MCU15-0095 & REC15-0022 Submission Object - Beatrice Sand, Ian Martin

To the Assessment Manager - Noosa Council Planning

SUBMISSION OBJECTION
TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A TOXIC HAZARD RETAIL BUSINESS TYPE 5
AJACENT TO THE THE GOOD SHEPHERD LUTHERIAN COLLEGE

1. Application details
File No MCU15/0095 & REC15-0022
Postal address of Land (as advertised)
115 Eumundi- Noosa Road, Noosaville
Lot 30 on SP170751

Nature of Proposed Development: Combined Application
Material Change of Use
Retail Business Type 5 (Service Station)
Retail Business Type 2 (Shop & Salon).
Reconfiguration of a Lot (1 into 2)

2. Submitter details
Full name of Submitter: Beatrice Sand & Ian Martin
Email Address: [email protected]
Postal address: 26 Dolphin Bay Drive
Suburb: Sunsine Beach
State: Queensland
Postcode: 4567

Signature: By Email

3. Details of Submission

We, make the following submission:

1. With regard to the Dangers of Toxic Contamination,

1.1 The Workplace health and safety website identifies service stations as specific hazardous chemical workplaces.  There are numerous Australian standards relating to the design and site separation distances (links available on the site below).
https://www.worksafe.qld.gov.au/injury-prevention-safety/hazardous-chemicals/specific-hazchem-workplaces/service-stations

Quoting from the website:

“Service stations typically store thousands of litres of various commercially available fuel products such as ULP, PULP, diesel, and E10. These are often stored in underground tanks with numerous fuel dispensers located on the forecourt for public dispensing of fuel. Some service stations may also have an aboveground LP gas storage tank and small customer-exchange LP gas cylinders as an additional product line.

These products are highly flammable and present fire and explosion risks if not safely managed. The Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011 (PDF, 2.53 MB) (WHS Regulation) requires that the risk from hazardous chemicals be at an acceptable level (that is, risks should be minimised as far as reasonably practicable). However, with some exceptions, the legislation does not prescribe how this is to be done.

Loss of petroleum products into the subsurface can lead to vapours being present in unexpected places such as drains and conduits. This hazard is in addition to the environmental hazards such as groundwater contamination.”

With the Queensland Government Health and Safety Division acknowledging the lack of legislative controls governing the what an acceptable level of risk entails. The council should seriously consider their duty to the public good specifically, the health and well being of the young school children at the Good Shephard Lutherian College.

We note here that Section 336 of the WHS Regulation requires workers supplying hazardous chemicals to be at least 16 years of age, need one wonder as to the logic behind this requirement?

1.2 It is widely recognised that service stations present an on-going toxic hazard, for example the NSW Environmental Protection Agency EPA website contains assessment and remediation guidelines prepared by the Contaminated Sites Section, Hazardous Substances Branch of the EPA.  For the purpose of recognition of the ongoing hazard “for assessing and remediating service station sites in order to protect the environment and minimise the risk to public health from the future use of service station sites in NSW” The owners and developers will one day be long gone but the toxicity it seems remains for decades. Who will ultimately be carry legal liability, Noosa Council, with the ultimate financial burden left the local resident rate payer!
http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/mao/servicestation.htm#preface

1.3 With regard to Benzine fumes Monash University states:
A Spanish study ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20810207) published in the US Journal of Environmental Management in December 2010 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 study recommended that their findings be used to establish exclusion zones around current and future petrol stations, for the health and safety of residents and the community.”
http://artsonline.monash.edu.au/dangerousground/something-in-the-air-benzene/

We object to Lot 30 on SP17075 being a suitable site for a service station on the basis that the danger to the health and safety of the schoolchildren at Good Shephard Lutherian College cannot be guaranteed.
That there is a documented history of vapour and ground water contamination surrounding service stations throughout Australia and world wide. EPA study Spanish Study
That there are no legislative controls dictating adequate safety measures. WHS site
That there can be no guarantees given that there will not be a toxic discharge incident. WHS site
That the Good Shephard Lutherian College swimming pool would be adjacent to this site. That the chemical hazard exposure from carcinogenic Benzine to young children excising in the swimming pool cannot be reasonably prevented by any 'boundary materials' around the proposed site. Spanish Study
That long term exposure to benzine toxicity may take years to discover. That allow this development could potentially deleteriously affect the lives of hundreds of young Noosa children. That for the public interest and for the public good this development MUST be refused. EPA study Spanish Study

2. As per Part 11 Noosaville locality Plan Division 11 Assessment table for Industry Zone. A Consistent business use of a Retail business Type 5 is IMPACT ASSESSIBLE

We object to the contents of the Impact Assessable Application provided by TFA Projects Group as part of their application and request the council to conduct an independent impact statement as there is a clear public perception of bias in this application due to the direct relationship between TFA and Synergy Property Partners. We request the Council confirm they will resource an independent impact statement given the dangers of Toxic Hazard presented by this Petrol station and the close proximity to the Good Shephard Lutherian College.

3. We request the disclosure of the decision making process that led the council to identifying Lot 30 on SP170751 as independent island of Industry Zoning and not Community Services Zoning as are the two joining lots – one being the Good Shephard Lutherian College. Per Noosaville (Zone Map ZM8).

We object to Lot 30 on SP17075  being identified as suitable for Industrial Zoning and request a review of this decision based on close proximity to the Good Shephard Lutherian College

4. With regard to the number of service stations in Noosaville we would suggest that Nossaville does not need any additional service stations Given there are at least 4 existing service stations within a 2 kilometre radius of the site. Further, directly across the road from from Lot 30 on SP1707 on Walter Hey Drive (in the large Industrial Zoning block) the Council has already approved the development of a Type 5 service station. Surely this negates any argument for projected demand for this type of business in this location.

We object to Lot 30 on SP17075 being a suitable site for a service station on the basis that the Noosa Plan has already made sufficient provisions for this type of business enterprise and it is not in the public interest to add further potentially hazardous toxic business services to an already saturated and provisioned for market.

For reasons of transparency in local government, we request that:

Each of the above itemised objections are addressed in detail by the relevant authorities; and
The decision makers reasoning process relating to their answers to these objections are made public.

Beatrice Sand
Ian Martin

9 December 2015