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

r



    constituent of Motor Spirit     we have provided elsewhere           in this document    that clearly shows the
    is 1% vivas 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      I-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 Deveiopment 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-lS0m 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 I      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