Noosa Plan Submission 17 December 2015 - Final submission table (1)

Principal Submitters Tracy Stevens 6 Val Cr NOOSAVILLE 4566 [email protected] Kelly Gerber 35 Hilton Esp TEWANTIN 4565 [email protected]
17 December 2015

Noosa Council
Level 3, 9 Pelican Street
TEWANTIN QLD 4565
[email protected]

Submission: MCU 15/0095 - 115 Eumundi Noosa Rd Noosaville (Lot 30 on SP170751) (site)
Property Owner: Lutheran Church of Australia Queensland District (ARBN 051 602 996)

Dear Assessment Manager

INTRODUCTION

We, the submitters, oppose the above Application for Material Change of Use of Premises – Retail Business Type 2 - Shop & Salon (shop) and Type 5 -Vehicles Uses (the service station) and urge Noosa Council to reject the development application (DA) on the basis that it conflicts with the Noosa Plan on the following grounds:

Inconsistent Use;

Failure to achieve overall outcomes for the Noosaville Locality;

Adverse health impact on the community;

Adverse traffic impact on the community; and

Non-compliance with other relevant Local Codes.

In the alternative, if Noosa Council determines that the DA does not conflict with the Noosa Plan, we urge Council, pursuant to s.326(1)(b) of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (Qld) (SPA), to reject the DA on the basis that there are sufficient grounds to justify the decision, despite the DA not conflicting with the Noosa Plan. Such sufficient grounds are as follows:

Adverse health impact on the community;

Adverse traffic impact on the community;

Destruction of local amenity;

Incompatibly with surrounding land use; and

Other planning grounds.

CONFLICT WITH NOOSA PLAN

The Noosa Plan specifies the development standards or criteria for assessing the suitability of a development proposal.  The application is impact assessable and it is the applicant’s responsibility to establish that the DA does not conflict with the Noosa Plan. If the DA does not comply with a solution put forward in a relevant Code to achieve an outcome, it is the responsibility of the applicant to demonstrate how alternative solutions achieve that outcome.  If the DA conflicts with the Noosa Plan, the Council must reject the application, unless the applicant has demonstrated that there are sufficient grounds to justify the decision despite the conflict.

i.	INCONSISTENT USE

The site is located within the Noosaville Locality and is zoned Industry.  The proposed shop is identified as an inconsistent use within the Industry Zone and sufficient grounds do not exist to warrant Noosa Council approving the DA, despite this conflict with the Noosa Plan.

In regard to this inconsistency, the only argument that the applicant has provided is the following:
“A shop in this zone is an inconsistent use. However, the separate use of a ‘shop’ is only applied for because the definition of a ‘service station’ under the planning scheme does not include a shop/retail area as an ancillary function of the use. We note that the extent of shop/retail proposed as part of the service station building is typical to that of modern day suburban service stations of this scale. Based on the above, it is therefore considered that the ‘inconsistent’ reference for a ‘shop’ (which in this case is ancillary to the service station) use is not a significant consideration for this particular application.

A specific outcome for service stations under the Business Uses Code (Part 14, Table 14-15, 083) is that the associated sale of goods, including foodstuffs, is ancillary to the service station use.  The probable solution provided for this outcome is that the gross floor area used for the associated retail sale of goods is limited to 15% of the gross floor area. Pursuant to Part 2 of the Noosa Plan – Interpretation, ‘ancillary’ means associated with, but incidental and subordinate to.

We contend that the shop does not fall into the category of a small retail shop ancillary to the service station, as it cannot be considered to be incidental and subordinate to the service station on the following grounds:

the service station shop cannot be said to be a minor component of the DA, as it is 195m2, with the retail floor space comprising approximately 100m2.  The shop is approximately 32% of total gross floor area (GFA), as defined in Part 2 of the Noosa Plan – Interpretation.  This is more than double than the 15% provided in the probable solution to Specific Outcome 083 and the applicant has not demonstrated how alternative solutions can achieve the specific outcome required.

the shop is an integral component of a modern day service station model and a major source of profits, as such, from a commercial basis, the shop cannot be considered ancillary.

We note that the Noosa Council recently approved a Material Change of Use application over land at 139 Eumundi Noosa Road & 30 Lionel Donovan Drive, Noosaville (139 Eumundi Noosa Road DA), for the following range of uses:

Industrial Business Type 2 – Production, Alteration, Repackaging & Repairing;
Industrial Business Type 1 – Warehouse;
Retail Business Type 6 – Hardware Store;
Retail Business Type 5 – Vehicle Uses (service station);
Retail Business Type 2 – Shop & Salon (service station shop); and
Entertainment and Dining Business Type 1 – Food & Beverages.

Similar to the DA, the subject of this submission, the 139 Eumundi Noosa Road development also comprises a service station and retail shop, with the shop also being identified as an inconsistent use as it is to be located in an Industry Zone.  In the 139 Eumundi Noosa Road DA, the applicant successfully argued that the proposed retail shop was a minor component of the development, as it was only approximately 4% of the total GFA proposed. This is in stark contrast to the proposed development at 115 Eumundi Noosa Road, where the proposed retail shop is approximately 32% of the total GFA.

It is also noted that given the proposed shop at 115 Eumundi Noosa Road will only be approximately 200 metres from the service station shop at 139 Eumundi Noosa Road and that they are both located on the same side of the road, the two service station shops will be in direct competition with each other. As such, the proposed shop will negatively impact on the service station shop at 139 Eumundi-Noosa Road which has already been approved in June this year.

In light of the above, the applicant has not established that there are sufficient grounds for the Noosa Council to approve the DA, despite the inconsistent use. Further, we contend, that there are no grounds on which the Noosa Council is justified in approving the DA, notwithstanding the conflict.

Further, it is not appropriate for Noosa Council to approve a proposal which is directly and significantly in conflict with a formally expressed planning strategy.  This is supported by the following two planning grounds under the Noosa Plan which directly relate to retail uses and land zoned Industry:

DESIRED ENVIRONMENTAL OUTCOMES

Part 3 of the Noosa Plan contains the Desired Environmental Outcomes (DEO). Relevant to this issue, the DEO for Commercial & Retail Uses states at section 3.1.3:
b)  Commercial & Retail Uses

“A hierarchy of centres with a range of Commercial and Retail business uses provide suitable levels of amenity, service and access to the community, consistent with the community’s location and needs and is based on—

viii. Uses that comprise a large component of Commercial and Retail business uses or other non-industrial uses are not located on land that is otherwise intended for Industrial business uses;…”

Given that more than one third of the GFA of the proposed development is taken up by the proposed service station shop, it is considered that the DA comprises a large component of Commercial and Retail business uses and, as such, should not be located on Industry zoned land.  Non-compliance with this DEO demonstrates that the DA does not meet one of the key aims of the Noosa Plan, which is consistent with community expectation regarding retail intrusion into the industry zone.

NOOSAVILLE LOCALITY PLAN

The overall outcome sought for the Noosaville Locality, Part 3, Division 16, section 11.8.2, provides, among other things:
y)  For the Industry Zone, land in this zone

ii.  is protected for industrial functions including Industrial business Type 2 to the exclusion of incompatible uses including Residential Uses, Community Uses, Commercial business and most sport and recreation uses and Retail business uses

The proposal to build a service station shop on the site contravenes this overall outcome of the Code which seeks to exclude incompatible uses, such as retail business uses, from being located on Industrial zoned land.

ii. FAILURE TO ACHIEVE OVERALL OUTCOMES FOR THE NOOSAVILLE LOCALITY

The DA also fails to meet the following overall outcomes sought for the Noosaville Locality (Part 11, Division 16):

a)  New uses and works are located, designed and managed to:

i.  be compatible with other uses and works;
ii. maintain the safety of people and works;
iii. avoid significant adverse impacts on the amenity enjoyed by users of other premises, including acoustic and visual qualities.

