139-159 Wises Rd, Buderim, QLD

159 Wises Rd BUDERIM - Crematorium - Gregson & Weight Funeral Directors

External link Read more information

We found this application for you on the planning authority's website almost 5 years ago. It was received by them 1 day earlier.

(Source: Sunshine Coast Regional Council, reference MCU15/0203)


Have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. Evie Reynolds commented

    Hi my young family and I have very recently bought and moved into a property very close to this area and I have become aware that there is to be a crematorium furnace built here. My first and foremost concern is about the possible health risks and fumes that this furnace may cause especially being so close to many residential properties. Secondly, another concern I have is the value of our property as we have only recently purchased at a premium price that our valuation will drop.

  2. John O'Leary commented

    The decision to approve a facility without consideration to the sporting and residential properties that are in close proximity is wrong. I would support a chapel and funeral parlour pending traffic impact study, however the furnace should be located in an industrial site where environmental impact allowances can be given for such activity.
    I am disappointed that once again our local councillor has been absent from the debate to look after the interests of the area.

  3. Joe Ballantyne commented

    Why were the residents in the area not consulted about this application. Would any of the council members accept a crematorium close to their place of residence? Why do we have local councillors? Part of their mandate is to look after the interests of the residents. The same residents who were sucked in to vote them in to office. I am 23 years at this residence and have witnessed Buderim Forest heading steadily towards a forest without trees. The council should hang their collective heads in shame.

  4. Wendy commented

    Just heard about the 'furnace' going into the new Gregson and Weight Funeral development here on Wises Road. Absolutely disgusting to put it right next to a sporting facility where children play, and to put it right at the front where everyone that passes by will see it! Surely you can find a piece of land somewhere away from residential areas!

  5. Dr. Steven Siller commented

    Interesting that this cremator was not included in the original crematorium plans (that were approved), but it has now been added after work has started on the site. What a deeply cynical ploy by the developer.

    This application claims that there will be no emissions from the cremator. I find this most implausible. Studies in the US suggest that the average cremation leads to the vaporization and release of 2 to 4 grams of mercury per body as well as carcinogenic dioxins and other toxins. The proposed cremator is close to a sports field, school, and a residential area with a high proportion of families with young children.

    Surely there is a more appropriate industrial location? I too note that our local councilor has been absent from the debate.

  6. Steven Siller commented

    In addendum to the previous comment, the Australasian Cemeteries & Crematoria Association Environmental Guidelines for Crematoria and Cremators suggests a buffer zone of 200m between the cremator stack and residences (see section 8.1.3 http://accaweb.com.au/wp-content/uploads/Environmental-Guidelines-for-Crematoria-and-Cremators.pdf) with 100 metres being the absolute minimum.

    It would appear that housing in Palmyra Crescent, Forestwood Drive, Tyson Court and Marlock Court all fall within this radius. Indeed, some houses and the sports field are likely within 100 metres of the proposed cremator. This goes against the ACCA guidelines.

  7. Chris commented

    No consultation with residents about the furnace being built that I saw. What about the amalgam emissions and health risks to residents? Seems to me that money talks! What kickback did our Councilors get for this approval I wonder.

  8. Ross wilkinson commented

    I am a resident nearby.
    I object to the placement of a crematorium so close to our houses.

  9. bruce finch commented

    Gregsons spokesman has stated that there will be emissions but that they will no worse than a truck going past. James Hardie continually said that their product fibro sheeting was completely safe genuinely believing that there was no problem. Countries around the world are legislating to keep cremators away from residential areas because of emissions fears.
    A cremator furnace manufacturer in Sydney told me quite openly that there are emissions from these furnaces. Mercury vapour, dioxins and micro particles are just a couple of these emissions.
    Residents in Tewantin have been battling with Noosa Council over emissions and smells that come from two cremators. Sunshine Coast Regional Council have the opportunity to eliminate any complaints by refusing approval of this cremator.
    Gregsons are a family company I have dealt with before and they are caring people so I cannot understand them wanting to position this cremator within metres of extremely busy sports fields and homes.
    Is there an independent body who will monitor the emissions or is it self regulated?

