![Page 1: Land use planning issues near major hazard facilities in Melbourne](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070412/56814b85550346895db86a75/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Land use planning issues near major hazard facilities in
Melbourne
John O’[email protected]
Nov 2009
![Page 2: Land use planning issues near major hazard facilities in Melbourne](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070412/56814b85550346895db86a75/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
The LUP/MHF project
• Risk Engineering Society commissioned project to:– explain Victorian planning processes to
engineers– review MHF situation in Melbourne– examine recent planning applications near
MHFs to identify issues– examine UK situation & compare to Vic
![Page 3: Land use planning issues near major hazard facilities in Melbourne](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070412/56814b85550346895db86a75/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Project output
• collection of hyperlinked files• hybrid:
–something like a website–something like a wiki–many links to external resources
• educational tool• information resource• will demonstrate later
![Page 4: Land use planning issues near major hazard facilities in Melbourne](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070412/56814b85550346895db86a75/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Reverse disclaimer
• Responsibility for this presentation is mine alone – all mistakes are proudly mine
• Presenting factual material• This is information, not opinion
![Page 5: Land use planning issues near major hazard facilities in Melbourne](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070412/56814b85550346895db86a75/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Some pragmatism
• Complex areas to study
• Need to:-– use simplified explanations (apologies to
experts)– avoid “tangents”
![Page 6: Land use planning issues near major hazard facilities in Melbourne](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070412/56814b85550346895db86a75/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Tangents
important, but distracting
FlixboroughLUP/MHF issues
Buncefield causes
Cranbourne landfill
Environment Protection Act
Dangerous Goods Act
Coode Island
Other States
OHS lawharmonisation
![Page 7: Land use planning issues near major hazard facilities in Melbourne](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070412/56814b85550346895db86a75/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Introduction
• MHF regs introduced 2000• Direct consequence of Longford incident, 1998• Purpose – to minimise likelihood of major
chemical incidents that could harm community• Minimise harm to community if an incident
occurs• Inwards focus – on control measures within
MHFs• Say nothing on developments & activities
outside MHFs
![Page 8: Land use planning issues near major hazard facilities in Melbourne](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070412/56814b85550346895db86a75/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Intro…
• Planning laws – Planning and Environment Act 1987
• Apply to all land• One general aim – keep industry and societal
uses apart• In place before MHF regs• Reference MHF minimally
![Page 9: Land use planning issues near major hazard facilities in Melbourne](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070412/56814b85550346895db86a75/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Intro…
• Victoria’s safety regulator defines MHFs as a special class of industry requiring its own set of reg’s to protect the community
• Town planning perspective?- sees MHFs as a special class? - or sees them as just “industry”
• Hobsons Bay review of industrial land use strategy, 2006– 8x MHFs in Hobsons Bay (more than any other)– 100 Page report– No mention of “major hazard facilities”
![Page 10: Land use planning issues near major hazard facilities in Melbourne](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070412/56814b85550346895db86a75/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
UK / Vic comparison
Regulator: HSE (Health& Safety Executive)
Worksafe
Popn: 60 million 5 million
COMAH regs (Control ofMajor Accident Hazards)
MHF regs - MajorHazard Facility
1100 COMAH sites 45 MHFs
108 bulk fuel sites4 bulk fuel MHFs inMelbourne
Significant researchcapacity
Victoria can use HSEresearch output
UK Victoria
![Page 11: Land use planning issues near major hazard facilities in Melbourne](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070412/56814b85550346895db86a75/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Buncefield fuel depot
Before Dec 11 2005
![Page 12: Land use planning issues near major hazard facilities in Melbourne](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070412/56814b85550346895db86a75/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Buncefield fuel depot
Dec 11 2005 (a Sunday)
![Page 13: Land use planning issues near major hazard facilities in Melbourne](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070412/56814b85550346895db86a75/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
The incident• In a very small nutshell:
– a tank overflowed for more than 30 minutes– 300 te petrol escaped– vapour cloud formed (no wind) : 200m radius,
2m deep, 30 te petrol vapour– at 6:00 am the vapour cloud ignited & there
was a massive explosion– no fatalities or serious injuries– significant damage to neighbouring properties
(go back to aerial shots of depot)
![Page 14: Land use planning issues near major hazard facilities in Melbourne](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070412/56814b85550346895db86a75/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Neighbouring building damaged by blast & secondary fire
