Methane Gas Release[7]

Methane is stored at the Quantem Coode Island Facility and Stolthaven Coode Island Facility. Methane gas is both toxic and flammable when in particular concentration ranges. The Quantem Coode Island Safety Case Summary states that:

"Most hydrocarbon releases do not ignite, however personnel close to site may be exposed to the health impacts of the release. Controls are in place to prevent or mitigate escalation."

The toxic effects of methane on the proposed development can therefore be expected to be limited.

The Quantem Coode Island Safety Case Summary states that:

"for most major incidents the impact is expected to be contained within the terminal boundary. However, some high consequence events have the potential for offsite impacts."

The Quantem Coode Island Safety Case Summary goes on to state that:

"Events with off site impacts have a very low probability of occurring. The risk of these incidents occurring is controlled so far as reasonably practicable by comprehensive systems and procedures."

Pool Fire[8]

The Stolthaven Coode Island Terminal Community Safety Case Summary indicates that fires are "expected to be contained within the confines of the bunded tank storage area or road tanker fill station" and that the impact of smoke and vapours produced from the incident to neighbouring properties would be limited to "mild respiratory or eye irritation on nearby residents or workers that would be unlikely to prevent them taking protective measures."

It is noted that the Yarra River provides a major hydrological obstacle between Coode Island and the site, which will prevent spread of flammable liquids from the Coode Island Precinct to the Site, in addition to the bunds around the storage tanks which can be identified in the aerial photos.

The location of the proposed development, which is separated from the greater Port Lease Area by major physical barriers such as warehouses and other industrial developments, reduces the exposure of the Proposed Development to risk arising from the Quantem Coode Island Terminal, Stolthaven Coode Island Terminal and other hazardous bulk storage sites in the greater Port Lease Area.

VCE[9]

Deflagration is the rapid, but subsonic propagation of the flame front through the vapour cloud, resulting in an explosion and Lash .re. This scenario is known as a Vapour Cloud Explosion (VCE). The Quantem Coode Island Safety Case Summary indicates that the terminal contains a number of petroleum and related vapour cloud forming substances, but does not disclose if ignition of a cloud of vapour produced from a release of methane or flammable liquid would result in deflagration of the vapour cloud. A methane VCE could create overpressure, a transient increase in air pressure over the atmospheric pressure that can cause damage to buildings and injury to people, including fatalities at high over pressures.

The Coode Island Safety Case Summary indicates that the facility stores methanol, which produces vapours that are a heavier than air and may catch .re or explode if ignited. In an open environment such as the Coode Island Precinct, overpressure will decrease as the distance from the point of ignition increases.

The Quantem Coode Island Safety Case Summary states that:

"for most major incidents the impact is expected to be contained within the terminal boundary. However, some high consequence events have the potential for offsite impacts."

The Quantem Coode Island Safety Case Summary goes on to state that:

"Events with offsite impacts have a very low probability of occurring. The risk of these incidents occurring is controlled so far as reasonably practicable by comprehensive systems and procedures."

The distance of the site from the Quantem Coode Island facility is large enough (approximately 594 m from aerial mapping) such that there is not a credible direct impact of a VCE on the site.

BLEVE[10]

A BLEVE is a Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapour Explosion (BLEVE). A pressurised liquid in a vessel will be in phase equilibrium with a volume of vapour (gas) of the same substance. A BLEVE can arise where a pressurised liquid vessel is heated, causing both the pressure of the vessel contents to increase, and the boiling point of the pressurised liquid to increase. If the pressure continues to increase the vessel may rupture due to over-pressurisation (or in an uncontrolled incident, other causes of damage). When the vessel ruptures, the contents are vented to atmospheric pressure, causing the liquid in the vessel (which are above boiling point at atmospheric pressure) to rapidly vaporise and almost certainly be ignited if the vessel is being heated by a fire. Under these circumstances, the ignition of the gas cloud will result in deflagration (and potential transition to detonation) and a resulting explosion and fireball. Such an incident can be expected to cause the resulting explosion and fire to extend a considerable distance from the source of the impact.

Such an incident takes time to develop. The heating of the pressure vessel requires an initiating incident such as a .re. Fires are a readily detectable event, and as such it is possible to take action to mitigate the consequences of the event on people before the most severe consequence is experienced. Such mitigations include having people shelter in place (thereby preventing direct exposure to the potential fireball) or by evacuating people from the vicinity of the incident likely to be impacted.