  10. Ken Jones commented

    Prior to the purchase of our home in Palymra Crescent Buderim, we followed the regular practice of due diligence relating to any vacant land in the area that could impact on environmental conditions, personal safety, economic status, improved value of the property etc. In doing so searched the council website and talked to various officers in the planning department of council. Trusting in the information that was given ie no adverse planning applications presently registered that would cause us concern. Hence we purchased our new home only to find out within three months that a funeral home and caretakers residence was approved and about to commence development. After much angst, time and effort we were assured that the funeral home and caretakers residence could not be refused by Council due to the zoning in that particular area of 139 -159 Wises Road. It is with concern that we now learn that there is an additional planning application to construct a cremator furnace on this site. We find this to be most inappropriate for this area that is closely populated with up market homes, a large private school and well used sporting facility, not to mention that this section (Wises Rd) is the throughfare for a large residential area of North Buderim. There has been no consideration re the quality of air that will be negatively impacted by the emissions from this furnace. A quick second to research the impact on population health from the emission of crematoriums will give you a clear indication of the risk to the members of the community of Headland Park, Buderim Forest, Sunshine Cove and Palmyra Crescent, who live in the immediate areas not to mention those who frequent the area to attend day care, kindy, school, and sporting events. The area immediately across the motorway, Sunshine Cove is already highly populated with additional stocks of townhouses being constructed. Could we also suggest that you research the recommendations as set out by World Health Organisation in relation to the location of Cremator Furnaces and their emissions and how they impact on humans. Even with the latest technology available for filtration systems the outcomes are not good with numerous safeguards and monitored devices recommended to protect humans from Toxic Emissions. The altered traffic conditions in this area are also of concern with children as young as five years of age negotiating traffic at various times of the day - not just at school start and finish times. This surely must be a major safety consideration. Please note that we feel that the development of a crematorium at this site is not in the best interest of the home owners who have made considerable investment in their homes ie up to and in excess of $1,000,000.00 but more importantly purchased their properties in good faith believing that the living environment would not have a detrimental effect on their health ie the emission of toxic waste. We request that the application for a cremator furnace at this site be refused with the health and personal safety of residents in this area in mind including those who frequent the area for school and sporting activities as well as motorists who attempt to use Wises Road as a traffic throughfare.

  11. Joseph Ballantyne commented

    MCU15/0203 at 139-159 Wises Road Development of a Crematorium.
    I would urge all that have posted comment on this application send the comments posted to Ted.Hungerford@sunshinecoast.qld.gov.au

    I have made submission on line at the Sunshine Coast council web site at PD on line, but have yet to see that the submission listed?

    I received a prompt reply from Cr Ted Hungerford who commented that he would ensure my submition, sent by email to him, would be lodged and that my comments would be considered in his presentation to council. Cr Ted Hungerford has indicated his support for the communities concerns let's hope he can gain the support of his fellow councillors.

    I believe that the more that contact him directly the more traction we will receive in this matter.

  12. Bruce Markey commented

    A quick Internet search reveals countless articles over the concerns of Crematory fumes/emissions world-wide. Numerous studies highlight fears over mercury (released from the burning of Amalgam in teeth fillings) and a cocktail of other poisonous gases. Is our Council really so stupid as to even consider allowing such an 'industry' so close to residents, a school, a park, and a sports ground. Governments pay billions of dollars annually in health budgets, and here, our Council seems happy to expose our local community to dangerous substances. The particular area of Wises Road already suffers significant traffic congestion in the mornings and afternoons. This development will only add to that, placing our children at yet greater risk.

    Surely, the Council will see common sense and reject this ludicrous applications.

    I object to the placement of a crematorium so close to our houses, school, park and sports center.

  13. John Alexander commented

    We already have a functioning crematorium not so far away - in Mooloolaba Road, Buderim. I don't recall hearing any public fuss about that.

  14. David Cuthill commented

    The signage for the MCU was erected on the Fence late October; yet the MCU was submitted Late September. Are you not supposed to submit a photo of the signage on the fence along with the MCU?
    Regarding the somewhat bizarre and misleading statement about zero emissions. I trust Councillors are not going to take that at face value, as clearly that is a crock. Imagine how many COAL-FIRED Power plants would be interested in Zero Emissions technology. Burning dead bodies in Maroochydore would certainly be a new source of Green Energy? Sorry, but I hope the point is taken.

  15. Melanie Gosling commented

    We are a young, professional family who have purchased our first home at a premium in October 2014. It is only a stones throw from this development proposal.
    We have not finished having a family either, and to know what crematorium emissions can do to an unborn child has me very concerned.
    We purchased in the area for the natural beauty, family facilities and school catchment. Not to have to resell in a couple of years at a loss, as the worry of stillborn and brain damage for future children is too much of a gamble for us.

  16. John commented

    To Melanie (and others): Your concerns re the proposed crematorium are understandable but needlessly exaggerated. A much greater hazard to health is posed by the constant exhaust fumes from nearby road traffic and from the carcinogenic particulates falling from the large jet aircraft which pass over Buderim and environs at regular intervals. By comparison, the impact of the crematorium will be insignificant.