The proposed service station’s location directly adjoins the Good Shepherd Lutheran College (GSLC), which is zoned Community Use.  Specifically, the proposal is adjacent to the GSLC pool and Health & PE Centre (HPE Centre).  The pool is used on a daily basis from 5.30 am to 7.30 pm for swimming lessons and training and the HPE Centre is used daily, among other things, for physical exercise and activity by students and the general public using the upstairs gymnasium.  The DA is not compatible with these uses.

The air pollutants which will be emitted from the proposed service station and the increased traffic utilising the service station, will impact, in particular, on the health of children and the public using the GSLC pool and HPE Centre. (Refer to Health Impact of Proposed Service Station at page 6 for further discussion on this issue).

By locating the proposed development next to the GSLC, the amenity enjoyed by users of the school (predominantly, students, staff and families) will be negatively impacted.  In terms of visual quality, a service station located directly adjacent to the GSLC will significantly reduce the aesthetical appeal of the school.  In particular, the service station itself and its associated advertising signage will be unsightly and incompatible with the aesthetics of the image of the school.  In addition, the proposed business is likely to attract antisocial behaviour which is incompatible with the social mores of the GSLC.

n) Gibson Road, part of Mary Street, Noosa Parade, Reef Street, Weyba Road, Walter Hay Drive, Eenie Creek Road, Beckmans Road d and Eumundi Noosa Road are protected as parts of the Noosa’s major road network

o) The function, safety and visual amenity of the Noosa’s major road network are protected.

The increased traffic and congestion resulting from the proposal will significantly compromise the function and safety of Walter Hay Drive and Eumundi Noosa Road. (Refer to Traffic Impact of Proposed Service Station at page 15 for further details).

The visual amenity of Walter Hay Drive will be negatively impacted.  The existing landscaping along Walter Hay Drive (which is the south western (front) view of the site) comprises substantial trees and foliage which will be substantially reduced as a result of the development.  Presently, the site and the GSLC operate as a “green zone” and a clear and sensible demarcation of the end of the industrial area when approaching Noosa from Eumundi Road.  The proposed development will result in a significant loss of this amenity.

x)  For the Community Services Zone land for Community Uses and Infrastructure Uses:

i.  is protected and managed to enable the efficient and timely delivery of community services including:

D) the Good Shepherd Lutheran School, Noosaville State Primary School and land adjacent developed for secondary education; and

ii.  is consistent with the infrastructure, indoor and outdoor recreation, education, social and safety needs of the local community, including people with special needs, such as the elderly, children, low income earners and disabled persons

The proposed use will adversely impact on GSLC’s capacity to deliver its services in an efficient and timely manner.  In particular, it will make it substantially more difficult for the school to safely operate its student drop off and pick up zone due to increased traffic and congestion on Walter Hay Drive and Eumundi Noosa Road.

The increased traffic and congestion resulting from the proposed service station will increase the risk of children being involved in an accident when walking or riding their bikes to and from the school. (Refer to Traffic Impact of Proposed Service Station at page 15 for further discussion on this issue).

iii.	HEALTH IMPACT OF PROPOSED SERVICE STATION

The Noosa Plan – required health outcomes

The Noosaville Locality Plan at Division 16, section 11.8.2, states that one of the overall outcomes sought for the Noosaville Locality is that new uses and works are located, designated and managed to maintain the safety of people.

It also requires that GSLC (as a community services zone) is protected and managed to enable the efficient and timely delivery of community services and is consistent with the infrastructure, indoor and outdoor recreation, education, social and safety needs of the local community, including people with special needs, such as the elderly, children, low income earners and disabled persons.

A Specific Outcome for the Noosaville Locality Plan, Division 17 at section 11.9 includes:
01 Amenity – Uses are located, designed and operated to avoid significant adverse changes to the light, air quality, noise, accessibility or other conditions enjoyed by users of associated, adjoining or nearby uses.

Furthermore, Part 14 of the Noosa Plan, states at Table 14-15 that the specific outcomes required for a service station development are as follows:

O80 - Buildings, structures, driveways, tanks and fuel bowsers are sited to—
a) ensure the safe and efficient use of the site;
b) maintain visual amenity and streetscape character;
c) provide adequate separation to adjoining land uses; and
d) not cause an environmental nuisance to neighbouring properties.

O82 - The layout and design of the service station ensures that on site operations do not cause any environmental nuisance or harm or result in the release of untreated pollutants.
The development application

The proposed DA at 115 Eumundi Road Noosaville comprises:

Service Station building/shop
10 car parking spaces and 2 motor cycles spaces
1 refuelling canopy over 3 fuel dispensers with 6 filling positions
3 x 60kL (or 180,000 litres) underground fuel tanks. (Although it is noted on the Proposed Site Layout Plan that “Total Fuel storage will not exceed 500,000L”)
1 loading service bay
Refuse point- the applicant has not advised what times collection will occur
Fuel delivery – the applicant has not advised what times this will occur
a 2.5m high fence along part of the boundary between the site and the GSLC open air pool..

The proposed operation hours of the service station are stated as being 24 hours 7 days a week.

There will be an estimated trip generation of 129 trips (entry and exit) in the peak hour.
GSLC - adjoining land user

The site is currently a vacant block and adjoins GSLC, an educational facility of approximately 900 students from prep to year 12.

In particular, the site directly adjoins the GSLC 14 metre outdoor toddler pool.  The GSLC 25 metre outdoor pool is next to the toddler pool.  There is no fence or other solid structure between the boundary of the site and the toddler pool.  The pool facility, apart from constant school use, is utilised all year round by Diamond Swim (GSLC’s Swim School).  The pool facility is open for training and /or use from 5.30am to 7.30pm and teaches babies from 8 weeks of age.  The pool facility is also available for the public to hire.

The site also adjoins the GSLC music rooms and HPE Centre, which is used continuously by the school.  The HPE Centre 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 HPE Centre, which is open for use between the hours of 6am to 7.30pm.

The HPE Centre has a series of high level air intake louvers facing the site. (See photograph below). If the service station proceeds and the “vapour wall” is constructed, there is nothing to prevent the emissions going over the barrier and through the HPE Centre louvers and into the HPE Centre.  Even though the vapours are heavier than air, if the wind is from the west or south west, it will blow the emissions towards the pool and HPE Centre.

Of major concern is the close proximity between the proposed refuelling area on the site and the GSLC boundary.  For example, it is less than:
30 meters (estimated) from the outdoor toddler pool to the proposed refuelling area; and

40 meters (estimated) from the HPE centre to the proposed refuelling area.

Potential health impacts from the site

The applicant has not provided any data with respect to proposed potential air toxins from the site.

Air pollutants will arise from the site from multiple sources, including:

emissions generated by increased fossil fuel combustion by motor vehicles using the service station;
vapour expelled from a vehicle’s petrol tank as the tank is filled;
drips from the filling nozzle;
leaks from hoses and gaskets;
vapour expelled from underground storage tanks as they are refilled by road tankers;
vapour from the fuel vents; and
potential liquid spillages.

Further, potential dangers regarding the site include:

petrol and diesel leakage from underground tanks and pipes, contaminating soil and ground water, with a high risk that it will flow off-site;
explosion/fire risk given that the site will have underground storage of 180,000L of dangerous flammable combustible liquids;
increased noise emissions from engine braking and acceleration; and
in the event of an emergency situation, the logistics of evacuating the occupants of the GSLC, in particular a pool facility with babies and small children would be a difficult exercise.
Harmful effect of traffic emissions from increased motorists using the service station

The World Health Organization has concluded, based on a review of toxicological evidence, that it is likely that ultrafine particles (UFP) from traffic emissions do have adverse effects on human health.  There are currently no health-based guidelines recommending threshold concentrations of UFP that should not be exceeded.

A study has been conducted in Brisbane regarding the effect of the exposure to airborne nano and UFP emitted from motor vehicles on the health of children in schools.  The study is the first Australian epidemiological study to assess the health effects of ultrafine particles on children’s health in general and peripheral airways in particular.

It has been shown that children are generally more susceptible to air pollution and their attendance at school for six to seven hours a day during weekdays makes them even more vulnerable.  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.

