Anti Subdivision??

Hi everyone,

I came across an article today which discussed the future implications of residential infill: http://publications.epress.monash.edu/doi/pdf/10.2104/m2050005

It raised some interesting points about the impact of subdivided housing in the future. I would have thought that councils would have wanted to protect their areas, therefore limiting the amount of approvals for subdivisions. However, it seems as though in many areas of Melbourne, it is easy to get a subdivision approved with few restrictions (Only a few restrictions regarding set backs and minimum frontages).

I am planning to buy a property in the east of Melbourne with the intention of subdividing. My search area is very wide, pretty much any suburb around the start of Eastlink, travelling down either side of the freeway as far south as Wheelers Hill / Rowville.

Does anyone know of any councils in Melbourne who are particularly anti-subdivision? Or suburbs in Melbourne's east which are not very well suited to sub-division? (Due to average land size or few local ameneties?) I am trying to narrow my search area a little.

I wonder how sub-division will change the face of our suburbs in the future? It seems like in the future, people who live on traditionally full sized blocks will be sitting on a goldmine, compared to their dual-occupancy neighbours. And once a whole area has been built up in high density, will it's value stagnate or even decline as opportuinties for development decrease in the area? What will happen to the concept of 'The Great Australian Dream'??

The report mentioned that in Japan, people who live in high density dwellings simply move their cars out of their garages, and use that space for entertaining and leisure on weekends in lieu of a backyard!

Would love to hear your thoughts on this one!

Louise
 
I'd aso very mcuh like to know this info as I am turning my attention to Melbourne because they seem to be amenable to dual occs if you have at least 600 sqm. Here in Canberra, dual occ and multi unit is only allowed in very small pockets in suburbs and has virtually been wiped out since the rule change a few years ago.
 
What will happen to the concept of 'The Great Australian Dream'??

Less people will be able to aford it and yet less people will want it because of the younger demographic being happy to reside in higher density environments - closer to the action.

I would have thought that councils would have wanted to protect their areas, therefore limiting the amount of approvals for subdivisions.

Councils realise that infill development must be permitted under planning controls to make use of existing services - and these permits provide (or are, at least, supposed to provide:rolleyes:) extra revenue to improve local amenity

I wonder how sub-division will change the face of our suburbs in the future? It seems like in the future, people who live on traditionally full sized blocks will be sitting on a goldmine, compared to their dual-occupancy neighbours. And once a whole area has been built up in high density, will it's value stagnate or even decline as opportuinties for development decrease in the area?
Louise

With population increasing at such rapid rates infill is the efficient way to deal with the problem - by making use of existing infrastructure (as long as capacity is available)
Values will never really decline over the long term IMO but development opportunities will dry up for small fish.
 
Less people will be able to aford it and yet less people will want it because of the younger demographic being happy to reside in higher density environments - closer to the action.


Fair point, I know that amongst my age group (late twenties) many of my friends who are buying property are preferring to purchase townhouses / apartments that are centrally located for lifestyle reasons - to be close to the city and public transport. They could afford a larger home on the outskirts of town, but choose for the better located, smaller property instead.
 
I think..... (well rarely :) but I do occasionaly have a semi-intelligent thought :) )..... the great Australian dream of 1/4 acre for the kids to run around on is just not needed much anymore.

If Mum is a stay at home Mum..maybe but as a working Mum, I know my kids very rarely saw and used the large yard we had when they were small.
So for us a family room (somewhere for the kids to play away from the adults ) was more important than a big yard. Then when they hit teen years they didn't require a yard either, then larger bedrooms became a priority (space for the electronics :) )
 
the younger demographic being happy to reside in higher density environments - closer to the action.


What qualifies as "action" ?? Having a brew, not in your kitchen or on your patio, but two or three streets along on the footpath 2 feet from vehicles belching carbon monoxide and tooting their horns....sounds mighty attractive and very cosmopolitan.
 
It seems that local councils across Australia are under significant pressure from state and federal government to make land available to service the undersupply of housing we're currently experiencing. A simple way to do this is to allow greater flexibility in "recycling" suburban land for a new generation of housing types.

I know first hand in Victoria that certain parts of just about every municipality are being earmarked for higher densities, to encourage not only townhouses (as would have been the preference only a few years ago) but apartments as well. This is a new way of housing in our suburbs, and the intention seems to be to "load up" the density wherever public transport and other infrastructure exists to support greater density.

There is certainly an opportunity to take advantage of this notional land boom by finding land in the right areas, and being clever about putting together the planning for a higher density outcome for the site. For example you can find land in the designated areas (let's say a standard 700m2 allotment) with an existing house, rent the house whilst making the necessary submissions, then end up with a property (which still has its house) with a TPP/DA for four units or apartments.

It's something like speculating, but the risk is diminished by retaining the existing dwelling as an IP whilst the work is done. You are, in essence, investing in the value of the land by re-defining how that land can be used.
 
Lou Lou

There are still a few areas of Melbourne where you won't find subdivisions in. There is a huge part of Glen Iris on the Eastern side of the freeway around Glen Iris & Somerhill Rd that does not have any subdivisions. Every house is on between 650 & 800 square metres and its good to see the coucil standing there ground as it is good to be able to still drive down a street and not have both sides cramped in with cars. You only have to look at near neighboring suburb to see how out of control it can get, a friend bought in a court with 12 other houses about 9 years ago, 7 of the houses have been allowed for subdivision and you can barely get to the top of his court as it is not wide enough to have cars parked opposite each other and still drive through them.
Jezza
 
What qualifies as "action" ?? Having a brew, not in your kitchen or on your patio, but two or three streets along on the footpath 2 feet from vehicles belching carbon monoxide and tooting their horns....sounds mighty attractive and very cosmopolitan.

You can market anything these days and brainwash most of the population Mr T but you'll never find me in dat dair big smoke.
 
Top