Properly made submission (object) Brendan and Kerry Kehoe MCU12/0047

Page 2

Under heading of "4.0 Proposal", the fourth paragraph refers to "33.6 persons (ie
14 x 2 bedroom units). This description of "2bedroom units" appears to be
incorrect. The residential complex part of Jacaranda presently comprises 13
residential ’One Bedroom’ suites, 13 Studios and only a single 2 Bedroom Unit.
The owners of Unit 112 were required to pay $750 application fee to the Noosa
Shire Council in early 2007 to have a material change of use from the then
existing One Bedroom Suite and Studio, to a ’2Bedroom Unit’. Therefore, for
Council purposes, there appears to be a clear distinction between a ’Two
Bedroom Unit’ and ’One Bedroom Suites’ plus ’Studio’.


It is unclear as to how the ’existing population density’ of the complex can be
33.6 persons when there are 27 accommodation units that provide
accommodation for at least 83 persons (being 13 @ One Bedroom Suites @3

persons, 13 @ Studios @ 3 persons, plus one @ Two Bedroom accommodating 5
people). The 14 ’One Bedroom Suite’ were all constructed with a built-in single
bed attached to an internal wall. Consequently, they were designed to
accommodate sleeping for at least 3 persons plus a lounge converter bed for night
time use. All studios at Jacaranda are marketed as accommodation for three

people, as they each provide a Double/Queen size bed and a Single Bed. The
Two Bedroom advertises accommodation for 5 people.


The Development Application proposes that the use be changed from the present
commercial use to "Retail Business Type 2 Shop and Salon". The normal hours
of operation for a commercial premise would be around 8.30 AM to 5.30 PM in
the afternoon. A change of use to Retail would allow Lot 1 to extend its hours of
operation a change from around 8.30 AM to potentially 7 AM in the morning;
           -




and a change from 5.30 PM to 9 PM at night. It would allow business deliveries
between the hours of 6 AM and 7 PM.This means that the change of use would
allow more activity to be conducted for a longer period than present. Also, the
change of use would potentially allow the shopfront to be used for a caf with
dining facilities for up to 10 people, at some future stage; even if it is argued by
the Developer that it is not its present intention to use the shopfront for that use.
It is argued that the extension of hours and change of existing zone use, will
adversely affect noise level to other residential units in the Jacaranda complex.

 Part 4.0 of the Proposal (page 6,first paragraph) states that there is a ’minor’
building extension comprising 25.67 square metres on the upper level of Lot 1.
 However, this appears to be incorrect or in contradiction to Bark Architects
 Project 1126 Drawing DA003 Revision D where the present area of Lot 1 is
 shown as 114.99 square metres and the proposed floor area is 144.66 square
 metres; that is, an increase of 29.67 square metres. Even at 25.67 square metres,
 the greater than 22% increase could hardly be described as minor.




                                      2

Page 3

                                                                                       ~.




Under the heading of "Driveways and carparking code", the application states
that "Lot 1 has a current credit of 6 carparking spaces, being 1 covered carpark
associated with the original Multiple Dwelling Unit approval (Approval No
51975.3702      -
                 TPC 545) and ..."(emphasis added).


This is incorrect as the covered car park doesn’t physically exist. It is understood
that when the original development application was made to construct Jacaranda
(Pine Trees), the architectural plans showed covered parking for 15 spaces.
However of the 15 car spaces, each of the 14 residential lots (Units 101 to 112)
since then has been given ’Exclusive Use’ to a particular covered car park. The
other space shown as a covered car park on the original architectural plan,
functions as a laundry. However, the space behind the laundry (and forming part
of the ’car space’) is the area occupied by the complex’s electrical
power/distribution board. As it is highly unlikely that the electrical distribution
board has ever been repositioned since the complex’s construction, particularly
when the physical state of the power board suggests that it is definitely the
original power board, it is extremely unlikely that the space occupied by the
laundry, was ever a car space at any time in the life of Pine Trees/Jacaranda.

The original architectural plans showed four car parking spaces for ’visitors’.
However, the architectural plans showed that there was an easement 2.438 metres
wide and running 43.894 metres in length along the eastern boundary of
Jacaranda, commencing at Hastings Street boundary. Two of the (non-covered)
car parks for office use, were located in this easement area, closest to Hastings
Street boundary. However, upon the construction of the Sheraton a few years
later, it appears that Jacaranda may have lost access to part of this 2.438 metre
width easement for approximately the first 27 metres of the length of this
easement. As the first dog leg changes direction 90 degrees towards Sheraton for

a distance of   approximately 1.857 metres while the second ’dog leg changes
direction 90 degrees away from Sheraton for a depth of at least 2.388 metres, it

appears that possibly 0.531 metre may have been lost from this former easement.
If this was the case, then there would be less width than when the ’parallel
parking was approved prior to the construction of Jacaranda.

Developer’s reply dated Friday 8th June 2012 to Council’s concerns to the
proposed covered space for lot 1. This response on behalf of the Developer, stated
-
  "The issue raised from maneuvering is somewhat contrary to item 4 below
which indicates that the existing carparking situation includes 4 spaces are
parallel to the eastern boundary that comply with Australian Standards. The
proposed covered space for Lot 1 does not change the location of the existing
parallel spaces acknowledged by Council as complying with Australian standards
      "




I find the above response completely misleading as it infers that the four parallel
parks presently exist; when in fact, there has been no parallel parking since at
least late 2005 when I became an owner of a lot in Jacaranda. Instead, there are




                                       3

Page 4

four angle car parking spaces. The four angle parking spaces were outlined by
reflective markings attached to the driveway.


Developer’s reply dated Friday 8th June 2012 to Council’s request for Developer
to amend plans indicating 18 car parking spaces on site (which must comply with
AS/NZS 2890.1:2004).