Neither the Stolthaven Coode Island MHF or the Quantem Coode Island Safety Case summaries explicitly state whether a BLEVE is a credible event. The location of the proposed development, which is separated from the greater Port Lease Area by major physical barriers such as warehouses and other industrial developments, reduces the exposure of the Proposed Development to risk arising from the Quantem Coode Island Terminal, Stolthaven Coode Island Terminal and other hazardous bulk storage sites in the greater Port Lease Area.

Jet Fire[11]

A methane jet fire resulting from ignition of gas escaping from the ruptured pipeline would form a plume of flame that may reach a considerable distance (potentially up to 50 m, depending on the diameter and pressure and therefore mass Low rate of the pipeline, but likely less) vertically upwards. The fraction of heat radiated by a jet flame is a function of the fuel, being less for hydrogen and methane than for propane. In the case of propane, the fire may have a surface heat emission of up to 250 kW/m2 of flame surface. This radiant heat from the jet .re would be the most credible direct consequence of the incident that we need to consider for assessing risk at the Site.

The location of the proposed development, which is separated from the greater Port Lease Area by major physical barriers such as warehouses and other industrial developments, reduces the exposure of the Proposed Development to risk arising from the Quantem Coode Island Terminal, Stolthaven Coode Island Terminal and other hazardous bulk storage sites in the greater Port Lease Area. As such, there is no credible risk of direct impacts of a Jet Fire at any of these facilities on the site.

Societal Risk[12]

Where land is developed near to an MHF, such that the development leads to an increase inoccupancy at the developed site, the population potentially exposed to a major incident at the MHF will increase. An increase in exposed population will lead to an increase in the calculated societal risk.

However, it does not follow that an increase in societal risk is inherently unacceptable. WorkSafe Victoria, in common with other jurisdictions in Australia, defines criteria for acceptable societal risk. As a matter of good risk management practice, the societal risk should be calculated and evaluated to determine if it increases risk beyond the acceptable societal risk threshold criteria.

On this basis, I would reject any argument that contends that any intensification of usage of land creates an unacceptable risk, or that increase in risk is intrinsically unacceptable. Such arguments need to be supported by risk-based assessment that demonstrate that the intensification creates an unacceptable increase in societal risk. The grounds of objection against the Proposed Development, and the grounds of refusal for the Application, do not include such an assessment.

My assessment of the Proposed Development is that its location, which is separated from port operations by major physical barriers such as warehouses and other industrial developments, reduces the exposure of the Proposed Development to risk arising from the Quantem Coode Island Terminal, Stolthaven Coode Island Terminal and the greater Port Lease Area. The overall density of the Proposed Development is relatively low and thereby does not excessively increase the population. Whilst additional information regarding the contours of risk radiating from the Stolthaven Coode Island Terminal and Quantem Coode Island Terminal would be required to make a quantitative assessment, on the basis of the information available my qualitative assessment is that it would be extremely unlikely that the Proposed Development would cause the societal risk acceptability criteria to be exceeded. Therefore, in my opinion the Proposed Development is acceptable on a societal risk basis.

1. Council and the respondent submit the proposed caretakers house is not supported by the relevant provisions of the planning scheme. In particular the respondent submits the relevant planning strategies and policy frameworks of the planning scheme which apply to the land explicitly discourage a caretaker's house to minimise adverse amenity impacts on residents and ensure there is no reverse amenity impact on existing industries / businesses, including the Port of Melbourne. They also say the planning scheme discourages the introduction of a sensitive use in IN1Z and states that such use should only be considered if it is 'necessary' to support the existing industry / business on the land.

1. The subject site is located within the IN1Z and the relevant purposes include:

To implement the Municipal Planning Strategy and the Planning Policy Framework.

To provide for manufacturing industry, the storage and distribution of goods and associated uses in a manner which does not affect the safety and amenity of local communities.

1. Pursuant to clause 33.01-2 relevant decision guidelines include those specified at clause 65 of the planning scheme and the following:
   • The Municipal Planning Strategy and the Planning Policy Framework.
   • The effect that the use may have on nearby existing or proposed residential areas or other uses which are sensitive to industrial off-site effects, having regard to any comments or directions of the referral authorities.
   • The effect that nearby industries may have on the proposed use.

2. A relevant strategic direction at clause 2.03-3, Environmental risks and amenity under the heading Amenity and safety states:

The encroachment of residential use and development into core employment areas, key transport corridors, major hazard facilities (MHFs) or their buffers can threaten the viability of these areas and reduce the standard of amenity for the encroaching residential use or development. Locating high intensity and sensitive use and development adjacent to MHFs also poses potential health and safety risks.

.....

