Post a Comment On: Brisbane Apartment

As reported in a prior post, there was a decision relating to pets in 212 Margaret apartment building in Brisbane. Here is the Decision.It is interesting to read the submissions of some apartment owners who tried to prevent pets in other people's apartments. Maybe we should have a rule that says no children and TVs in their apartments. I have lived in expensive apartments in other cities where most people have pets. Some people in Brisbane are quite backwards! It is also strange that people have argued that there should be no pets because the building is being used (illegally) as a hotel!"Jo Anast, owner of Lot 81, says she would like the possibility of having pets in the scheme and is in favour of the application.Shane Doepel and Shaun Stevens, owners of Lot 31, say that the building is not suitable for housing pets in any circumstances, being a high-density CBD residential development. Most of the units are let as part of a very busy hotel. The scheme only has “modest common areas.” Owners who are buying into the scheme do so knowing that there is a “no pets” policy which in their case influenced their decision to buy.Frank and Marilyn Moes, owners of Lot 61 (unit 1501) say that they purchased because of the “no pets” policy. They do not believe that living in the city is an appropriate environment for animals such as dogs and cats. There are no immediate close areas where a dog can be exercised, and dogs and cats should not be in all day but have a yard to play in and access to fresh air. Mr Moes also has an allergy to animal hair.Rachel Findlay, owner of Lot 23 (unit 805) supports the application, believing it unreasonable to ban all pets. She has lived in CBD buildings which allow pets, and the animals have not been disruptive. In “Aurora” at 420 Queen Street, it is one of the reasons why the units are highly sought after. The body corporate should allow pets within reason such as pets below a certain weight/size.Maria Barnett and Paul Schaller, owners of Lot 121 (unit 2701), say that before purchase they checked that pets were not allowed. He has severe allergies to dog and cat hair and would not be able to use the lifts or foyer if there was animal hair in the carpets. They say that in their experience with tenants, fish tanks can cause damage to carpets, clog drains and leave stains. The building is used as a hotel so a blanket ban on pets in not unreasonable. No matter how well- behaved pets are, they would cause extra work for the management and result in blocked-in balconies which would change the exterior of the building.Verne Baistow, owner of Lot 95 (unit 2203) says that he supports a “no pets policy.” The units are too small to provide adequate room for an animal, and the units are used for hotel accommodation. “No animals are allowed in hotels” so there should not be any animals in the scheme building either. He is also concerned about health issues and noise.Colin Yeoman and Louisa Farthing, owners of Lot 33 (room 1005) say that the registered by-law should remain as it is, since the building is inappropriate for the housing of pets.Christine Torbey, owner of Unit 1801, says that the building is an inappropriate residence for pets, especially dogs and cats. Animals are unpredictable and it is not possible for an owner to control entirely an animal’s behaviour. She says that this is a “standard rule in city apartment blocks generally.”Gregory Firth, owner of Unit 603 says that the scheme should not entertain pets at all."