which is
development is obtained via Eumundi- the same as the access to the School and only a short
Noosa Road which is more than suitably distance away creates the potential for increased
distanced from the school access off traffic queuing and obstruction along the short
Walter Hay Drive. stretch of road between the two entrances.
6. A dedicated pedestrian pathway from Again the relevance of this statement is unclear. The
Walter Hay Drive is proposed. This pathway provides no additional protection for the
pathway connects Walter Hay Drive School children. Indeed it provides further unwanted
directly to the site and the store opportunity for children to access the shop, which is
building, thus reducing any potential undoubtedly the main purpose of the development,
conflict between pedestrians and that is to encourage the school children to purchase
vehicles. from the shop and increase the profits to the owner
at the expense of - and threat to - the School
children.
The Applicant has also failed to respond seriously and comprehensively to Council’s request for further
information regarding the Airborne Hazards in proximity to the School identified by Council as an area of
critical importance to the Development application:
Applicant’s Response Objectors’ Response
1. Benzene as an active The Applicant provides mere idle assertion in the face of the evidence
24
Page 25
constituent of Motor Spirit we have provided elsewhere in this document that clearly shows the
is 1% v/v as legislated in adverse impacts of emissions and the danger to children from being in
Australia. This is a minor close proximity to a service station.
fraction of total chemical
compounds in Motor Spirit. The setback distances proposed in this development do not come close
With the advent of modern to meeting best practice either in Australia or overseas.
VR1 systems and fibreglass
underground tanks the In Queensland, the health risk from benzene (and other pollutants) is
vapour fraction escaping to recognized in the Environmental Protection (Air) Policy 2008 (EPP). THE
the environment has EPP sets exposure limits in air to ensure protection of human and
reduced to extremely low environmental health from those pollutants. The EPP objective for
levels that poses no benzene is a maximum concentration of 3 ppb (parts per billion) over a
detrimental health impacts 1-year period.
to those living in close
proximity to Petrol The Applicant has failed to show by reasonable analysis that the levels
Stations. of exposure, particularly to young children in the adjacent School, will
not harm their health.
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.
2. The refuelling canopy is This is indeed an indictment on the whole Development proposal.
some 46m to the boundary
with the school that backs The Applicant acknowledges that the refuelling canopy is a mere 46m
onto the sports hall and to the boundary with the school that backs onto the sports hall and
swimming. There are no swimming complex.
classrooms within at least
100-150m of the petrol The Applicant further acknowledges that classrooms are within 100-
station. This separation 150m of the petrol station.
distance alone is more than
sufficient to neutralise / The Applicant then makes yet another idle assertion without any
dilute any minor trace objective evidence or scientific analysis; without measurement or date;
benzene particulates to without evidence of the qualifications, expertise or experience of the
such a degree and to be person making the assertion; that “This separation distance alone is
undetectable. more than sufficient to neutralise / dilute any minor trace benzene
particulates to such a degree and to be undetectable.” This assertion is
no more than an unsubstantiated opinion and insufficient grounds on
which to approve the Development given that the setback distances
proposed in this development do not come close to meeting best
practice either here, in Australia, or overseas.
25
Page 26
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.
Conclusion
The Noosa Biosphere Reserve is sought after and special because of its natural beauty, range of plants
and animals, the committed groups who look after it - and the community that strives towards
becoming a healthy community in a healthy environment that can be enjoyed for generations.
As parents we have chosen this environment in which to raise and school our children because of the
specific nature and life-style the Noosa Biosphere has to offer. It ill behoves a Developer, from outside
of our community, with very different values, to pillage our prized neighbourhood and strip our children
of the clean, green, safe privilege we have sought out for them.
A petrol station does not belong adjacent to our school.
Indeed our children have raised concerns for the frogmouth owls, possums, grey egrets, whistling tree
frogs, rosella, plovers, green tree snakes, ducks and lizards that frequent the Good Shepherd Lutheran
College’s grounds, should there be an increase in traffic and a hazardous increase in air pollution and
poisonous fumes.
For all these reasons the proposed development application is NOT Compatible with other uses and
works. It:
a. DOES NOT Maintain the safety of people, specifically children and works;
b. DOES NOT Avoid significant adverse impacts on the amenity enjoyed by users of other premises,
specifically children, including acoustic and health and well being qualities;
c. DOES NOT Avoid significant adverse effects on the natural environment, including native habitat
removal, fragmentation and attrition and
d. DOES NOT avoid significant adverse impacts on, and compromises, the amenity enjoyed by the
users of other premises in the adjoining Community Services, Housing and Open-space
Recreations Zones.
I/We urge you, the Assessment Manager, and/or the elected representatives to reject the Development
as it conflicts with the interests of the public and its obligation to protect the health and safety of our
school children. From the assessment above, the following contrary conclusions are able to be drawn:
1. The proposed use is an inappropriate and unreasonable form of development within the area
in which it is located.
26
Page 27
2. The proposed Development has, as a significant component, a use which is an inconsistent use
for the zone and inappropriate in all of the circumstances.
3. The proposed development is of a type, scale and intensity that is inconsistent with any
reasonably anticipated development on this Property.
4. The application DOES NOT demonstrate compliance with all relevant local and state provisions
including all relevant codes.
Name Address Signature
Kristen Paenga 3 Starboard Ave , noosaville
Ricardo paenga 3 Starboard Ave, Noosaville
27
Page 28
Name Address Signature 28