Council seeks to:

• Protect Core employment areas, key passenger and freight transport corridors, and MHFs from residential encroachment.
• Protect industrial and commercial areas from the intrusion of residential development in the form of inappropriate Caretaker's houses.
• Maintain the Francis Street Mixed Use Precinct and the Yarraville Port Core Employment Area as an industrial buffer between the Port of Melbourne and residential activity to protect the operations of the Port of Melbourne.
• Limit the concentration of people and sensitive uses in areas adjacent to MHFs, including the Francis Street Mixed Use Precinct and the Yarraville Port Core Employment Area.

1. Clause 02.03-6, Economic development - Industrial Related Employment Land recognises Core Employment areas to be key industrial and commercial areas with an employment role that need to be protected and enhanced to ensure the City's economic future. Council seeks to protect and enhance Core Employment Areas. There are eight identified Core Employment Area precincts including the State Significant Industrial Precincts at Yarraville Port, Tottenham and West Footscray.
2. Relevantly clause 02.03-6 states the following with respect to the Yarraville Port Core Employment Area.

The Yarraville Port Core Employment Area provides an important buffer between established residential areas and the Port of Melbourne and nearby state-significant MHFs. Most of the precinct is affected by the Environment Protection Authority reduced residual air emissions buffer and a MHF buffer where the integrity of these buffers will need to be protected. The Port of Melbourne is a major landowner and intends to use a part of the land for port, logistics and port-related industrial uses.

.....

Council seeks to:

• Ensure that land use and development is appropriate for the precinct to function as a buffer to MHFs and the Port of Melbourne's operations.

1. Clause 11.03-6L-04 applies to all land within the Yarraville Port Core Employment Area. Pursuant to the Yarraville Port Core Employment Area Map at clause 11.03-6L-04 the land is located in Area B.
2. Clause 11.03-6L-04 includes the following relevant objectives, strategies and policy guidelines:

Objectives

To ensure that use and development does not constrain the operation of the Port of Melbourne.

To ensure that development responds to amenity, risk and health impacts relating to the Port of Melbourne and Major Hazard Facilities.

.....

To strongly discourage uses that attract or accommodate significant numbers of people and which cannot respond to an emergency.

.....

General strategies

Discourage caretakers' houses.

Discourage uses that attract or accommodate large numbers of people and may result in an inability to respond to an emergency, such as an inability to evacuate safely.

Ensure that use and development of the land has appropriate safety arrangements and plans in place to limit any potential impact of exposure to any incident at a Major Hazard Facility.

.....

Area B strategies

Encourage logistics, low scale industrial and port related uses and development.

Present attractive built form and well landscaped frontages to Whitehall Street.

Policy guidelines

Consider as relevant:

• The ways in which use and development responds to potential adverse amenity and risk impacts from the Port of Melbourne and a Major Hazard Facility.
• The numbers, occupancy and vulnerability of persons likely to be present at the proposed development or use.
• Within the buffer area of a Major Hazard Facility, the ability of persons present to safely respond to an emergency.
• The overall impact of use and development on the role of the precinct as a buffer.
• An assessment report that responds to the potential amenity and risk/health impacts of the Port of Melbourne and any Major Hazard Facility and details mitigation measures and their effectiveness.
• Whether the application is in accordance with WorkSafe's Land Use Planning near a Major Hazard Facility guidance published in April 2022.

1. Clause 13.07-1L-01, Caretakers houses apply to an application for use or development of land for a caretaker's house in the IN1Z. The objective seeks to protect the viability and operational needs of industrial and commercial areas from the intrusion of residential development in the form of inappropriate Caretaker's houses.[13] Relevant strategies and policy guidelines include:[14]

Strategies

Discourage Caretaker's houses, unless they are a necessary ancillary use to an existing or proposed building, operation or place.

Discourage subdividing Caretaker's houses from the use or development to which they are ancillary.

Policy guidelines

Consider as relevant:

• Limiting Caretaker's houses to a maximum of 30% of the total gross floor area of the associated industrial or commercial building, or 100 square metres, whichever is the lesser.
• Designing Caretaker's houses to minimise potential amenity conflicts.

