low density block with 3 dwellings
- Thread starter grantwhit
- Start date
Newcastle or Lake Macquarie.
I am trying to do a bit of forward planning for our next ppor. Not too fussed on location but Lake mac would be good to take advantage of the 7k regional relocation grant. I'd also like to find a property with maximum development potential. I've seen a place with 3 dwellings on the one title (still in construction) in a low density zoned area. I'm wondering how this is possible.
Does the lot get subdivided first with the original house on a small lot then a dual occ built on the residual lot?
Ideo I see your in Newcastle, look forward to your comments
I am trying to do a bit of forward planning for our next ppor. Not too fussed on location but Lake mac would be good to take advantage of the 7k regional relocation grant. I'd also like to find a property with maximum development potential. I've seen a place with 3 dwellings on the one title (still in construction) in a low density zoned area. I'm wondering how this is possible.
Does the lot get subdivided first with the original house on a small lot then a dual occ built on the residual lot?
Ideo I see your in Newcastle, look forward to your comments
In Perth we could divide before and then build or build the extra 2 then subdivide after.
My question is why not go for 3 titles? One for the original house and one each for the next 2.
My question is why not go for 3 titles? One for the original house and one each for the next 2.
It is theoretically possible. However, you would have to make sure the new lots met the minimum lot size (or at least only had a minor discrepancy to controls which can be dealt with under a SEPP 1 Objection) to achieve this. It would basically be a combined subdivision/construct DA.
If you are looking at Lake Mac council keep in mind they have just put their Standard Instrument LEP on exhibition.
We've done a short post about it, combining the relevant links
http://thedesignpartnership.com.au/blog/planning/lake-macquarie-draft-lep-dcp-2012/
Mods. If this is not ok to post it, feel free to edit post, and I can put the 5 convoluted posts to the Lake Mac website
They could be older subdivisions.
Or, (quick planning crash course) the developer of the land prepared a State Environmental Planning Policy 1 - Development Standards Objection, in which a consultant planner or other suitable person (architect, surveyor, even knowledgeable layman) can provide a strong argument as to why certain numerical standards should not be applicable to a certain development. This could use arguments based on location, surrounding development, environmental or social impacts, benefit to the community, compliance with other controls, good design, etc etc etc.
If the SEPP 1 is supported Council can vary the development standards for that particular block of land.
But, they are not guaranteed of success in any way, shape or form.
Nope. Not good enough. Council will not support a SEPP 1 based on the "it will make me money" principle.
That makes sense. Without giving too much detail, could you provide an example of senario that has worked for you in the past?
I've heard some councils are harder than others to work with. Would an objection to the SEPP 1 be something that can be harder with some council or is each objection really based on it's own merits? Eg LMCC harder to object to than CCC? Or is the answer to all of this....it depends!
I've heard some councils are harder than others to work with. Would an objection to the SEPP 1 be something that can be harder with some council or is each objection really based on it's own merits? Eg LMCC harder to object to than CCC? Or is the answer to all of this....it depends!
Well... it depends
I've had a number approved in the past.
Some of them are very minor - 100mm height encroachments or 0.055 Floor space Requirement infringement and they are straight forward to get a SEPP 1 approval on. A simple argument around the good design and minimising overshadowing etc is sufficient.
The biggest one I've had approved is getting a boundary adjustment approved in a rural zone. 40ha minimum, two lots of 45ha converted into one lot of 17ha with the other lot being substantially increased in size. That was for 2 brothers one of whom was a chicken farmer and didn't need so much land, the other a dairy farmer that did. That arguement was based on strong principles of suitable use of rural land.
Rural, smaller councils are quite often easier to deal with than metro and suburban councils for these, as the planners there are quite often locals who understand the area rather than career public servants.
But, basically it really does depend on the merits of the individual application.
I've had a number approved in the past.
Some of them are very minor - 100mm height encroachments or 0.055 Floor space Requirement infringement and they are straight forward to get a SEPP 1 approval on. A simple argument around the good design and minimising overshadowing etc is sufficient.
The biggest one I've had approved is getting a boundary adjustment approved in a rural zone. 40ha minimum, two lots of 45ha converted into one lot of 17ha with the other lot being substantially increased in size. That was for 2 brothers one of whom was a chicken farmer and didn't need so much land, the other a dairy farmer that did. That arguement was based on strong principles of suitable use of rural land.
Rural, smaller councils are quite often easier to deal with than metro and suburban councils for these, as the planners there are quite often locals who understand the area rather than career public servants.
But, basically it really does depend on the merits of the individual application.