BEXLEY NORTH
,
New South Wales
Message
I support the proposed modification of the pipeline to replace the Ethane product for gas.
I would like to raise and see if further information can be provided by APA in relation to the comments made under Section 5.3.4.2 - Impact Assessment, below is an extract for context:
"AS 2885 requires APA to take account of the existing and reasonably foreseeable land uses adjacent to the approved pipeline corridor and associated risks. Certain types of land use would not be possible adjacent to the pipeline easement due to the risk of injury or fatality in the highly unlikely event of a release of natural gas and subsequent ignition.
However, the change of use to natural gas has the potential to lead to more flexible land use options due to the reduced risk associated with natural gas compared to ethane."
Due to the nature of the Ethane "sensitive uses" such as aged care facilities, prisons, childcare couldn't be located in close proximity to the pipeline. Can any commentary be provided by APA if sensitive uses can now be located next to the pipeline once it is transporting gas.
Secondly, under the current SMS, enquiries with APA's Senior Urban Planner confirmed that residential land that adjoined the pipeline in the Bayside Council area were identified as T2-High Density as per primary pipeline location class. Will this T2-High Density designation for all of Bayside remain in the new SMS when it is updated to accommodate gas.
