PlanningAlerts

6 Comments

Create an account or sign in to have your say by adding your own comment.

1. My concern is with the small amount of off street parking for the amount of units because when we built we had to have 2 off street parks per unit and had 3 rejections because council did not think the plans showed we could do that,our street is at most times full of cars parked on the street and even worse when on hot sunny days people going to the pirate park use our street parking.

2. This Development must have more car spaces ...
   Inadequate parking spaces is unacceptable.

3. 1 Building Height
   The current streetscape of Molucca Avenue comprises a mix of residential houses and units. These buildings are all single or double storey, some with pitched rooflines. The proposal significantly exceeds the current building profile heights with no architectural sympathy to relieve the appearance as a rectangular box of 3 floors, and attempting to site usage by exceeding the site coverage and boundary setbacks. The proposal is totally out of character for this streetscape. The height exceedance should not be allowed. This will cause large shaded areas over several adjacent properties.
   The company name, “Kalwun”, and other indigenous artwork should not be allowed as this is not a commercial area NOR is it in line with other buildings outward appearance in the local streets.
   Should Council approve this development it will set a precedent for other developments in similar zoned areas of Palm Beach.
   2 Site Boundary Setbacks
   The proposed development setbacks infringe on adjacent sites’ amenity and the box shape of the building is the worst outcome for neighbours. The architectural for this proposal shows no sympathy for the area and it’s feeling of space.
   3 Site Coverage
   By exceeding the site coverage requirements of the current Town Plan is attempting to maximise floor area.
   4 Vehicle Parking and Driveway
   I note that the design is 2 persons per unit. Council must understand that 8 parking spots for a total of potentially up to 16 vehicles is totally inadequate. Excess cars will park either in allocated visitor bays or on the street. As a long term resident of the area it is almost impossible to find a vacant parking space in Molucca Avenue and nearby streets, and even worse during holiday periods, public holidays and warm weekends and often cars are encroaching on peoples driveways making it near impossible for them to enter/exit. So where will the residents park?
   The survey conducted on the available on-street parking in no way takes into account night time parking, and typically there are no available spaces left in the street.. quite often neighbours have to park in Hawaii Avenue or Luzon Parade.
   Also there are at least 3 less spaces available THAN shown in the survey map due to Council Marked yellow lines, which demonstrates that the actual survey was poorly done OR done from an office chair.
   There will also be a reduction in on street parking due to the larger than normal/standard layback/driveway in this application
   The garbage bin collection point as indicated on the proposal is unworkable due to the fact that there will be vehicles parked there day and night, as is already the case ..the garbage collection truck already has a difficult time operating in our narrow congested street.
   5 Shadow
   The shadow plans show a totally unacceptable overshadowing of adjacent neighbours. The proposed shadowing would preclude the neighbor’s opportunities for energy efficient solar water and a PE system as well as their right to a sunny yard.
   6 Energy Efficient
   The development is not environmentally energy efficient. There should be a resident common garden space, solar hot water and PE, and storm water re-use. Instead it is noncompliance with Council requirements.
   7 Drainage
   The current storm water drainage in Molucca Avenue is totally inadequate as the street frequently floods during heavy rain, (a problem already brought to Councils notification on numerous times)…. The addition of larger roof collection and driveway/parking areas will only compound this further.
   Also of note the proposal states that there are existing 3 storey buildings in the street, THERE are none, of particular, the units across the street are only 2 levels not 3 as indicated.
   The proposal demonstrates the lack of care to detail in ascertaining the correct information regarding property heights, on street parking, storm water drainage and garbage collection.
   I thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal and I hope that my input and those of other concerned ratepayers are given due consideration and a more thoughtful and architecturally suitable development can be put forward instead.

   We object to the current proposal.

4. I believe there are serious issues the impact this proposed build will have on neighbouring properties and the other residents in Molucca Ave that should to be considered and amended before approval is given. The reports are not an accurate reflection of this. As an owner and resident in Molucca Ave my key concerns are as follows;