  17. David commented

    Your comments can be substantiated by what exactly? There are no safe levels of emissions for mercury for example. There is an extensive list of possible particulates and pollutants; the combination of which, quite frankly no-one has any idea, least of all myself and certainly not you. If you have any scientific evidence, then speak. Our Town planner DID substantiate his claims and they are backed up by studies and reports, not anecdotal chit chat.

  18. John commented

    Well, David, for a start and in case you haven't noticed, very few people nowadays have mercury amalgams in their fillings (dentists have not used them for many years) and in the very near future NO-ONE being cremated will have them. Hence, the claimed concern about dangerous levels of mercury pollution from cremators is a total furphy. Any talk of stillborns and brain damage is mere rabble-rousing. Your cause might win more sympathy if you simply admitted that you oppose the development for aesthetic reasons -- ie, you don't like the look of it and don't fancy living anywhere close to it - especially as it may bring down nearby property values. I can sympathise with that.

  19. Gillian Bright commented

    I have heard that the Sunshine Coast Council has now approved the Crematorium at 139-159 Wises Road, Buderim. I am simply dumbfounded that the proposal could possibly be considered acceptable in the location proposed. I recommend all concerned persons to lodge complaints with relevant authorities including: the ombudsmen for local government, the state Environment Protection Agency, the state members for Maroochydore, Buderim, Kawana, Nicklin and the federal members for Fairfax and Fisher. My primary concerns are as follows:

    1. Due Process was not Satisfactory
    The Queensland Environment Protection Agency should have been included as a Concurrence or Advice Agency in the IDAS assessment for the proposal. Council assessment manager should have foreseen the need for EPA Concurrence on the following grounds:
    - Crematoria until very recently have been classified as a licensable regulated activity under the Environment Protection Regulations with numerous and complex environmental discharges requiring both in-depth technical knowledge and detailed and complex scientific assessment to gauge the significance of potential impacts;
    - given the proximity and number of sensitive receptors located well within the industry recommended buffer distances, the EPA would have been able to offer suggested terms of reference for an air quality report and other design and management considerations such as liquid and solid waste management protocols and emergency protocols;
    - the technical capability of Council to adequate assess the technical report, modelling methodology and the design and management standards proposed used would not be sufficient from in-house;
    - EPA staff would be well position to conduct an appraisal of the adequacy of the air quality modelling and draw on a significant resource of monitoring and historical empirical data/evidence as to the long term performance of various technologies to achieve stated performance; and
    - EPA staff would be best equipped to assess the adequacy of design features and whether they met with minimum best practice standards for crematoria located in close proximity of residences and schools

    2. Design Standards of Facility are below Industry Norms and well below Best Practice
    The design and operating standards of the facility as detailed in the planning report do not even meet the industry design standards set out in the 2004 standards of the Australasian Cemeteries and Crematoria Association (ACCA). That is to say the facility does not even meet best practice standards as stipulated in a 12 year old industry guideline prepared by the ACCA themselves. Examples include:
    - Flue Height: the flue height should exceed 3metres above roof line. the proposal has a flue which is lower than the majority of the roof line. This will radically affect ground level concentration and dispersal of plume;
    - Residence times: The residence time of the proposal of 1 second residence time is well below 2004 recommended industry standard of 1.5 seconds;
    - Temperature: the proposed temperatures are lower than industry recommended temperatures. This will affect the effectiveness of incineration and reduce the environmental performance.;
    - Flue exhaust velocity: the proposed flue velocity is lower than industry recommended velocities. This will reduce the dispersion capability of the facility and reduce environmental performance.

    3. The Air Quality Assessment is a Flawed Report
    The assessment methodology and presentation of results used in the report are inadequate and misleading. As an example, the only sensitive receptors identified were the closest residential dwellings, however it is common for exhaust plumes to reach maximum ground level concentrations at some distance from exhaust flues. Further, it would seem inadequate information was included on the location of the maximum ground level concentrations. The environmental standards used do not even include the NHMRC or ANZECC standards which are considered the foundation for Australian assessment. Foreign and outdated standards and examples were used in the air quality report. Key sensitive receptors in the locality should have been identified and ground level; concentrations modelled at each of these locations under prevailing meteorological conditions, including the nearby school Emmanuel Lutheran College, local sporting ground, a community centre etc.

