Goya Dmytryshchak
The state’s planning tribunal has approved a subdivision near two major hazard facilities (MHFs) known as the Newport Fuel Terminals.
Hobsons Bay council had refused to grant Fu Bo Xia and Satomi Matsumura a permit to replace a single-storey house with two double story townhouses at 6 McNeilage Street, Spotswood, based on the risk.
However, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal overturned this refusal on appeal.
Senior MemberGeoffrey Code said the council’s five grounds of refusal all related to the proximity of the land to the Newport Fuel Terminals.
“The council maintains the proposal would be an unacceptable planning outcome having regard to safety risks, the setting of a poor precedent, and compromising future development of the fuel terminals,” he said.
“The Victorian WorkCover Authority (WorkSafe) licenses MHFs.
“Adjoining the residential pocket are two major hazard facilities (MHFs) that WorkSafe identifies as the Newport Fuel Terminals.
“These are the Ampol MHF and the Viva Energy MHF and both are fuel distribution centres.”
The tribunal heard the Environment Protection Authority had recommended to the council that a 250-metre buffer between large fuel storage tanks and dwellings should apply and was not met in this case.
WorkSafe told the council it opposed the granting of a permit due to the ‘numbers, occupancy and vulnerability’ of persons present in the dwellings, and to the ability of those persons ‘to be organised and safely respond to an emergency’ at the MHFs.
In granting the permit, Mr Code said “the risks are not as great as assessed by the council”.
“… The concern is over-stated,” he said.
“In terms of dwelling development, one additional dwelling is at the lowest end of the scale.
“In terms of an increase in people ordinarily present on the land, the increase is one household or up to four people.
“The proposal will not result in a large gathering of people.
“Residents of the two dwellings will not have particular vulnerabilities to being safely evacuated, if that were necessary, which might be the case if the proposal was a child care centre or an aged care facility.”
