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

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