Skip to the record
Accept no imitations.

Council archive · source document

MCU15/0095 & REC15/0022 PM Submission object - Tania Lacey

of 28

Text shows just the words. Original shows the document exactly as it was published.

Check the original when the exact wording matters.

Very large file (10.6 MB): the original may take a few minutes to open or download. The page text below is quick to read.

1-




     Code Objective         Developer's   Assessment           Objectors'       Assessment

                                                               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

     028 Landscaping of     028 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
                                                               provides no justification         for its
                                                               derived value of 30% other than it is




                                                                                                                  19

Used in these records

About this file

File size
10.6 MB (very large file)
File type
PDF

No other editions are linked here.

Original file

Log in to download the original file

MCU15_0095 & REC15_0022 PM Submission object - Tania Lacey.pdf · 10.6 MB (very large file)

The download may take a few minutes. On mobile data, it is best to wait for Wi-Fi.

The supporting record

Open full page ↗

Source document

Analyse documents ↗Open full page ↗

My Comparisons

Choose two to four records of the same kind. Drag using a handle or use the “Compare” buttons.

Your selected records are saved in this browser for your account. Results use the filters on the page where you choose “Compare selected”.