   1. Parking
   - The building plans show 8 off street parking spaces for residents and 2 off street parking spaces for visitors. In reports state they estimate the number of residents in the building is estimated to be 1.5 per apartment (50% with one occupant and 50% with 2 occupants) amounting to 12 residents, but the potential of 16 residents. If the number of residents exceeds 8 (1 per unit) then our off-street parking will be insufficient. Potentially up to 8 additional cars will need to be parked on the street.
   - Plans show the widening of the current driveway at 7 Molucca Ave which would result in shortening the distance of street space between number 7 and number 9 and making it just 3.87m – too short to fit a car without infringing on driveways and therefore resulting in one less street parking space than we currently have.
   - I question the feasibility of the proposed onsite parking. Diagrams show that cars exiting a car space indicate that it would be a tight squeeze and require precise car manoeuvring to get a car out in one attempt. These diagrams also fail to show how a car would exit from the car space at the back end of the property, don’t seem to take into account side mirrors on cars, and are based on cars the size of a Toyota Camry and not considering any larger sized cars. In our block of units, we have 4 cars (one SUV, one small hatchback, one van and one station wagon) of which only 25% would be able to park in this car park. More needs to be considered here like the fact that the tight space and precise driving manoeuvres required to park in this space could deter residents from parking in there at all and choose to park in the street and that some residents may have larger cars which would not be able to even get in and out of this car park at all.
   - Currently Molucca Ave is consistently full of parked cars. Often cars are parked right up to the street corners because there are no other spaces left for residents to park their cars. I know this because I drive in and out of this street several times a day and experience having to manoeuvre around parked cars with oncoming traffic. I also know that on occasion when I have visitors in the evening they will often need to park in another street because they cannot find a free parking space in Molucca Ave. There is no room in Molucca Ave for additional cars or for the reduction of the number of car spaces we currently have available.
   - The survey for street parking included in this report seems to be inaccurate. I have walked the street and counted car parking spaces several times to be sure – there are maximum 41 available spaces (taking into account that it is illegal to park closer than 10 metres to a street corner) – not 44 as stated in the report – and in reality this number is often reduced due to larger than average sized vehicles or cars not always parking really close to driveways i.e. sometimes a space that could technically fit 3 cars may only take 2 cars if the cars have parked with excess space at the open ends. With this build we would lose one street space for parking leaving us with 40 available street parking spaces. During the day there has been 29-32 cars parked in the street when I have counted, but overnight - between 8pm and 5am - when everyone is usually home from work and activities the car spaces are most full and the survey does not reflect this.
   - Proposed as being built for an elderly community but the building does not contain usual allowances for elderly style larger parking spaces or areas allocated to emergency vehicles.

   2. Building height and design
   - the proposed building has 3 stories. No other building in Molucca Ave or this residential area apart from wider main roads like the Gold Coast Hwy or Sarawak Ave have buildings more that 2 stories. This height would be an eyesore in an otherwise residential looking street.
   - the height squareness of the building and the proposed building would cause excessive and unfair shading over adjacent properties. Specifically, in winter over the property on the south side of the building and the morning sun and light to the three households on the north side of the building. Such significant consequences would likely de-value their properties.
   - the design of the building looks very much like it belongs in a commercial precinct – tall and straight edged, filling the block and marked with company branding. It does not blend in with the housing in the street. The height and style would appear dominant and intrusive. The rendered drawings erase adjacent properties with an imaginary fence which distorts the way the building would actually look in relation to its surroundings.
   - the height of the building combined with its proximity to neighbours on the north side will block the flow of air and ventilation through their properties.

   3. Privacy and increased noise/activity
   I have several serious concerns about a building this size, with this number of residences, being built on this sized block in such close proximity to neighbouring properties and the impact it will have on the lives of 4 households in terms of privacy, noise and significant change to available natural light.
   - Neighbours either side can already hear voices, televisions, cars coming and going, doors opening and closing. There are currently 3 residences on this block. Imagine how much increased noise will be produced from 8 residences – 8 televisions, 8 cars coming and going, 8 sets of doors opening and closing, 8 conversations. This is a significant increase – a 266% increase – which can have a significant impact on the lives of these neighbours as well as the value of their properties. The height the residences will also increase the impact of the sounds travelling.
   - With the proposed building the 3 residences on the north side neighbouring property will have balconies and windows on two levels above them that look straight down into bedroom, bathroom and kitchen windows which infringes on any privacy they have in their homes.
   - Increased noise and therefore disruption to neighbours would be expected from cars coming and going from the property – 10 cars coming and going including driving right down the property in close proximity to neighbours, squealing of car wheels turning on the concrete floor of the car park (particularly when trying to park in the tight spaces).
   - Potential noise from the lift and water drainage pump needs to be considered also
   - There appears to be an acoustic wall and fence on 2 sides of the property (south side and back) but no such consideration given to the north side. I have major concerns about the impact increased noise will have on the 3 properties on this side.

   4. Bins
   The allocation of 2 bins for rubbish and 2 bins for recycling for 8 units and up to 16 people is grossly inadequate. To compare – we currently we have 6 individual bins - 1 x rubbish and 1 x recycle for each unit – which covers 6 people (over 3 households) and we fill those bins most weeks. Rubbish from 8-16 people living the proposed building will require more bins (generally 1 rubbish and 1 recycle bin per household/unit), however there is already a lack of space in this street to place additional bins. I suggest this needs re-thinking.

   Please consider the impact a building of this size containing this many different households will have on the other residents in the Molucca Ave, and in particular the closest neighbouring properties. As a homeowner and resident here I would absolutely love to see an appropriate new build on the site of 7 Molucca Ave but unfortunately the proposed compact, 8 resident building is not either practical or appropriate for this location. Adding 5 additional residences to this street in one block’s build is too much. If everyone in the street did that it would be unworkable.

