Join our fight to oppose BP Developement

FIGHT OVER FUEL STATION REIGNITES By: MARIANNE KELLY St Markfs Catholic School, is objecting to a consent application for a BP service station next to the school because it will affect children, elderly residents at the next-door retirement village and disabled people at Eastgate Community Trust across the road. A THIRD attempt to build a service station next to a school and a retirement village is reviving protest which hasnft changed in 20 years. BP Oil has lodged a new consent application to build a service station at 322 Pakuranga Road, formerly owned by the Auckland Council. Itfs adjacent to St Markfs Catholic School and the Pakuranga Park Retirement Village. The council CCO, Auckland Council Property Ltd (ACPL) has sold the site to property investment company Tram Lease for $1.525 million. Itfs subject to a perpetually renewable ground lease to BP Oil, which until now has paid the council an annual rent of $57,000 (plus GST) a year. The next lease renewal date is in October next year. ACPL acquisitions and disposals manager Clive Fuhr says the freehold is subject to the terms of the ground lease, and the use of the site is subject to the user conditions in the lease and to normal regulatory planning processes. However, he says ACPL has not been able to find former Manukau City Council archived information on the property to shed light on how or why BP Oil NZ was granted a lease. The Times asked BP when and why the lease was granted, but the company declined to comment. Last September, the Howick Local Board tried to buy time by passing a motion that it recommend to the council that it explore the option of putting a covenant on the property to prohibit a fuel station activity. Board members were concerned if the property was sold, council control would be lost. However, with the sale completed, BP Oil has reapplied for consent to build a service station. Itfs a limited notified consent, which allows only immediate neighbours the council deems to be directly affected, such as St Markfs Catholic Church and school and Pakuranga Park Village occupants, to object. Submissions officially closed on May 16, but because of mailing errors, St Markfs School had until May 21 to put in a submission. St Markfs principal Catherine Rivers questions why the application was not publicly notified, when a similar development by BP at 255 Ormiston Road in Flat Bush was. A council spokesperson says the decision to fully notify the Ormiston Road site was not made by the council, but instead by an independent commissioner. gThe station in Pakuranga is located in a commercial zone where increased traffic effects could be reasonably anticipated. Therefore the adverse effects are limited to adjoining properties, hence the limited notification.h The Ormiston Road station, the spokesperson says, is in a residential zone still under development where the adverse effects are not yet fully understood and are likely to be wider in scope. A Planning Tribunal hearing in 1992 and an Environment Court hearing in 1998 disallowed BP appeals to Manukau City decisions to turn down applications to build a petrol station at 322 Pakuranga Road. In 1998, the court concluded the safety of the travelling public and those concerned with the school and church would not benefit from the presence of a service station, which would add a potentially life threatening hazard to the motor vehicle environment. The social environment of those in the vicinity, it said, would be best served by the absence of a service station, gwhich is an alien enterprise on this particular part of the road frontage of Pakuranga Roadh. However, Mrs Rivers, who is mounting another attempt to stop development of the petrol station, believes that, apart from the councilfs sale of the land, BP is also moving to take advantage of a change in environment legislation. The Resource Management Amendment Act 2013 provides a new, quicker, six-month time frame for decision-making on notified and limited notified resource consents, with 100 working days for a limited notified application. She also points to the fact there are five service stations within a five-minute drive around or along the Pakuranga Highway. A BP spokesman says itfs always looking for opportunities to invest in its retail business and meetcustomersf needs. gThis situation is no different. Wefre exploring our options in terms of this particular location as we do across the country,h he says. gThis situation is part of a normal RMA [Resource Management Act] and council process and wefre working with the council in relation to the terms, requirements and impacts of the consent process. gThe council makes recommendations and BP adheres accordingly. We are yet to finalise our intentions for this location.h The issue, Mrs Rivers says, is all about safety for children, upheld by the 1992 and 1998 hearings. gIn 2003, BP tried to discuss the issue with us. We got ready to fight again, but it didnft come to anything. gOur children and Pakuranga College children walk down the Pakuranga Highway to and from school. gAlthough the new plan has a walkway from the school at the back of the BP station, I would say this still has a estranger dangerf element, as itfs curved in two places and cameras are unable to see around bends,h she says. gA service station is not in keeping with the neighbourhood including a church, a school, and a retirement village. We have Eastgate Community Trust across the road which deals with disabled people. gWefre fighting to look after the most vulnerable who will be affected by fumes and stop-start traffic ? primary-aged students, the elderly that live behind in Pakuranga Park Village and attend daily Masses at the parish, and the disabled.h Times Online http://www.times.co.nz/index.php?view=article&catid=1%3Anews&id=149711%3Afight-over-fuel-station-