Make the interface part of the decision
A station's design determines where fuel is stored, unloaded and dispensed. Surrounding development determines where people live, play and receive care. Once both are built, changing that relationship can be difficult. Separation requirements address that long-lived interface at the point when there is still a choice.
The case is supported by evidence of fuel-vapour releases and research into nearby residents. That evidence warrants preventive attention, while leaving uncertainty about the exact size of effects and the best numerical settings for Australian conditions. [55] [33]
A minimum and an assessment do different jobs
A mandatory minimum establishes a rule for covered development. An assessment considers whether particular conditions require additional protection. Without a clear distinction, a distance described as a buffer can turn out to be only a trigger for another report.
Safe Separations proposes a binding minimum, assessment beyond it and continuing operating obligations. The same framework should consider a new station near homes and new homes near a station. Material expansions should not be able to increase exposure without appropriate review.
A transparent policy choice
Our draft examines 50 metres as a minimum, 100 metres as a default for 24-hour stations and 300 metres as an assessment area. These are consultation settings, not a claim that science has established a single safe boundary. WA Health's differentiated advice is one Australian reference. [39]
The next task is to test the legal mechanism, implementation costs, regional implications and technical settings in a public reform process. Communities should be able to see what protection is proposed and how it will be enforced.
Read the proposed framework · Ask your representative to support reform