5. I am writing to you to oppose the current proposed development by Kalwun Developments at 7 Molucca Ave Palm Beach.
   I believe that this complex will be an eye sore in the street and will set a damaging precedent which will allow further development of this type in Molucca Ave which could not be sustained.
   The property lot is clearly too narrow for this type of development and does not meet council City Plan requirements
   I chose to live in this area because it was a family orientate life style which is now being eroded because of these types of developments.
   Over the last twenty years ordinary house blocks have been split and town houses have be approved. This has greatly increasing the pressure on the infrastructure of the street with regards to street parking traffic and storm water runoff to name a few.
   We have a lot of funded housing already in our street and surrounding area and Council must consider that impact
   Kalwun have stated that this development will be for the elderly. This purpose could be changed at any time by Kalwun
   Kalwun have stated that its use for the elderly would lower the need for car parking. Carers parking would be required and at times would exceed the two visitors parking bays and increase street traffic well beyond the estimate mentioned in the development proposal (Kalwun also state that a bus would be used to transport tenants. No provision has been made for this)
   If this development is for the elderly? There are no provisions for disabled parking on site (which would be clearly needed when caring for the elderly).
   There are no dining areas in the Units
   Units appear to not be wheelchair or walker friendly
   820mm doorways, narrow kitchens, non-disability bathrooms, narrow access around beds, no clear access to balconies
   

   The proposal does not comply with council planning requirements in a large number of areas and is inadequate in others. The developer has provided alternatives for these non-compliance issues but I believe these to be inadequate.
   Listed below are some of the issues found in the application (to the best of my knowledge).
   The list below is by no means all of the non-compliance issues this development could have.
   1. Minimum frontage for a multiple dwelling: Non-compliant (20m minimum)
   Actual development frontage is 12.67m
   2. Car parking and bicycle parking: Non-compliant
   Two car bays short of requirements. Bicycle parking using a double stacker set up (not useable for the elderly)
   3. Site Use: Non-compliant.
   Site use is over the council permitted size.
   Developer has quoted other developments that have exceeded site use. These developments are not valid as they all have larger street frontage, two are corner blocks and 1 has no rear neighbour and full beach front access. Therefore are not similar to this development
   4. Building set back requirements: Non-compliant
   Front, rear and side setbacks non-compliant to council requirements
   5. Communal space: non-compliant (22m2 per unit required).
   Next to no communal space provided.
   Developer has quoted two other approved developments which do not meet this requirement however both properties are direct beach front properties and are not similar to this development.
   6. Private open space: Non-compliant
   Minimum open space requirement 8m2.
   Unit Type A =7.98m2, Unit Type B= 6.48m2
   7. Net use site area would be well over 90%
   8. MRV parking for multiple dwelling: Non-compliant
   No MRV parking supplied. Uses street parking as an alternative which is rarely available and in short supply
   9. 10m window intrusion of neighbours: Non-compliant
   This appears to not meet council requirements (no data has been supplied by developer)
   10. No ground floor storage areas for individual units
   11. Shadow Analysis clearly shows that it will greatly impact on neighbouring property
   12. A single cross over is proposed which is 8.5m wide
   13. Provision for disability foot traffic to the main entrance: Non- compliant
   14. Car park lighting
   What lighting is proposed and will this affect neighbours?
   Not all units have clear line of site as required

   Parking survey is flawed
   • Falsely indicates parking bay numbers in Molucca Ave.
   • Yellow no parking lines were not indicated on survey as well as existing real time parking and minimum carpark bay lengths 5.4 m
   • Sight distance assessment is floored as it does not include cars parked in the street
   • There is no street parking in front of property as clearly shown on Geloeon drw no 50394-WS001-A
   • Entry and exit Sweep paths are in inaccurate as they do not allow for cars parked in the street.
   • No sweep path analysis for carpark 8 and visitors
   • New cross over will clearly reduce street parking by one directly in front of complex.
   • Kerbside waste pick up will reduce street parking further
   GCC Councils storm water for this area is highly inadequate at present. This development and further developments will worsen the issues.
   See extract from consultant below
   Stormwater Management Plan Section 3, Attachment 9.
   The proposed stormwater management strategy incorporates provision for attenuation of post development stormwater discharge from the site through the use of an underground detention tank to provide the required 4m3 on-site detention to attenuate and control the discharge of stormwater from the {00440111} March 2020 | Page 7 proposed development due to existing deficiencies in Council’s stormwater drainage network within the catchment.

   Alan Sullivan survey plan attachment 14 site analysis 3.1
   States that there is an existing three story residence opposite the development. This is incorrect there are no three story buildings in this street

   No landscape design view for southern elevation.

   Open carport will show expose under slung Plumbing and be unsightly

   Why is this development not in public development notifications?

   In summery
   This development is clearly unsuitable for this location.
   This is made clear with the amount of non-compliant issues that the developer has encountered.
   I believe that the council “City Plan” regulations are in place for a reason and that they should be followed for the best interest of all Stakeholders.

6. This Development must have more car spaces ...
   Inadequate parking spaces is unacceptable.

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to Gold Coast City Council. They may consider your submission when they decide whether to approve this application. Your name and comment will be posted publicly above.

Create an account or sign in to make a comment