A further 2014 Brisbane study (attached) has found that about 70% of outdoor Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) concentrations were attributed to traffic i.e. petrol vehicle exhaust and fuel evaporation.  It concluded: "The outdoor traffic was found to have very negligible contribution (2%) in indoor VOCs concentrations but the contribution of 70% on outdoor was from traffic related sources, so providing drop off/pick up area as far as possible from buildings and stopping the engine of the vehicles while waiting can improve the situation outdoors. This is of importance, considering that children do spend a lot of time on outdoor school activities. When they are active, the inhalation rate increases and thus pollutant intakes”.

Given that the proposed service station will generate substantially more traffic (in this case 129 cars per peak hour) within very close proximity (30 metres) to GSLC, it is reasonable to conclude that a much greater concentration of UFPs and VOC’s from traffic emissions will penetrate the GSLC open air pool facility and beyond.  This is even more concerning given that the main group of people affected is children.

The above study notes the increased exposure simply from drop-off and pick-up traffic.  This only represents a few minutes of close exposure in a day, compared with the more extended exposure to children at swimming lessons (anywhere between 30-90 mins) during which time they are actively inhaling the surrounding air.

It is to be stressed that the potential adverse health impacts will be evident regardless of what vapour recovery system the developer implements (i.e. VR1 and VR2) as the increased traffic will still be a constant factor.

Consequently, at the very least, it should be incumbent on the developer to provide an independent assessment, modelling the impact of traffic emissions on the GSLC, prior to any development proceeding.
Harmful effect of petrol emissions from the service station

Emissions from service stations are widely acknowledged to contain compounds harmful to health, including:
benzene
toluene
xylenes; and
ethylbenzene

Air toxins emitted from service stations include significant quantities of benzene which is a known health risk and carcinogen.

Exposure to emissions from service stations has been shown to be associated with increased risks of childhood leukaemia, independent of other risk factors (C Steffen et al 2004 – “Acute childhood leukaemia and environmental exposure to potential sources of benzene and other hydrocarbons; a case-control study”).

A Spanish study published in the US Journal of Environmental Management in December 2010 (Terrés et al) suggested 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 research study shows 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.

The service station reviewed in the study had 4 petrol bowsers with a vapour recovery device which was stage 1 implemented.  Accordingly, it was a very similar facility to the proposed service station, which has 3 bowsers, a VR1 recovery system and a similar climate.

In 2014, Dr Ian Francis Musgrave, Lecturer in Pharmacology, University of Adelaide, referred to the Spanish Study as follows:

... 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.
…
It must be emphasized the air temperature and wind will alter these contours. Warmer conditions increase the amount of vapor release from the stations (Morales Terrés et al., 2010) During summer with north-easterly winds the likelihood of much higher vapor levels being present in the residential zone is increased (Karakitsios et al., 2007, Correa et al., 2012, Kountouriotis et al., 2014). These are overseas studies; however an Environment Australia report (2003) suggests summer vapor exposure in Adelaide will be higher than in winter.

Required separation distance from refuelling area to GSLC

The developer in a letter, to “Whom it may concern” dated 2 December 2015 (letter) received from GSLC, asserts that the service station refuelling area is located more than 25m from the school boundary which is considered to be a significant setback.  The Noosa Plan or applicable Queensland legislation does not stipulate a required separation distance/setback from the refuelling area to the GSLC boundary.

The developer, in its letter states, “To ensure best practice compliance a comparison was undertaken with Planning Scheme Requirements of Brisbane City Council...  Reviewing the proposed Development against Brisbane City Council PSP which would be considered in Qld the most stringent of requirements for Petrol Stations (modelled from the NSW DECC Code Air Quality and Vapour Recovery Requirements) would comply as is and not need further modification to be compliant”.

The relevant section of the Brisbane City Council (BCC) service station code (9.3.21) is set out below.  It concerns the required separation distance between fuel dispensing areas and a sensitive use zone (which includes a school):

Performance Outcome 7
Development:
(a) is located a sufficient distance from dwellings to maintain  residential amenity in adjoining, adjacent or surrounding areas;
(b) avoids or minimises air emissions, including the installation of vapour recovery systems;
(c) complies with the following criteria at a sensitive zone or a sensitive use:
(i) air quality planning criteria in Table 9.3.21.3.D;
(ii) odour criteria in Table 9.3.21.3.E.
Note—An air quality impact report prepared in accordance with the Air quality planning scheme policy can assist in demonstrating achievement of this performance outcome.
Acceptable Outcome 7.2
Development:
(a) if the annual throughput does not exceed 1.2ML of fuel ensures fuel-dispensing areas and vents are not located within 10m of a sensitive use or a sensitive zone;
(b) if the annual throughput is between 1.2ML and 9ML of fuel, ensures fuel dispensing areas and vents are not located within 50m of a sensitive use;
(c) if the annual throughput does not exceed 12ML of fuel:
(i) is fitted with Stage 1 and Stage 2 vapour recovery equipment in compliance with the air quality section of the Storage and dispensing of petroleum products planning scheme policy;
(ii) ensures fuel-dispensing areas and vents are not located within 20m of a sensitive use or a sensitive zone;
(d) if the annual throughput exceeds 12ML, no acceptable outcome is prescribed.

Editor’s note—“Fuel” means motor spirit, including petrol, premium unleaded petrol and ethanol blend but excluding diesel.

The developers have conveniently not informed us as to what the estimated annual throughput of motor spirit will be with respect to the proposed service station.  However, based on the information provided it is reasonable to expect the annual throughput of motor spirit could exceed 12ML.

Accordingly, based on the BCC Service Station code Acceptable Outcome 7.2(d), if the annual throughput of motor spirit for the proposed service station does exceed 12ML, there is no acceptable outcome that is prescribed.  Further, no air quality impact report has been prepared in accordance with the Air Quality Planning Scheme policy substantiating the developers claim that the 25m setback is sufficient.

Despite the developer’s claim that it is following “best practice”, other jurisdictions in Australia have more stringent requirements.  The Western Australian Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) in its policy document, Guideline for the Assessment of Environmental Factors - Recommended Separation Distances for Industrial Residual Air Emissions 2005, at Appendix 1, recommends a separation distance of 200 meters between a service station operating 24 hours a day and a sensitive land use, which includes a school.  “Separation distance” is defined to be the shortest distance between the boundary of the area that may potentially be used by an industrial land use, and the boundary of the area that may be used by a sensitive land use.

Accordingly, given that the site boundary directly adjoins GSLC, for the purposes of the WA EPA policy, there would be NO separation distance, and accordingly, the present DA would not meet the recommended criteria and would not be approved  in Western Australia.

The World Health Organisation in 2010 in its policy document, “Exposure to benzene: a major public health concern”, recommended that benzene exposure be reduced by:

petrol filling stations, as far as possible, following best practices in location, design and extraction; and
Separate dwelling spaces from areas where vehicles and benzene-containing products are kept. In particular, isolating children from indoor exposure to vehicle emissions.
Precautionary principle

Section 4 of SPA imposes a duty on assessment managers and decision makers generally, to advance the purposes of the SPA.  Section 5 of the SPA states that advancing the "precautionary principle" is one of the ways of advancing the SPA's statutory purpose.

The precautionary principle is the need to take precautionary measures and is triggered by the satisfaction of two conditions precedent:

a threat (which must be sustained by scientific evidence) of serious or irreversible environmental damage (including on human systems); and
scientific uncertainty as to the nature and scope of the threat of environmental damage.

When both of these conditions have been satisfied, a precautionary measure should be taken.

