no.
nothing is a foregone conclusion until the Government Gazette is released.
no mergers are likely.
First IP - looking at Forrestfield WA
- Thread starter nevernotspurs
- Start date
no.
nothing is a foregone conclusion until the Government Gazette is released.
no mergers are likely.
.... "pro development" meaning "as long as you comply with 5.7.3 of the TPS".
note the 'and' at the end of every sub-clause - not "and/or", "or" etc.
must comply with each and every clause.
Aaron, are these conditions or have you taken this from another specific shire? Is this from Kalamunda?
They are from the Belmont LPS. These provisions only apply to flexible coded lots. My lot in City of Belmont is R20/40, so if I want to go above R20, I need to comply with all the relevant provisions. Note that not all apply. For example, (h) (j) (k) don't apply to my lot because it is not adjacent to POS, the dwellings won't be adjacent and it is not a corner lot.
Makes sense. This is what I've asked for from the Shire of Kalamunda regarding the lots zoned R20/R30...
most lots with development potential in Belmont are split coded - R20/40 and R20/50/100 the most common of those.
it seems only the draft local housing strategy mentions R20/30 - pretty much 2 years old today.
is the lot you are looking at CURRENTLY R20/30, or R20?
R20/30 is the bright green area in the DLHS.
the DLHS is investigating how to allow the upcode, what criteria is required etc.
probably min frontage and certain other access / height issues.
so really, speculating at best. you may have a lot codes R20/30, but it may never come to pass for your lot individually.
this is why buying in areas "earmarked" for upcodings is always a speculative punt. legislation is not legislation until it is passed.
Attachments
okay cool - adopted March last year.
can't find a policy in place just yet - these are "guidelines" inside a statement of intent.
http://online.planning.wa.gov.au/LP...(Scheme 3)/Map 03 - Forrestfield Locality.pdf
^^^ when the change shows up here it will be ratified.
can't find a policy in place just yet - these are "guidelines" inside a statement of intent.
http://online.planning.wa.gov.au/LP...(Scheme 3)/Map 03 - Forrestfield Locality.pdf
^^^ when the change shows up here it will be ratified.
Thanks HD. I am thinking more a couple years away when I would actually develop the property. At this time I'd just purchase the property and rent it. I'm just trying to make sure the place I buy has the potential to retain and subdivide.
No probs. I think you will need to leave 1m clearance between the eaves at the back of the property and your new boundary so its less than 340sqm. Aaron, MTR or Westminster can confirm. See Aus Building Codes "3.7.1.7 Allowable encroachments". Its free online.
I also started with these retain and develop blocks but i waited 6 years for the right time. This was a bad idea as i was negative geared and also since i choose to build after 6 years then i missed out on potential rent and i paid an extra 40k to build the same house.
1.5m from the rear of the house wall - odds are there's a habitable room window along the back there.
3.7.1.7 must relate to the BCA - now the NCC. Will have to find the new clause.
3.7.1.7 must relate to the BCA - now the NCC. Will have to find the new clause.
What do you mean by this Aaron?
your boundary must be 1.0m from the rear of the house (if no bedroom / living room windows in the wall OR wall is under 9m long) or 1.5m from the rear of the house (opposite of previous criteria).
allowable encroachments is covered in the new National Code of Construction (NCC) now, not the superseded Building Code of Australia (BCA).
and it's STILL clause 3.7.1.7 !!! lol.
allowable encroachments is covered in the new National Code of Construction (NCC) now, not the superseded Building Code of Australia (BCA).
and it's STILL clause 3.7.1.7 !!! lol.
Yeah, you'd definitely assume there's a window for a bedroom at least on the back wall.
Here's an email I got from the Shire of Kalamunda's planning Coordinator.
I queried what would conditions would need to be met to obtain the higher density coding when there is split coding as well what stage they're at with the new strategy;
Yes, the strategy has been adopted, but the new zonings and codings have yet to be implemented. We have a had a consultant undertake some research on the new provisions to be placed in our Local Planning Scheme and to write up some planning policies. Because we intend to introduce ?split codings? our Planning Scheme does not currently have appropriate provisions to deal with how this should work. Unfortunately there has been a delay in getting all this finalised, but we hope to get something up to Council in the next month or two to start the process in getting the densities changed as per the strategy.
I have attached an extract from the Residential Design Codes, which sets out the minimum and average lot area in each of the densities. You will need to read this in conjunction with the new Planning Scheme provisions and policies as the current thought is to achieve the higher of the split codings, there is likely to be some performance criteria a subdivider or developer would need to achieve. In other words the higher density won?t necessarily be ?as of right?.
I queried what would conditions would need to be met to obtain the higher density coding when there is split coding as well what stage they're at with the new strategy;
Yes, the strategy has been adopted, but the new zonings and codings have yet to be implemented. We have a had a consultant undertake some research on the new provisions to be placed in our Local Planning Scheme and to write up some planning policies. Because we intend to introduce ?split codings? our Planning Scheme does not currently have appropriate provisions to deal with how this should work. Unfortunately there has been a delay in getting all this finalised, but we hope to get something up to Council in the next month or two to start the process in getting the densities changed as per the strategy.
I have attached an extract from the Residential Design Codes, which sets out the minimum and average lot area in each of the densities. You will need to read this in conjunction with the new Planning Scheme provisions and policies as the current thought is to achieve the higher of the split codings, there is likely to be some performance criteria a subdivider or developer would need to achieve. In other words the higher density won?t necessarily be ?as of right?.
Unbelievable isn't it
? From what the email says they just haven't decided on the conditions.
But why choose a split density then?
Normally they know they want it for a reason - to retain existing homes, to ensure it has adequate frontages, to increase 2 storey homes, to only have it on corner lot etc etc
So they go create the rules, then decide where that density is most relevant.
Just seems backwards to assign it to an area but not know what those conditions are.
they have a policy that allows them to implement it.
they haven't done it yet because they want some conditions for approving the higher density.
sounds pretty normal to me - from a policy point of view.
they haven't done it yet because they want some conditions for approving the higher density.
sounds pretty normal to me - from a policy point of view.
