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

                                                                                       ~.




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