The scientific studies show that petrol and/or traffic emissions associated with the proposed service station will present a serious threat of harm to GSLC students, families and staff along with the public users of the GSLC facilities and irrespective of the proposed service station’s alleged compliance with any applicable industry or Australian standard regarding these emissions, Noosa Council should apply the precautionary principle to abate that threat and reject the DA.
Health conclusions

Despite the applicant’s assertions that it has incorporated best practice into its service station design by implementing a VR1 and Vr2 recovery system to eliminate benzene and other harmful emissions from adversely affecting the health of GSLC students and other users of GSLC, this assertion FAILS to take into account:

Adverse health impacts that will occur from traffic emissions as a result of the increased traffic using the service station in close proximity to GSLC, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
The fact that a 2010 Spanish study in a reputable peer review journal showed that benzene levels are harmful up to a radius of 50m.  Here the distance between the fuel dispensers and the GSLC toddler pool and the HPE Centre are 30 metres and 40 metres respectively.
The fact that the GSLC pool is an OPEN AIR facility.  There is no sufficient buffer to absorb the harmful air emissions, particularly when the wind is coming from the west or south west.
That the WA EPA recommends a separation distance of 200 meters between a service station operating 24 hours a day and a sensitive land use, which includes a school.
Noosa temperatures are usually high and therefore the warmer conditions will increase the amount of vapour release from the service station and emissions from traffic.

Furthermore, the proposed development does not comply with the Noosa Plan as it fails to:

maintain the safety of people, in particular children;
protect the GSLC;
avoid significant adverse changes to the air quality and noise enjoyed by users of associated, adjoining or nearby uses;
prevent an environmental nuisance to neighbouring properties; and/or
locate a service station on a site that does not cause an environmental nuisance to neighbouring properties.

In the circumstances, the DA should be rejected outright given that on present scientific evidence and having regard to the precautionary principle, the DA cannot be acceptably conditioned to mitigate the adverse health impacts outlined above.

iv.	TRAFFIC IMPACT ON THE COMMUNITY

An assessment of the DA against the Noosa Plan, demonstrates that it conflicts with the following planning requirements which relate to traffic:

Overall outcomes for the Business Uses Code
Specific outcomes relating to service stations for the Business Uses Code
Overall outcomes for the Driveways and Carparking Code
Specific outcomes relating to driveways for the Driveways and Carparking Code
Specific outcomes relating to carparking and manoeuvring for the Driveways and Carparking Code

A detailed analysis of the DA’s non-compliance in relation to these planning requirements is set out below.
Failure to take into account relevant information

Having reviewed the DA (including the QTraffic Report prepared on behalf of the applicant, dated 1 October 2015) and the applicant’s response to Noosa Council’s Information Request dated 9 November 2015, it is evident that the applicant has failed to take into account two fundamental and highly relevant issues when preparing these documents, namely:

the increased volume of GSLC traffic, particularly between 8.15am and 8.45am and 2.45pm and 3.15pm, being the GSLC pick up and drop off times, which will result from the withdrawal of parking space on the site, which is currently used by in excess of 40-50 vehicles at these peak times.  Congestion, already evident as a problem at these times, will be increased at Goodchap Street roundabout as more vehicles queue to access the GSLC entrance; and

the increased volume of local traffic at the Walter Hay Drive roundabout, next to the site, which will result from the compounding effect of the recently approved service station development at 139 Eumundi Noosa Road.

The failure of QTraffic to take these two important factors into account significantly compromises the recommendations contained in its report and also the applicant’s responses to Noosa Council’s Information Request.  Accordingly, these significant omissions need to be taken into account by Noosa Council when assessing these documents.
Business Uses Code

Overall outcomes

An overall outcome sought for the Business Code (Part 14, Noosa Plan, section 14.11.2 b)viii) is that:

Business Uses meet the needs and expectations of the Noosa community in terms of providing logical traffic arrangements without congestion or lengthy delays.

The DA will significantly increase the traffic on the Eumundi Noosa Road, the roundabout outside GSLC and pedestrians (predominantly children) on the footpath entrance, in the event of queuing to access the proposed site, causing traffic congestion.  Additionally, the stationary traffic backing up along Goodchap Street will also have a potentially harmful effect on the flow of vehicles accessing the Noosa Hospital, including emergency vehicles.

The applicant has provided no objective analysis of the likely queuing frequency or the extent of this.
Specific outcomes

The DA does not achieve the specific outcomes relating to Service Stations for the Business Uses Code (Part 14 of the Noosa Plan, section 14.12) as set out in the Table below.

Table 14-15 Service Station

Specific Outcomes	Applicant’s Response	Submitter’s Response
Siting 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.	Complies It is considered that the proposed development is suitably located, given that the immediate locality comprises predominantly industry zoned land with a variety of uses including retail and commercial.	Non-compliant Likely future traffic movements will be progressively greater with time as the population density increases and on completion of neighbouring developments, such as another, much larger service station at 139 Eumundi Noosa Road.
Traffic and Access 085 The use of land for a service station – a)does not impair traffic flow or road safety	S84.1- S85.1 Not Applicable	Non-compliant Whilst the QTraffic Report indicates that there will be no noticeable disruption to traffic flow, we strongly disagree. Having a double driveway onto a main road (that is, the Eumundi Noosa Road) just before the Walter Hay Drive/Eumundi Noosa Road roundabout, coupled with  approximately 200 hundred planned entries per hour into the proposed service station/shop, will undoubtedly disrupt the traffic flow and cause a road safety issue.  In this regard, it is noted that the QTraffic Report acknowledges that 75% of trade is expected to be existing users of the road, but agrees that 25% of traffic will be new traffic which is generated by the shop and service station being there. 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. Presently , a large number of cars travelling from Goodchap Road and turning right at the roundabout at the GSLC entrance, veer across at speed into the left hand lane in order for them be able to turn left into Walter Hay Drive. Adding a busy access egress point there will require left turning traffic to swing out and around to turn left, thus causing a road safety problem. Although the width of the vehicular crossing (not less than 8m) complies, it is the projected increase in volume of traffic passing down this stretch of road and entering/exiting the service station and/or the roundabout, which precludes a solution to 085. In addition, the safety of cyclists (including GSLC students) using the cycle lane or the adjacent pathway will be compromised, with an increased number of encounters between bicycles and vehicles. Finally, the increased volume of traffic heading west along the Eumundi Noosa Road will make it difficult for vehicles exiting the service station and wishing to cross into the far lane in order to be in the correct lane to completely circle the Walter Hay Drive roundabout so that they can travel in an easterly direction towards the Noosa river.  This currently is already very difficult to do at pick up and drop off times, let alone with increased traffic.

Driveways and Carparking Code

The overall outcomes sought for the Driveways and Carparking Code (Part 14, Noosa Plan, section 14.111.2) relevantly include the following:

b)  The safety of pedestrians and cyclists is protected
c)  Development reduces the reliance on private vehicles and promotes public and non-motorised transport options;
f)  Development does not adversely impact on existing public parking

The DA does not achieve the above overall outcomes based on the following:

A significant proportion of pedestrians and cyclists will be GSLC students and young families.  A driveway being utilised by cars and heavy vehicles, particularly at peak hours when students are entering or exiting the school, poses an increased risk to their safety.

More private vehicles are likely to enter the site for commercial purposes (re-fuelling and retail reasons). Also, the DA is more likely to dissuade pedestrians and cyclists from commuting to school due to the increased local vehicular traffic and associated safety risks.

Currently the site is utilised by scores of vehicles to park, particularly at school drop-off and pick-up times. These excess vehicles will be highly likely to contribute to further local congestion at the Goodchap Street roundabout as outlined above, whilst some vehicles may use the service station grounds as an ad-hoc drop-off or pick-up point for students, which is also an undesirable outcome.

Specific outcomes - Driveways and Carparking Code

The DA does not achieve the specific outcomes relating to Driveways and Carparking & Manoeuvring for the Driveways and Carparking Code (section 14.112), as set out in the Tables below.