1. Clause 13.07-1S, Land use compatibility includes an objective that seeks to protect community amenity, human health and safety while facilitating appropriate commercial, industrial, infrastructure or other uses with potential adverse off-site impacts. Relevant strategies include:[15]
   • Ensure that use or development of land is compatible with adjoining and nearby land uses.
   • Avoid locating incompatible uses in areas that may be impacted by adverse off-site impacts from commercial, industrial and other uses.
   • Avoid or otherwise minimise adverse off-site impacts from commercial, industrial and other uses through land use separation, siting, building design and operational measures.
   • Protect commercial, industrial and other employment generating uses from encroachment by use or development that would compromise the ability of those uses to function safely and effectively.
2. Clause 13.07-2S, Major hazard facilities include an objective that seeks to minimise the potential for human and property exposure to risk from incidents that may occur at a major hazard facility and to ensure the ongoing viability of major hazard facilities. Relevant strategies include:[16]

Ensure major hazard facilities are sited, designed and operated to minimise risk to surrounding communities and the environment.

Consider the risks associated with increasing the intensity of use and development within the threshold distance of an existing major hazard facility.

Apply appropriate threshold distances from sensitive land uses for new major hazard facilities and between major hazard facilities.

Protect registered or licenced major hazard facilities as defined under Regulation 5 of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulations 2017 from encroachment of sensitive land uses.

1. Clause 18.02-6S, Ports include the following objectives and strategies include:

Planning for ports objective

To support the effective and competitive operation of Victoria's commercial trading ports at local, national and international levels, and to facilitate their ongoing sustainable operation and development.

Planning for ports strategies

Provide for the ongoing development of ports at Melbourne, Geelong, Hastings and Portland in accordance with approved Port Development Strategies.

Identify and protect key transport corridors linking ports to the broader transport network.

Manage any impacts of a commercial trading port and any related industrial development on nearby sensitive uses to minimise the impact of vibration, light spill, noise and air emissions from port activities.

Planning for port environs objective

To plan for and manage land near commercial trading ports so that development and use are compatible with port operations and provide reasonable amenity expectations.

Planning for port environs strategies

Protect commercial trading ports from encroachment of sensitive and incompatible land uses in the port environs.

Plan for and manage land in the port environs to accommodate uses that depend upon, or gain significant economic advantage from, proximity to the port's operations.

Ensure that industrially zoned land within the environs of a commercial trading port is maintained and continues to support the role of the port as a critical freight and logistics precinct.

Identify and protect key transport corridors linking ports to the broader transport network.

Ensure any new use or development within the environs of a commercial trading port does not prejudice the efficient and curfew-free operations of the port.

Ensure that the use and intensity of development does not expose people to unacceptable health or safety risks and consequences associated with an existing major hazard facility.

Ensure that any use or development within port environs:

• Is consistent with policies for the protection of the environment.
• Takes into account planning for the port.

1. Having regard to the above, Council's Municipal Planning Strategy includes policies and strategies that seek to discourage caretakers houses and protect the viability and operational needs of commercial and industrial areas including the Port of Melbourne.
2. Whilst discouraging caretakers houses, policy at clause 13.07-1L-01, includes an objective that seeks to protect the viability and operational needs of industrial and commercial areas from the intrusion of residential development in the form of inappropriate caretaker's houses.
3. A relevant strategy at clause 13.07-1L-01 discourages Caretakers houses, however the discouragement is qualified as follows:

Discourage Caretaker's houses, unless they are a necessary ancillary use to an existing or proposed building, operation or place.

