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

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