Table 14-49 – Driveways

Specific Outcomes	Applicant’s Response	Submitter’s Response
01 Vehicular access does not adversely impact on safety, capacity and operations of the existing or planned road network, the proposed driveway, cycleways or pedestrian pathway systems	S1.1- S1.3 Complies Vehicle access is considered to be compliant with the relevant requirements. The development will comply where applicable.	Non-compliant Instances of vehicle versus pedestrian and vehicle versus cyclist collisions will be increased, particularly at peak drop-off and pick-up times. The proposed pedestrian pathway diversion directly from Walter Hay Drive to the site and shop will also encourage children, particularly GSLC students, on to the site, increasing their exposure to a more concentrated area of moving standard and heavy vehicles

Table 14-50- Car parking and manoeuvring

Specific Outcomes	Applicant’s Response	Submitter’s Response
09 Parking areas are located where they will not unduly conflict with pedestrians and will not dominate the streetscape	O9 Complies Car parking is located at the front of the building, the most suitable location for a service station use.	Non-compliant The carparking proposed on site will expose more pedestrians (particularly GSLC students) in the area to moving vehicles.
011 Access and egress points do not impact on the safety and operations of the road system	S11.1 Complies	Non-compliant There is an increased risk of queuing back from the access point as population density increases. With the secondary development and proposed carparking in the second Lot (as per the developer’s “concept plan”), the shared easement will be further congested and cause interruptions to traffic flow out on the main road.
014 Provision is made for pedestrian and vehicular queues at conflict points	O14 Complies Can comply via condition where applicable.	Non-compliant No provision is made for vehicular queues. The DA will significantly affect traffic on the Eumundi Noosa Road, the roundabout outside the GSLC entrance and pedestrians (predominantly 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 of same.
018 Development with the potential to generate significant traffic and parking impacts gives appropriate consideration to transport and land use issues	It is not considered that the development has the potential to generate significant traffic and parking impacts.	Non-compliant In view of the compounding effects of constructing two additional service stations (ie. at both 115 and 139 Eumundi Road) in the immediate vicinity, this outcome is not met.

Applicant’s Response to Noosa Council’s Information Request

The applicant has failed to provide adequate responses to the Noosa Council’s Request for Information relating to traffic issues, as set out in the Table below.

Information Required	Applicant’s Response	Submitter’s Response
Issue - Traffic There are concerns with the potential for queuing in the road and traffic conflict in the shared access area (easement area), particularly in association with the future industry/retail development on the balance lot
b) A traffic management procedure to demonstrate refuelling will not impact on traffic movements in Eumundi-Noosa Road or the internal traffic within the site. Also, advise if time restrictions will be implemented on refuelling operation schedules to address this issue.	It is considered that a traffic management procedure is not necessary. As per the Traffic Report prepared by QTraffic originally submitted, the site access arrangements are consistent with the existing arrangements, and are considered to be appropriate given the nature of the use and the existing road environment. Section 4 of the report states that the level of traffic generation for the proposed development is low, and once distributed onto the surrounding road network, would be within the range of typical fluctuations in traffic volumes.	The applicant has not provided the information required. The applicant states that the existing arrangements will still apply, but they do not take into consideration the low threshold for queuing which exists once refuelling commences and vehicles are dually utilising the easement for both development sites during the refuelling process, that is, existing arrangements are insufficient.
c) Assessment of the need for a no-queuing area to avoid obstructions to traffic flows within the access easement area and to allow for the future development of the balance lot.	It is considered that queuing in the easement area will be unlikely as a result of the proposed service station development given the ample queuing space on site, as per Drawing No 15193- D13. However, as mentioned in 7.a above, any future development application over the balance lot will also presumably be required to demonstrate no queuing into the easement area.	The applicant has not provided the information required. Any future development of the second lot will require to either co-utilise the easement resulting in back-up or apply to install a neighbouring easement. A second easement will present visibility difficulties and associated risks to exiting vehicles. It will also pose an unacceptable risk of further compounding traffic congestion on the Eumundi Noosa Road

Significantly, the applicant has not provided any solution to the Noosa Council’s concerns with the potential for queuing in the road and traffic conflict in the shared access area (easement area), as in its opinion, queuing in the easement area will be unlikely as a result of the proposed service station development given the ample queuing space on site. As the applicant has not allayed the Council’s concerns, this clearly supports our position that the DA is inconsistent with the following objectives of the Noosa Plan:

Use of land for a service station does not impair traffic flow or road safety
The safety of pedestrians and cyclists is protected
Vehicular access does not adversely impact on safety, capacity and operations of the existing or planned road network, the proposed driveway, cycleways or pedestrian pathway system
Access and egress points do not impact on the safety and operations of the road system
Provision is made for pedestrian and vehicular queues at conflict points
Development with the potential to generate significant traffic and parking impacts gives appropriate consideration to transport and land use issues

The above justifies the Noosa Council rejecting the DA on the grounds that it is not compatible with traffic objectives contained in the Noosa Plan.  Sufficient grounds do not exist for the Noosa Council to approve the DA, notwithstanding the fact that it fails to meet these outcomes. In addition, the adverse traffic impacts generated by the DA cannot be acceptably mitigated by the use of conditions.

v.	NON-COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER RELEVANT LOCAL CODES

In relation to a range of other, applicable codes in the Noosa Plan, it is evident that the applicant has failed to address the numerous and significant potential impacts of the DA on the adjoining GSLC.  The specific areas of non-compliance are set out in the table provided at Annexure A.

SUFFICENT GROUNDS FOR COUNCIL TO JUSTIFY REFUSAL OF THE APPLCIATION

Section 326 of the SPA

Section 326(1)(b) of the SPA stipulates that a decision to approve a DA must not conflict with a relevant instrument, including a planning scheme, unless ‘there are sufficient grounds to justify the decision’.  Accordingly, if the Noosa Council concludes that the DA compiles with the Noosa Plan, it will nonetheless be incumbent on the Noosa Council to refuse the DA if there are sufficient grounds to justify the refusal of the DA, despite its compliance with the Noosa Plan.

Section 326(1)(b) of the SPA states:
326 Other decision rules
The assessment manager's decision must not conflict with a relevant instrument unless—
…
(b) there are sufficient grounds to justify the decision, despite the conflict; or
…

The term “grounds” is defined in Schedule 3 of the SPA to mean matters of public interest.  It does not include the personal circumstances of the applicant, the owner of the land or another interested party.

“Statutory Guideline 05/09 - Sufficient grounds for decisions that conflict with a relevant instrument”, made under section 759(1)(a) of the SPA, states that an assessment manager may refuse an application, even though the proposed development complies with the relevant instruments, if there are sufficient grounds for refusing the development despite the fact that the decision would conflict with the relevant instruments.

The guideline has been prepared under section 759(1)(a) of the SPA which says that the Minister may make guidelines about matters to be considered by an assessment manager (namely, the Council in this instance) in deciding whether there are sufficient grounds to justify a decision that may conflict with a relevant instrument under section 326 or 329.

Matters of public interest

“Matters of public interest” is not defined in the SPA, but case law states that it should be considered to be a “broad concept”, the meaning of which needs to be determined in the context of the SPA.

The purpose of the SPA is expressed in s 3:
...to achieve ecological sustainability by –
(a) managing the process by which development takes place, including ensuring the process is accountable, effective and efficient and delivers sustainable outcomes; and
(b) managing the effects of development on the environment, including managing the use of premises; and
(c) continuing the coordination and integration of planning at the local, regional and State levels.

Pursuant to section 8(c) of the SPA, “Ecological sustainability” includes the maintenance of the cultural, economic, physical and social wellbeing of people and communities. Section 11(c) of the SPA further provides that the cultural, economic, physical and social wellbeing of people and communities is maintained if well-serviced and healthy communities with affordable, efficient, safe and sustainable development are created and maintained.

Clearly, matters of public interest will therefore include matters such as health and safety of the community, traffic impact issues and protecting the destruction of local amenity.

Below are a number of the major matters of public interest that need to be taken into consideration in this matter by the Noosa Council:

Adverse health impact on the community
Despite the applicant’s assertions that it has incorporated best practice into its service station design by implementing a VR1 and VR2 recovery system to eliminate benzene and other harmful emissions from adversely affecting the health of GSLC students, their families and staff along with other users of the GSLC, this assertion FAILS to take into account:

Adverse health impacts that will occur from traffic emissions as a result of the increased traffic using the service station in close proximity to GSLC, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week;
A 2010 Spanish study in a reputable peer review journal showing that benzene levels are harmful up to a radius of 50m.  Here the distance between the fuel dispensers and the GSLC toddler pool and the HPE Centre are 30 metres and 40 metres respectively;
The GSLC pool is an OPEN AIR facility.  There is no sufficient buffer to absorb the harmful air emissions, particularly when the wind is coming from the west or south west;
That the WA EPA recommends a separation distance of 200 meters between a service station operating 24 hours a day and a sensitive land use, which includes a school; and
Noosa temperatures are usually high and therefore the warmer conditions will increase the amount of vapour release from the service station and emissions from traffic.
Accordingly, the Noosa Council should refuse the DA outright given that, on present scientific evidence and the precautionary principle, the DA cannot be acceptably conditioned to mitigate the adverse health impacts outlined above.