1. The applicant's submission including the evidence seeks to establish a supervisory nexus between the carwash and the proposed caretaker's house. They say the dominant use of the land is dedicated to the carwash and the plant and equipment that support the use. They say:[17]
   • the caretaker will manage and provide security for the carwash overnight.
   • the caretaker will have a supervisory role in ensuring that the carwash is operated in a safe manner and is secure from break-ins, theft and vandalism. The carwash equipment and facilities are extremely valuable. The caretaker's presence on the Land will ensure the safety and security of the carwash and its customers.
   • the caretaker will have a supervisory role as a deterrent to preventing crimes and vandalism at the carwash. The caretaker will also provide surveillance of other businesses within proximity of the Land. The presence of the caretaker on the Land may act as a deterrent for crimes being committed at these businesses.
   • the caretaker will have a supervisory role in assisting customers in the evening, or early morning, and collecting cash from the payment machines during the night.
2. The respondent submits that it is difficult to see how a caretaker's house is necessary for the carwash business on the land. They say the applicant seeks approval for the caretaker's house on the basis that it would be a helpful or convenient means of "assisting in minimising risk associated with theft and vandalism".
3. The respondent also submits a caretaker's house is not the only way to limit the antisocial behaviour and vandalism. They say there are other ways including the presence of a security guard/patrol or an overnight shift worker that could also assist to address the antisocial behaviour and vandalism that is of concern to the applicant.
4. Relevant strategy seeks to discourage a caretaker's house unless it is a necessary ancillary use to an existing use. The strategy is not a prohibition. However, there must be acceptable reason to depart from the guidance that is provided.
5. While the approach of establishing a caretaker's house may be in place at other carwashes such as 304 Kororoit Creek Road, Williamstown North, that does not mean it is acceptable on the subject land. Each proposal must be determined on its individual facts and considerations.
6. The existing car wash on the subject land has been in operation since mid-2023. The car wash operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and provides a self-service car wash facility that is operated by customers. Customers pay for their carwash using an automated payment facility which accepts cash and card payment.
7. Staff are onsite from 6am to 6pm during peak season and are said to provide customer service, maintenance/repair, cleaning, refilling carwash detergent/chemicals, emptying the payment machines, onsite security and refilling the vending machines.
8. The operation of the existing carwash as described above demonstrates that it can operate without the need for staff to be on site at all times. There were no submissions or evidence that stated the carwash could not continue to operate as it currently does without the proposed caretaker's house.
9. Whilst staff, when in attendance, provide some customer service, I was not provided with any information that stated that customer/staff interaction was necessary for customers to use the facility. I note Ms Elg-Kozel's evidence that nights and early mornings are the quietest trading times and account for approximately 20 per cent of revenue.
10. Currently staff are only on site during the peak season. In this context I am not persuaded that the operational aspects of the car wash facility during the quietest trading period comprising the morning or nighttime period demonstrates a necessity for the proposed caretaker's house or the supervisory nexus submitted by the applicant.
11. If there is a need for staff to assist customers during the evening or early morning periods, staff can be rostered to attend the site as they are currently doing during the peak period. Similarly, if there is a need to collect cash, the activity can also be done at a scheduled time at the applicants choosing. I am not persuaded that a caretaker's house is necessary for the conduct of these activities.
12. A resident caretaker could respond to a mechanical failure and deter potential theft, vandalism and antisocial behaviour. However, I am not persuaded that the operational activities that include customer service, maintenance/repair, cleaning, refilling carwash detergent/chemicals, emptying the payment machines, onsite security and refilling the vending machines as described by Ms Elg-Kozel require a caretaker to live on the land.[18]
13. It is the alleged antisocial behaviour and vandalism that necessitates provision of the caretaker's house. I accept these types of activity are of concern to the applicant. However, having regard to the automated, self-service nature of the carwash as described by the applicant, I am persuaded by the respondent the establishment of a caretaker's house is not the only way to remedy the antisocial behaviour and vandalism that is said to be occurring on the site. A security guard or patrol as suggested by the respondent may not be acceptable to the applicant, however it is another way, for example, to limit the antisocial behaviour and vandalism that is of concern to the applicant whilst also remaining consistent with relevant policy.
14. Therefore, I have not been persuaded that the supervisory role of the caretaker for the purpose of deterring potential antisocial and vandalism in an otherwise self-serve carwash necessitates the establishment of a caretaker's house. The applicant has not demonstrated that a caretaker's house is necessary for the conduct of the carwash. Similarly, I am not persuaded that the activity of supervision of the carwash for purpose of deterring potential antisocial and vandalism provides sufficient nexus with respect to the operation of the automated carwash to support the proposed caretaker's house.
15. Therefore, I have not been persuaded by the applicant and find the proposal has not unacceptably responded to policy at clause 13.07-1L-01, Caretakers house that seeks to protect the viability and operational needs of industrial and commercial areas from the intrusion of residential development in the form of inappropriate caretaker's houses.

1. For completeness I note the parties submissions and evidence addressed a range of matters including safety and risk related to the site's proximity to the MHF contained within the Port of Melbourne on Coode Island and the potential impact of the proposed caretakers house on the operation of the Port of Melbourne. Having found the proposal to be unacceptable with respect to the 13.07-1L-01, Caretakers house, this is sufficient basis for refusing a permit and there is no utility in making findings on these other matters.

1. For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is affirmed.

[1] The submissions and evidence of the parties, any supporting exhibits given at the hearing and the statements of grounds filed have all been considered in the determination of the proceeding. In accordance with the practice of the Tribunal, not all of this material will be cited or referred to in these reasons.

[4] Respondent's submission 18-19 [13.2].

[5] Delegate Report Industrial Zones, dated 17 March 2025 [1.3].

[6] T Lee evidence statement [5.1.3.1]-[5.1.3.3].

[10] T Lee evidence statement [3.3.4].

[11] T Lee evidence statement [3.3.5].

[12] T Lee evidence statement [3.3.6].

[17] Applicants' submission, 13 [39].

[18] L Elg-Kozel evidence statement [17].