![Page 15: Land use planning issues near major hazard facilities in Melbourne](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070412/56814b85550346895db86a75/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Crushed car
200 kilopascals overpressures
![Page 16: Land use planning issues near major hazard facilities in Melbourne](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070412/56814b85550346895db86a75/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Video of Buncefield damage
• 3 minute video taken by forensic photographers for investigators
• note damage to “square” building and to vehicles
(run video)
![Page 17: Land use planning issues near major hazard facilities in Melbourne](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070412/56814b85550346895db86a75/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
UK government response to Buncefield
• MIIB - Major Incident Investigation Board
• 3 year investigation by Health and Safety Executive (UK safety regulator)
• Many objectives & many reports, including:– “Land use planning and societal risk near
major hazard sites”
![Page 18: Land use planning issues near major hazard facilities in Melbourne](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070412/56814b85550346895db86a75/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Land use planning & societal risk report
• Chair of Investigation Board: the subject was “without a doubt, the most difficult and technically challenging that the Board has addressed”
• The longest of their reports – “because we made a particular effort to make our conclusions and recommendations intelligible beyond the narrow community of practitioners”
![Page 19: Land use planning issues near major hazard facilities in Melbourne](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070412/56814b85550346895db86a75/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Land use planning recommendations
• 18 recommendations, including “review land use planning system around major hazard sites”
• Need for “Societal Risk Assessment” approach”
• So:– ongoing work– forebodes significant changes
![Page 20: Land use planning issues near major hazard facilities in Melbourne](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070412/56814b85550346895db86a75/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
recommendations...
• Does not follow that a revised planning system will prohibit developments near MH sites – may allow developments not currently allowed
• 90 page report worth studying
(no more about Buncefield)
![Page 21: Land use planning issues near major hazard facilities in Melbourne](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070412/56814b85550346895db86a75/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
UK - current planning practice
• HSE defines three consultation distances around each MH site
• inner, middle and outer CDs
• not arbitrary distances, such as 100/200/300m
• CDs calculated on a case by case basis
• Any planning application within a CD MUST be referred to HSE for their advice
![Page 22: Land use planning issues near major hazard facilities in Melbourne](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070412/56814b85550346895db86a75/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
CDs - consultation distances
HSE will “advise against” or “not advise against”
![Page 23: Land use planning issues near major hazard facilities in Melbourne](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070412/56814b85550346895db86a75/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Decision matrix
![Page 24: Land use planning issues near major hazard facilities in Melbourne](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070412/56814b85550346895db86a75/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
The Oval, London
photo: Jamie Goode, Wine Anorak
![Page 25: Land use planning issues near major hazard facilities in Melbourne](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070412/56814b85550346895db86a75/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Planning application
• Gas holders (top tier COMAH site, ie a MHF)
• Proposal to develop new stand & hotel at cricket ground
• Planning application to Council
• Council referred it to HSE because within consultation distance of gas holders site
• HSE formal response: “advise against”
![Page 26: Land use planning issues near major hazard facilities in Melbourne](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070412/56814b85550346895db86a75/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Approved against HSE advice
• Council approved application
• HSE asked Minister to call in the application
• Minister held inquiry
• Minister supported Council’s decision
• Development will proceed
![Page 27: Land use planning issues near major hazard facilities in Melbourne](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070412/56814b85550346895db86a75/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Melbourne
![Page 28: Land use planning issues near major hazard facilities in Melbourne](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070412/56814b85550346895db86a75/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Yarraville
![Page 29: Land use planning issues near major hazard facilities in Melbourne](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070412/56814b85550346895db86a75/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Development proposal
• Application to Maribyrnong Council
• For 66 dwellings on vacant land
• ~250m from fuel terminal (MHF)
• No consultation distances in Victoria
• Council NOT required to refer this application to Worksafe