The developer’s reply appears to avoid the issue of parking requirements by

stating "As indicated above the proposed arbor does not form part of this
       -




application and has been removed from the plans for clarity purposes. The arbor is
part of a separate change to development application and should appropriately be
considered with that application. Therefore no change to existing carparking will
result from the subject application". As the existing car parking situation is that,
these parallel car parks have not physically existed since at least late 2005, the
statement is misleading.


Parallel parking opposite the car parking spaces directly behind Lot 1 shopfront
would likely make it difficult for vehicles to enter and depart the complex. The
previous owner of Lot 1 in contravention of the existing commercial premises
zoning, allowed a retail business selling ’art work’ to operate from the shopfront.
The tenant used to park their Mercedes van parallel to the eastern boundary,

making it very difficult for other cars to either enter or exit Jacaranda complex.

Presently, there are only 18 car spaces (14 ’Exclusive Use’ covered car parks plus
4 Visitors car parks) for a total of 27 separate residential premises (13 @ One
Bedroom Suites @3 persons, 13 @ Studios @ 3 persons, plus one @ Two
Bedroom accommodating 5 people). It is understood that it is necessary for Lot 1
to have two car parks in total as a requirement for this development plan. This

would only be achieved by taking ALL four ’Visitors’ angle car parks and giving
them to Lot 1 ’s Exclusive Use’. This would result in there being only 14 car

spaces for the existing 27 residential premises. It should also be pointed out, that
in practice, while ’Exclusive Use’ of a car park was given to each of the 14
residential lots, in practice, the staff of a previous tenancy to Lot 1 commercial
premises use to occupy two or three of the covered car parks. Consequently, if the
application is approved, the Council would be deliberately and willfully,
exacerbating the existing parking situation.

Furthermore, the application appears to have been made on the premise that the
Body Corporate has already provided approval for the four angle parks to be
changed to two parallel car parks for the ’Exclusive Use’ of Lot 1. It is my
understanding that for Lot 1 to be given two car park spaces, it would require a
Body Corporate motion to be passed ’Without Dissent’. No such motion has been
passed by the Body Corporate. This issue should have been voted on by the Body
Corporate prior to such MCU application being made.




                                      4

Page 5

It is inefficient to convert four angle car spaces to two ’parallel car spaces’; that
is, to deliberately lose 2 car spaces. In an ideal world, it may be preferable for car
parks to be parallel parking for’Australian standards’ purposes, but it appears
illogical to want to change to parallel parking when angle parking provides two
extra car parks. Theoretically, the ’Visitors’ angle parking hinders ingress and

egress of tenants car parking in the covered car spaces, as the length of a car angle
parked, is greater than the width of a car parked parallel. However, this does take
into account the ’dog leg’ nature of the eastern boundary, where the boundary
takes a right angle change of direction towards the Sheraton building. There have
been many instances in the past where tenants have ignored the ’angle parking’
signs, and have parked in ’parallel’ fashion. However, because of the dog leg
nature of the boundary, they have not attempted the more difficult task of parking
closer to the boundary wall, but parked out much further away from the wall,
occupying a significant margin in the ’open area’. Consequently, for tenants
trying to ingress or egress their covered car park space, there has been little
savings gained when cars have used ’parallel’ parking rather than ’angle parking’.
Furthermore, the angle parking could be made more efficient, by removing the
garden bed retaining wall presently located within the ’dog leg’ space, and
replacing it with concrete sleepers on the tiled ground to prevent cars backing into
the concrete block wall. This would allow tenants to reverse their cars closer to
the boundary wall.


Question 7.4 of "Material Change of Use IDAS Checklist Part 2 states "Is any
                                            -
                                                                             -




part of the premises situated within 100 metres of a substation site under the
Electricity Act 1994 (emphasis added)? I am unclear why the "No"answer box
has been filled in. The definition of substation in Section 12(2) of the Electricity
Act 1994 says "a substation is works used for converting, transforming or
               -




controlling electricity". It would appear that the SEQEB electricity transformer
(which both converts and controls electricity) that is located next to Lot 1
shopfront, would be a substation within the meaning of the Electricity Act 1994.

Question 11 of Integrated Development Assessment Systems form Application
Details IDAS form 1 states "Are there any existing easements on the
        -
                                -




premises? (e.g. for vehicular access, electricity, overland flow, water, etc)"
(emphasis added)? I am unclear why the "No"answer box has been filled in. It is
understood that SEQEB has a statutory right to position an electricity transformer
on the Body Corporate land, and I would have thought this statutory right would

have constituted an ’easement’ for the purposes of the question.


Section 297(1) of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 deals with the ’applicant or
assessment manager to give public notice of application’; and paragraph 297(1)(c)

requires that notice be given to the owners of all land adjoining the land, the
subject of the application. ’Owners’ in the instance where the adjoining land is
under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997, is defined in

subparagraph 297(4)(d)(i) to be the body corporate for the scheme.




                                       5

Page 6

       I contacted the Body Corporate Manager (Whittles at Noosa Junction) on the 1th
       August 2012 to ascertain if any notification for the Pine Trees Body Corporate
       had been received from the Applicant as per requirements of the Act. I was
       advised in the negative by email on the 13th August 2012. It appears that the
       necessary notification requirements of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 have
       not been met.


To reiterate, we the undersigned oppose all aspects of the "Development Permit (Material

Change of Use" MCU12/0047.




                                                ~a4),,~
                                                                      14/OC!2/)/2---
Owners of Lot 12 (Unit 112) BUP 2550 Jacaranda Apartments
43 Goolman Street
Chapel Hill, Brisbane
Qld 4069




                                            6