Adverse traffic impact on the community

The DA will significantly increase the traffic on the Eumundi-Noosa Road and the roundabout outside the GSLC in the event of queuing to access the proposed site, adding to traffic congestion.  Additionally, the stationary traffic backing up along Goodchap Street will also have a potentially deleterious effect on the flow of vehicles accessing the Noosa Hospital, including emergency vehicles.

The safety of cyclists (including GSLC students) using the cycle lane or the adjacent pathway will be compromised, with an increased number of encounters between bicycles and vehicles.

The volume of traffic along the Eumundi Noosa Road will make it difficult for vehicles exiting the service station and wishing to cross into the far lane in order to be in the correct lane to completely circle the Walter Hay Drive roundabout so that they can travel in an easterly direction towards the Noosa river.  This currently is already very difficult to do at pick up and drop off times, let alone with increased traffic.

Whilst the QTraffic Report indicates that there will be no noticeable disruption to traffic flow, we strongly disagree. Having a double driveway onto a main road (that is, the Eumundi Noosa Road) just before the Walter Hay Drive/Eumundi Noosa Road roundabout, coupled with approximately 200 hundred planned entries per hour into the proposed service station/shop, will undisputedly disrupt the traffic flow.  In this regard, it is noted that the QTraffic Report acknowledges that 75% of trade is expected to be existing users of the road, but agrees that 25% of traffic will be new traffic, generated by the proposed shop and service station.

Presently , a large number of cars travelling from Goodchap Road and turning right at the roundabout at the GSLC entrance, veer across at speed into the left hand lane in order for them be able to turn left into Walter Hay Drive. Adding a busy access egress point there will require left turning traffic to swing out and around to turn left, thus causing a road safety problem.

Destruction of local amenity

The proposed location of the service station directly adjoining an educational facility, combined with the fact it will operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, will destroy the local amenity enjoyed by the GSLC students and families.
The proposed development is in a neighbourhood largely surrounded by community service and residential infrastructure. There is no industrial infrastructure in the immediate vicinity and the proposed service station building is completely out of character and does not integrate with the surrounding natural and built environment, demonstrating that it is highly incompatible with its adjoining land use.

In terms of visual quality, a service station located directly adjacent to the GSLC will significantly reduce the aesthetical appeal of the school.  In particular, the service station itself and its associated advertising signage will be unsightly and incompatible with the aesthetics of the image of the school.

Incompatible with surrounding land use

The subject site is currently located in an Industry zone. It is bound on two sides by Eumundi-Noosa Road and Walter Hay Drive. The land which immediately adjoins the proposed site is Community Uses zoned land, which is occupied by the GSLC to the east and an electrical substation to the north. It is not immediately adjoined by any land which has an Industry zoning.

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).

Given that the immediate land uses adjoining the site are for Community Use the proposed service station development is not compatible with the surrounding land use.  For example, the proposed service station will provide constant temptation for children to purchase fast foods and drinks (and other inappropriate items) from the nearby shop.

The proposed development would only be considered compatible if it was located across either the Eumundi Noosa Road or Walter Hay drive, from the subject site, where the development is of a predominately industrial nature.

Noosa Plan- Zone Map 8 (Figure 1) clearly illustrates that the current zoning of the site as Industry (purple) is mismatched with the zoning of the land which immediately surrounds it, being community land uses (yellow). Accordingly, the proposed service station does not represent a logical or sensible form of development over the subject premises.

Figure1: Noosa Plan – Zone Map 8 (Source: Noosa Council)

Other planning grounds

Further guidance as to what the SPA envisages by way of “grounds” is contained in “Statutory Guideline 05/09” referred to above.  It provides non-exhaustive guidance as to what may be considered in determining whether there are sufficient grounds to justify a decision that conflicts with a relevant planning instrument.  The following grounds are set out in the guideline:

Relevant instrument is out of date
…
Example 2— The planning scheme is due for review and does not reflect current planning trends and principles, such as design principles, methods for addressing climate change or demographic shifts.

The relevant instrument is incorrect in terms of its substance or underlying assumptions for the circumstances of the particular proposal.

Relevant instrument inadequately addresses development

Relevant instrument does not anticipate specific or particular development

GSLC is situated on land which was once the site of the Noosa Drive-In and zoned “rural”.  The GSLC Primary School was opened on 28 January 1986.   The zoning at this point was changed to “special facilities” to encompass the school and church usage.  Throughout this time the site (Lot 30 SP170751) was a Noosa Council service depot and was continuously zoned industrial.

An agreement was reached between GSLC and the Noosa Council in 2002 which provided for the acquisition of 1.1ha of additional land, on which the HPE centre, extra classrooms and a swimming pool are now located. At this time the entire GSLC site (Lot 30 SP228052) was rezoned “community services”, however the proposed service station site (L30 SP170751), now decreased in size, continued to be zoned industrial.

The Lutheran Church of Australia Queensland District purchased the site from the Noosa Shire Council on 20 December 2007.  The site shares a common boundary with the HPE centre and GSLC open air toddler pool.

Accordingly, it was a matter of legacy rather than intent that the remainder of the former Noosa Council depot, (the site), continued to be zoned “industry”.  It is submitted that at the time GSLC (Lot 30 SP228052) was rezoned “community services”, the site (Lot 30 on SP 170751) should have also been rezoned “community services” to ensure that ‘it would not be made available to other commercial enterprises’ which would be incompatible with the school and that the site would continue to provide a buffer zone between the GSLC community services zone and the nearby industry zone.

The Noosa Plan commenced in February 2006. The “life” of a local planning scheme is limited to approximately 5 years and requires constant revision.  It is submitted that, in the circumstances, the Noosa Plan is out of date or incorrect to the extent that the site remains zoned as industrial use and therefore incompatible with the GSLC adjoining land use.  Furthermore, with the site remaining an “industrial” land zone, the Noosa Plan fails to adequately protect the health of GSLC students, families, staff and public users of the school.

It cannot be argued by the applicant that there is community need given that there is approval for a DA to construct a service station approximately 200m away at 139 Eumundi Noosa Road, Noosaville. Further, if a need did actually exist for an additional service station in the Noosaville Locality, that need is not so great so as to allow it to be located next to the GSLC and its open air swimming pool frequented by school children and babies.

For the reasons set out above, the application should be rejected as there are sufficient grounds of public interest to justify why it should not be approved, even if the Noosa Council is of the view (which we do not accept) that the application technically complies with the Noosa Plan.

