Plan to set up L.P.G. station

Press, 26 November 1982, Page 7

Plan to set up L.P.G. station

. An application for the setting up of a Liquefied Petroleum Gas refuelling station was heard by the Waimairi District Council hearings committee.

Shell Gas New Zealand, Ltd. made the application for a specified departure from the District Scheme to construct the L.P.G. refuelling station, workshop, and retail facilities at 329 Blenheim Road. The station would comprise a 12.9-tonne L.P.G. tank, two automotive dispensers providing three refueling positions, a workshop for . vehicle conversion and maintenance, a staff office, toilets, sales office and shop selling automotive accessories, and associated items, the hearing was told yesterday. In outlining the proposal, counsel for the applicant, Mr J. P. Reuhman, said that the application was a part of New Zealand’s energy strategy to assist economic recovery.

“Appropriate steps to counter rising oil prices and predicted fuel shortages are considered to be an essential component of any programme to deal with New Zealand’s economic difficulties,” he said. Part of the Government’s policy which supported this application was that there should be sufficient retail outlets to ensure adequate supply on competitive terms, he said.

Liquigas has planned to distribute .at least 110,000 tonnes of L.P.G. a year and 28,000 tonnes of that was designated for the Christchurch area, he said. The actual effect of the proposal on adjoining land users would be minimal.

“If anything, the presence of a well-maintained tank and enclosure will enhance the site,” he said.

The proposed site would be at least 50 metres from the nearest house. He said that the site would have more than sufficient space to accommodate a 12.9-tonne tank in terms of the Dangerous Goods Regulations isolation distance and planning separation distance. It would meet the Fire Service’s requirements for access and water supplies. Mr Reuhman said that there were already a number of installations in the country which had obtained planning consent which were situated close to houses and residential zones and other facilities where the public may gather in large number’s. Regarding the safety of the station, an engineer with the applicant company and a member of the Institute of Energy, Mr S. J. Crabbe, said that if any leaks occurred, they would only in the most exceptional circumstances pose any danger. “L.P.G., as with other highenergy fuels, has the potential to harm users and/or the general public if incorrectly

handled and in certain unusual accident situations.” he said. Mr Crabbe said that it was within the policy of Shell to design and construct L.P.G. facilities to an extremely high safety standard. The installation proposed at Blenheim Road would be constructed in strict compliance with this philosophy. “In the event of there being a minor leak, there is only a small area surrounding the tank which could be subject to ignition. In the case of a pressure leak, if ignition takes place, from some external means, the flame could not reach back to the point of exhaust from the tank because the mixture would be too rich and the pressure too great to allow a burn back’.”

“The impression seems to have been created that there is something uniquely dangerous about L.P.G,, but the fact is that the safe history of the use of this fuel in relation to that of other products in no way supports this belief.” Mr Crabbe said that, in his opinion, the site was “as good a site for an L.P.G. refuelling station as one would expect to be available.” The location of the site on Blenheim Road caused some consternation because of the traffic.

The council’s traffic engineer, Mr P. L. Atkinson, said that to maintain the rela-

tively free-flowing traffic on Blenheim Road it was desirable that the road be kept free of industrial or commercial developments which relied on the attraction of casual visitors or custom from passing traffic.

If Blenheim Road was to carry out the function of attracting visitors to the site, the proposed refuelling station “should not be permitted.”

“Unless the applicant can demonstrate that the approval of the use of this site will not create a precedent for similar developments on other arterial roads, then the application should not be approved," said Mr Atkinson. "The site plan submitted does not recognise the high-

speed nature of Blenheim Road, provide adequate offstreet parking, has too many entrances, and therefore I would recommend that the application be declined." There were objections by the Canterbury United Council. because of the traffic, but there were no representatives of the council at the hearing, and no formal objection had been received. A neighbouring landowner. Mr G. F. Rhodes, said that the site would impose too many restrictions on his access, where vehicles up to 60ft long were a part of his everyday traffic.

The committee reserved decision. The application would be discussed at the next meeting of the council, it was said.