• Council sought Worksafe’s view
![Page 30: Land use planning issues near major hazard facilities in Melbourne](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070412/56814b85550346895db86a75/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Worksafe’s comment
• Worksafe commented: “undesirable”
• Comment not binding on Council
• Council decision not yet made public
• possibly to be determined at VCAT
![Page 31: Land use planning issues near major hazard facilities in Melbourne](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070412/56814b85550346895db86a75/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Victoria - planning controls
• How does Victoria control societal risks from industry?– Zones– Threshold distances– Referral to Worksafe
![Page 32: Land use planning issues near major hazard facilities in Melbourne](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070412/56814b85550346895db86a75/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Victoria - zones
• all Victorian land is within a defined planning zone that specifies what the land can be used for & what it cannot be used for
• Look at two opposites– Dandenong & Newport– planned vs historical legacy
![Page 33: Land use planning issues near major hazard facilities in Melbourne](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070412/56814b85550346895db86a75/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Planned - Dandenong
![Page 34: Land use planning issues near major hazard facilities in Melbourne](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070412/56814b85550346895db86a75/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Dandenong - zones
![Page 35: Land use planning issues near major hazard facilities in Melbourne](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070412/56814b85550346895db86a75/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Historical legacy - Newport
![Page 36: Land use planning issues near major hazard facilities in Melbourne](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070412/56814b85550346895db86a75/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Newport - zones
![Page 37: Land use planning issues near major hazard facilities in Melbourne](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070412/56814b85550346895db86a75/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Table of threshold distances
• To define those industries that may cause offence or unacceptable risk to the neighbourhood
• Minimum distance from the land of the proposed use to any residential zone
• seems to apply in one direction only - from industry use to residential, but not other way
![Page 38: Land use planning issues near major hazard facilities in Melbourne](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070412/56814b85550346895db86a75/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Threshold distances - examples
Abattoir 500 m
Milk depot 100 m
Petroleum refinery 2,000 m
Petrol storage 100 m floating roof300 m fixed roof
Organic chemicalsmanufacture 1,000 mInorganic chemicalsmanufacture 1,000 m
![Page 39: Land use planning issues near major hazard facilities in Melbourne](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070412/56814b85550346895db86a75/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Deficiencies with threshold distances
• Seems more concerned with protection of community amenity than safety
• Figures seem arbitrary
• not risk based on a case by case basis
![Page 40: Land use planning issues near major hazard facilities in Melbourne](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070412/56814b85550346895db86a75/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Referral to Worksafe
• Worksafe is a referral authority
• If a referral authority objects to an planning application, Council must refuse the application
• Some industrial developments must be referred to Worksafe
• Residential developments are not referred to Worksafe
![Page 41: Land use planning issues near major hazard facilities in Melbourne](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070412/56814b85550346895db86a75/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Some issues
• Communications - technical jargon, communication with community difficult
• Legacy of unplanned development - co-proximity of residential zones & industrial zones
• high density residential proposals near MHFs likely to continue - what risk assessment process exists?
![Page 42: Land use planning issues near major hazard facilities in Melbourne](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070412/56814b85550346895db86a75/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Issues...
• How is Victoria using the Buncefield experience?
• How will Victoria use the research output from the UK HSE?
• Is there a strategy for preserving land for future MHFs?
• Threshold distances - are they a suitable tool management of societal risk management re MHFs?
![Page 43: Land use planning issues near major hazard facilities in Melbourne](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070412/56814b85550346895db86a75/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
Issues...
• Threshold distances - suitable tool management of societal risk management near MHFs?
• Rules for statutory referral to Worksafe - extend?
• Will residential development cause MHFs to increase their hazard controls? Should costs be shared by industry & developer?
![Page 44: Land use planning issues near major hazard facilities in Melbourne](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070412/56814b85550346895db86a75/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
The end
(for now)
Thankyou
(show Puerto Rico pix)
(demonstrate project)