Annexure A

Specific Outcome of Code	Applicant’s Assessment	Submitter’s Assessment
RECONFIGURING A LOT CODE
O9 The subdivision layout is designed to facilitate linkages with adjoining sites in the immediate area.	O9 Complies: The proposal will comply where reasonably applicable.	Does not Comply It is the applicant’s responsibility to establish how the DA complies with the Code. The applicant has not satisfied this criterion as no details have been provided as to how the DA achieves this specific outcome. The phrase “reasonably applicable” is unclear and the specific linkages with adjoining sites in the immediate area have not been considered or adequately addressed.
O10 Where the lots are to be used for Industrial business or Commercial business uses, the layout provides for appropriate buffer areas, to mitigate possible impacts on nearby residences or other noise sensitive uses	O10 Complies : Landscaped buffering has been provided along all boundaries adjoining the school to the east.	Does not Comply The layout does not provide for appropriate buffer areas, to mitigate possible impacts on the adjacent GSLC. Landscape buffering is insufficient and ineffective to mitigate the negative impacts, including those of fugitive emissions of the Development.
O12 An adequate and accessible water supply is provided for fire fighting purposes.	S12.1- 12.2 Complies Will comply as applicable.	Does not Comply It is the applicant’s responsibility to establish how the DA complies with the Code. The applicant has not satisfied this criterion as no details have been provided as to how the DA achieves this specific outcome. The Applicant has not adequately addressed the issue of fire safety and its potential impacts, particularly given the proximity of the Development to the adjacent GSLC.
O32 Access easements are in appropriate locations for safe access and egress, and supply appropriate widths and levels of service for the number of vehicles that will utilise them	S32.1 Complies It is considered that the proposed access easement has been designed in accordance with Sections 2 and 3 of PSP5 Engineering Design Standards – Roads, Drainage and Earthworks.	Does not Comply It is the applicant’s responsibility to establish how the DA complies with the Code. The applicant has not satisfied this criteria as sufficient details have not been provided as to how the DA achieves this specific outcome. The proposed access is not appropriate for the DA and does not provide safe access and egress, nor does it provide for the appropriate level of safety of school children given its proximity to the GSLC
O33 Traffic generated by the development is within the acceptable capacity of external roads and does not have an adverse impact upon the functioning of the road network	S33.1 Complies The development will comply where reasonably applicable.	Does not Comply It is the applicant’s responsibility to establish how the DA complies with the Code. The applicant has not satisfied this criterion as no details have been provided as to how the DA achieves this specific outcome. “Reasonably applicable” is indeterminate. The DA has an adverse impact upon the functioning of the road network. The Applicant has failed to provide objective evidence or argument to show otherwise.
BUSINESS USES CODE
O20 Development is designed and sited to avoid noise emissions that unreasonably diminish the amenity of the area or surrounding uses.	O20 Complies The proposed development is suitably distance and buffered through landscaping from sensitive land uses. Further, as the site is located on a busy road and roundabout, it is considered that there will be no worsening effects in terms of noise.	Does not Comply It is the applicant’s responsibility to establish how the DA complies with the Code. The applicant has not satisfied this criteria as sufficient details have not been provided as to how the DA achieves this specific outcome. It is considered that the DA is not suitably distanced or buffered from the adjacent GSLC which is a sensitive land use. The applicant’s statement that “it is considered that there will be no worsening effects in terms of noise” is not supported with objective evidence, such as detailed studies showing existing background noise levels and projected additional noise generation, particularly given the DA’s proximity to the noise sensitive study environment of the GSLC.
O27 Buildings and structures are designed to minimise opportunities for vandalism.	S27.1 Complies The proposed development will incorporates a building design and layout which will provide for non-graffiti friendly development, structures and layout through design within an absence of natural ladders, minimal unbroken vertical surface areas, CCTV surveillance, a small retail and fast food component (not conducive to loitering), a layout which will promote passive surveillance over the site, be well illuminated and comprise minimal opportunities for concealment.	Does not Comply All such facilities are conducive to loitering and provide opportunities for concealment which poses an unacceptable danger to the students going to and from the GSLC particularly in early mornings or evenings before or after extracurricular school activities. Furthermore, the close proximity of such a facility poses and unacceptable risk to the security of the GSLC premises and its students.
TABLE 14-15 SERVICE STATION
O76 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.	O76 Complies It is considered that the proposed development is suitably located, given that the immediate locality comprises predominantly industry zoned land with a variety of uses including retail and commercial.	Does not Comply The Development is completely incompatible with the existing and proposed amenity and development of a neighbourhood. The contention by the Applicant that the immediate locality comprises predominantly industry zoned land with a variety of uses including retail and commercial is 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 GSLC to the east and an electrical substation to the north. Immediately adjoining the GSLC 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 the amenity of neighbouring residential areas is protected.	S79.1-S79.2 Not Applicable The site does not adjoin a residential use or zone.	Does not Comply It is noted that the area immediately adjacent to the GSLC includes a retirement village (zoned Residential Use) and significant residential development, all of which are impacted by the proposed Development.
O84 The layout of the site facilities and vehicular accesses result in unrestricted vehicle access to and egress from the site.	S84.1- S85.1 Not Applicable	Does not Comply This outcome is directly applicable to the application. It is the applicant’s responsibility to establish how the DA complies with the Code. The applicant has not satisfied this criterion as no details have been provided as to how the DA achieves this specific outcome. The Applicant fails to address this Objective of the code. Vehicle access to and egress from the site will be severely restricted by existing vehicle and pedestrian traffic in the area, who will typically be students from the GSLC.
O85 The use of land for a service station— a) does not impair traffic flow or road safety; b) facilitates safe and convenient movement to and from the site through the design and arrangement of vehicular crossovers; and c) provides adequate, safe and functional on-site parking and manoeuvring areas	S84.1- S85.1 Not Applicable	Does not Comply This outcome is directly applicable to the application. It is the applicant’s responsibility to establish how the DA complies with the Code. The applicant has not satisfied this criterion as no details have been provided as to how the DA achieves this specific outcome.
NOOSAVILLE LOCALITY CODE
O1 Uses are located, designed and operated to avoid significant adverse changes to the light, air quality, noise, accessibility or other conditions enjoyed by users of associated, adjoining or nearby uses.	O1 Complies The proposed development includes all believed necessary mitigation measures to ensure that the amenity of adjoining uses is maintained.	Does not Comply The Applicant does not provide objective evidence or analysis to demonstrate compliance and relies on ‘belief’. 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 (particularly GSLC students and staff)
O4 The separate identities of the various residential neighbourhoods remain important and distinct elements of the residential character of Noosaville	O4 Not Applicable The subject site is not residential neighbourhood.	Does not Comply The area immediately adjacent to the School includes a retirement village (zoned Residential Use) and significant residential development all of which are impacted by the proposed Development.
O7 The density of development within the site area—	O7 Complies The proposed development is considered to be compatible with the surrounding development. The proposed development is appropriately located on the subject site with suitable setbacks from the adjoining community use (school).	Does not Comply The proposed Development is not appropriately located on the subject site with suitable setbacks from the adjoining, Community Use School
O9 Buildings and other structures are appropriately designed and sited to— a) provide amenity for users of the premises as well as preserve the visual and acoustic amenity of adjoining and nearby properties; b) provide adequate distance from adjoining land uses;	S9.1 Complies The proposed buildings and structures are setback more than 7m from the road frontages in accordance with Schedule 1- Minimum Boundary Setbacks.	Does not Comply The proposed buildings and structures will detract from the amenity of users of the adjoining GSLC; does not preserve the visual and acoustic amenity of the School and does not provide adequate distance from the adjoining School.
O21 Buildings and other structures use materials and finishes that complement the Noosaville character and integrate with the surrounding natural and built environment	S21.1 Complies The proposed materials are acceptable as the site is in the Industry Zone, however the petrol station buildings comprises a variety of materials and features such as glazing and recessions to create visual appeal.	Does not Comply The proposed Development is in a neighbourhood completely surrounded by Community Service. There is no Industrial infrastructure in the immediate vicinity and the service station building is completely out of character and does not integrate with the surrounding natural and built environment.
O188 Uses are predominantly of an industrial nature ordinarily expected in an industrial estate with ancillary uses compatible with industrial businesses.	O188 Complies It is considered that the proposed use is predominantly of an industrial nature.	Does not Comply The proposed Development is not in any way of an industrial nature nor is it an ancillary use, compatible with industrial businesses. Service stations are ordinarily located in areas of high commercial activity.
O196 Industrial development is conducted in an environmentally responsible manner, operating without deleterious impacts on immediate, surrounding or downstream communities, environments and environmental processes.	O196 Complies All measures to ensure that environmental values are not compromised have been incorporated	Does not Comply The Application fails to address in any objective detail how the DA can operate without deleterious impacts on the immediate, surrounding or downstream community, being the School. (Refer to the Health Impact of the proposed Service Station at page 6 for further details).
LANDSCAPING CODE		
O28 Landscaping of carparking areas are designed to— a) reduced the visual impact of the development; b) provide for advanced canopy trees to shade vehicles and to reduce reflected radiation; c) ensure canopy trees are protected from vehicle damage by providing adequate sized garden beds; d) maximise opportunities for infiltration of rainwater on-site; and e) minimise contaminated runoff entering the stormwater system and watercourse.	O28 Complies It is considered that one advanced tree for every 6 parking spaces is not appropriate given that the car parking area is located between the petrol building and the fuel court. It is considered that trees will limit casual surveillance of this area. The site comprises 30% landscaping. This is considered more than suitable.	Does not Comply The DA does not comply with the probable solution. It is the responsibility of the applicant to demonstrate how alternative solutions achieve the outcomes and purpose of the codes. The applicant has not satisfied this criteria as sufficient details have not been provided as to how the DA achieves this specific outcome.
BUIDLING WORKS CODE
O18 Lighting associated with the use or works does not have an adverse impact upon the amenity enjoyed by users of adjoining or nearby premises nor do it cause unreasonable disturbance to local fauna.	S18.1- S18.3 Not Applicable S18.4 Complies All lighting will comply with the relevant requirements where possible.	Does not Comply It is the applicant’s responsibility to establish how the DA complies with the Code. The applicant has not satisfied this criterion as no details have been provided as to how the DA achieves this specific outcome that lighting associated with the use or works does not have an adverse impact upon the amenity enjoyed by users of adjoining or nearby premises.
DRIVEWAYS & CAR PARKING CODE
O1 Vehicular access does not adversely impact on safety, capacity and operations of the existing or planned road network, the proposed driveway, cycleways or pedestrian pathway systems.	S1.1- S1.3 Complies Vehicle access is considered to be compliant with the relevant requirements. The development will comply where applicable.	Does not Comply It is the applicant’s responsibility to establish how the DA complies with the Code. The applicant has not satisfied this criterion as no details have been provided as to how the DA achieves this specific outcome. The DA’s vehicular access adversely impact 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 and 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 adversely impact on the capacity, operations and maintenance of the existing infrastructure;	S4.1 Complies The development will comply as required.	Does not Comply The current proposal will have a significant adverse impact on the operation of the existing road network in and around the GSLC.
O7 Sufficient carparking is provided to accommodate the number and type of vehicles likely to be generated by the development having regard to the specifics of the use…	O7 Complies The proposed development will provide 10 car parking spaces. Technically this is below the minimum according to Table 14-51 Vehicle Parking Requirements. However, it is considered that 10 spaces are suitable given the ancillary nature of the proposed petrol building. The likely number of users of the service will be there to refuel their vehicles, which comprises leaving the vehicle at the fuel dispenser. The amount of users specifically using the site for the ancillary shop component is considered to be low. It is there considered that 10 spaces is appropriate.	Does not Comply The DA does not comply with the probable solution. It is the responsibility of the applicant to demonstrate how alternative solutions achieve the outcomes and purpose of the codes. The applicant has not satisfied this criteria as sufficient details have not been provided as to how the DA achieves this specific outcome.
O9 Parking areas are located where they will not unduly conflict with pedestrians and will not dominate the streetscape.	O9 Complies Car parking is located at the front of the building, the most suitable location for a service station use.	Does not Comply It is the applicant’s responsibility to establish how the DA complies with the Code. The applicant has not satisfied this criteria as no details have been provided as to how the DA achieves this specific outcome of parking location not conflicting with pedestrians and not dominating streetscape.
O11 Access and egress points do not impact on the safety and operations of the road system	S11.1 Complies	Does not Comply Given the nature of the development and proximity to the GSLC the proposed access and egress point impact adversely on the safety and operation of the Eumundi-Noosa Road.
O14 Provision is made for pedestrian and vehicular queues at conflict points;	O14 Complies Can comply via condition where applicable.	Does not Comply It is the applicant’s responsibility to establish how the DA complies with the Code. The applicant has not satisfied this criterion as no details have been provided as to how the DA achieves this specific outcome. 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 adverse traffic impacts generated by the DA cannot be acceptably mitigated by the use of conditions.
O17 Car parking areas are landscaped…	O17 Complies Car parking areas have been suitably landscaped.	Does not Comply Cannot be compliant as they do not meet the requirements of the Landscaping Code Objective O28.