    4. Council's Planning Assessment was Inadequate - MCU & Buffer Distances
    A Material Change of Use application was required in order for the crematorium to be approved. That is to say in old planning language, a rezoning was required. For such an extreme variation to town planning to have occurred the proposed use should have been scrutinised very closely and a range of factors well outside environmental impacts should have been considered. A demonstrated need should have been made for such a variation to be allowed. When a facility of this nature has a raft of location/ siting and performance standards/ guidelines in place that suggest a recommended of 200 metres

    5. Council's Technical Assessment was Inadequate - Air Quality and Environmental Management
    The submission of an air quality modelling report that indicates ground level concentrations are adequate is not in-and-of-itself sufficient grounds to approve the technical aspects of a facility of this type. It is paramount that the regulatory authorities review and cirque the assumption, methods, results and interpretation of results thoroughly. Any one of these may be sufficient to reject a report. In combination, minor variations from accepted scientific standards or methods in these areas could lead to huge variations in the final quantitative and qualitative conclusions drawn from the assessment. Council does not have the necessary skills and expertise to thoroughly query an air quality modelling report of this nature. Given the significance of such an approval to the future of the mosaic of permissible uses which will be allowed to establish in proximity of the crematorium in the future and the long term changes on the social fabric of the community that may result, at the very least, Council should have commissioned a highly reputed air quality consultant to conduct modelling and assess t he standard of design proposed, and to conduct a review of the report submitted.

    6. Other Environmental Considerations
    The commissioning and ongoing operation of a facility of this nature requires a system of environmental performance monitoring, maintenance and management to be adopted and routinely reviewed to properly control the wide variety of environmental contaminants emitted to surrounding areas and waste materials generated by the facility. In addition, it is essential that a system of corrective action be adopted to rectified identified deficiencies as they arise. Reporting of these deficiencies to relevant regulatory agencies along with details of improvements should be standard protocol. It is unclear from the information submitted with the planning report whether sufficient environmental management systems have been adopted nor whether they have been assessed and approved by relevantly qualified authorities, including the requirement for routine environmental performance auditing and reporting.

  20. John commented

    If the proposed crematorium on Wises Road is as hazardous as claimed and the idea is to be abandoned, what about the busy facility on Mooloolaba Road ('Buderim Lawn Cemetery & Crematorium') only a short distance away? It is 36 years old and so probably not nearly as state-of-the art as the planned Wises Road cremator. Surely that too is a similar - or even worse - public hazard? Or are nearby residents there somehow less worthy of concern?

  21. Steven Siller commented

    John, your figures on amalgam fillings are incorrect. All the research I have read, and I have read quite a bit, indicates that the expected number of amalgam fillings per cadaver is expected to peak over the next 20 years.

    Just because planning permission was granted for houses and a crematoria to be co-located in the past doesn't mean we should do it now. If we thought that way, we'd still be building with asbestos. It should also be noted that the number of cremations in the past was quite low, but during the council meeting a limit of 6 to 8 per day was rejected and the site has instead been approved for 15 cremations per day from 7am to 10pm, 6 days per week...which is even more than the "conservative" assumptions of the air quality report.

    Finally, yes the area is exposed to a lot of traffic, which is likely to rise in the future. Surely this is an argument for not needlessly adding to the area's emissions especially when one had to override the town plan to do so?

  22. Helen Cahill commented

    I agree that just because there are other crematoriums in residential areas on the coast built kong ago that we shouldn't avoid another smack bang in the middle of Maroochydore with the risks outlined by previous comments. Move it further out of Maroochydore I say....

  23. John commented

    Whatever your claims and sources, Steven (et al), mercury amalgams are definitely on the way out; and, in any case, according to some researchers they are nowhere near as dangerous as has been claimed. Playing it safe, my own dentist volunteered to remove mine many years ago and replaced them with neat ceramic fillings, so - old and decrepit as I am - I should not add any mercury vapours at all to our local Buderim atmosphere. Incidentally, research at the MIT suggests that we should all be much more worried about the nano-particulates falling on us constantly from the engines of jet aircraft. According to their figures, TEN TIMES as many people die from ingesting aircraft exhaust emissions as die in air crashes. So perhaps all of our concerns might be better applied to this increasing pollution hazard rather than the minimal and decreasing one from cremators. In the meantime, perhaps you should ask your dentist to remove all your own amalgams? - if you have any.

  24. Lucinda J commented

    I just don't understand why the crematorium has to be built so close to heavily populated areas. Surely having it built further west of the coast, in an area away from schools and homes would make more sense?

  1. Have you made a donation or gift to a Councillor or Council employee? You may need to disclose this.

  2. Please use your real full name if possible.

  1. We never display your street address. Why do you need my address?

This week

Find PlanningAlerts useful?

This independent project is run by a local charity, the OpenAustralia Foundation. PlanningAlerts is powered by small, tax-deductible donations from the people who use it to stay informed about changes to their local area. If you find it useful, chip in to support PlanningAlerts.

Back PlanningAlerts