SAVE WILLIAMSTOWN
SAVE WILLIAMSTOWN
Williamstown development too close to fuel tanks, says Worksafe
Herald Sun
February 10, 2014
David Smith
“WORKSAFE Victoria has joined Mobil in saying a proposed Williamstown residential development is dangerously close to fuel tanks.
Evolve Development plans to build more than 800 high-rise apartments and townhouses on the site of the old Port Phillip Woollen Mills site.
Hobsons Bay Council and many Williamstown residents oppose the development, which is the subject of hearings at VCAT.
Last week, Mobil told VCAT it was concerned the development could hinder the operation of the Gellibrand tank farm, where hazardous chemicals are stored.
“Gellibrand Marine Facility is an essential asset for the Mobil Altona Refinery and a vital link in Victoria’s fuel supply chain,” its statement read.
“Over 60 per cent of the crude oil processed at Altona Refinery is received via the facility and there is no alternate discharge point for marine supplied crude feedstock.”
Worksafe also advised housing should not be built so close to the facility.
Worksafe’s submission said there should be no housing within an outer planning advisory area, including Kanowna St, part of the proposed development site.
It said this would “increase exposure to the future residents of the dwellings to a potential incident at the Gellibrand Tank Farm”, which has “the potential to be dangerous to life and health’’.
Save Williamstown spokesman Godfrey Moase said Mobil and Worksafe had validated the safety concerns of residents.
“It’s incredibly irresponsible to try and push such a high density residential development so close to a major hazard facility,” he said.
He called on the State Government to develop a policy to ensure housing was not built close to major hazard facilities.....”
Note by SW
Good to see the authorities speaking out.
Worksafe quote thee relevant cases, Sandbar and High St Newport are well known but the case of 462 Melbourne Rd Newport makes interesting reading because the member said it was within the Outer Planning Advisory Area and thus did not meet the threshold and he refused without even considering the specific plans. This case involved 2 houses on a block being redeveloped into 8 dwellings.. which is considerably less than the number of dwellings contemplated in Stage 2 of the PPWM site.
Monday, 10 February 2014