Name of Submitter	Address of Submitter	Signature (if hard copy is being submitted)
Kenneth Corbett	143 Werin Street, Tewantin	
Sarah Grandison	32 Smoke Bush Drive, Noosa Heads	
Stephen Grandison	32 Smoke Bush Drive, Noosa Heads	
Wendy Scott	10 Dianella Court, Cooroy	
Shaun Scott	10 Dianella Court, Cooroy	
Louise Fletcher	7 Shipwright Avenue, Noosaville	
		
		
		
		
		
		
		

Name of Submitter	Address of Submitter	Signature (if hard copy is being submitted)
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		

[word/footer1.xml]
36

[word/footnotes.xml]
“Statutory Guideline 05/09, Sufficient grounds for decisions that conflict with a relevant instrument”.  See http://www.dilgp.qld.gov.au/resources/planning/planning/statutory-guideline-05-09.pdf
 Woodman McDonald Hardware Pty Ltd v Mackay Regional Council [2013] QPEC 21 at [63 – 64].

 Unleaded 91 - 60,000L; unleaded 95 – 30,000L; unleaded 98 - 60,000L and diesel – 60,000L.  The site will be provisioned with underground pipe VR2. 
 Section 4 of the Q Traffic Report.
 The DA on page 28 states; “The service station refuelling area is sufficiently distanced from the school boundary which is greater than 25m”.
 The World Health Organisation: IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans Volume 105 (2013). (See http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol105/mono105.pdf).
 “Ultrafine Particles from Traffic Emissions and Children’s Health (UPTECH) in Brisbane, Queensland (Australia): Study design and implementation”, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (2105) Ezz, Wafaa Nabil, Mazaheri, Mandana, Robinson, Paul, Johnson, Graham R., Clifford, Samuel, He, Congrong, Morawska, Lidia, & Marks, Guy B. (See http://eprints.qut.edu.au/82503/)
 "Volatile Organic Compounds: Characteristics, distribution and sources in urban schools" Nitika Mishra, Jennifer Bartsch, Godwin A. Ayoko , Tunga Salthammer , Lidia Morawska (2014) Atmospheric Environment.  See also "Identification of the sources of primary organic aerosols at urban schools: A molecular marker approach" (2014) - Leigh R. Crilley, Raeed M. Qadir Godwin A. Ayoko, Jürgen Schnelle-Kreis, Gülcin Abbaszade, Jürgen Orasche, Ralf Zimmermann, Lidia Morawska (2014) Environmental Pollution (attached).
 The Environmental Protection (Air) Policy 2008 Qld (EPP) sets exposure an objective for of 3 ppb (parts per billion) over a 1-year period.
 (Morales Terrés et al, 2010).  See file:///C:/Users/Kelly/Downloads/1-s2.0-S0301479710002574-main%20(2).pdf
 See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1763669/pdf/v061p00773.pdf
 Morales Terrés, Isabel M. (2010) "Assessing the impact of petrol stations on their immediate surroundings". Journal of Environmental Management (0301-4797), 91 (12), p. 2754. See file:///C:/Users/Kelly/Downloads/1-s2.0-S0301479710002574-main%20(2).pdf
 In an expert statement for the South Australian Environment, Resources & Development Court Proceeding No 308 of 2013. See http://www.parepg.org.au/sites/default/files/OTR/Expert_Emissions_IFM.pdf
 Table SC1.2.3.A—Index of Brisbane City Council administrative definitions.
 This requires benzene levels to be limited at 3 ppb (parts per billion) over a 1-year period.

 See http://www.epa.wa.gov.au/EPADocLib/1840_GS3.pdf
 See http://www.who.int/ipcs/features/benzene.pdf
 Defined in s 5(2) of the SPA.
 The level of public concern, and the rationality of and scientific or other evidentiary basis for the public concern is taken into account.
 Wood v Redland City Council [2011] QCA 242 at [21 – 22] and Hogan v Hinch [2011] HCA 4, per French CJ.
 Counsellor Frank Pardon quoted in Gardner P, Noosa News, 9 December 2015.