Mason Green - Piara Waters

[SaberX]

Rep claimed none. By law would the council require the developers contract to state BAL or noise clauses due to fire or jandakot airport? Or are there cases of no such clauses and owners eventually finding the noise levels quite unsettlin?

Do most people pay to get an independent expert for noise or soil or any other assessments? Because how would one get time to assess given lots preferences such as mine in given to sunday to decide on?

 

[Aaron Sice]

Tano - seriously mate - that's some tops advice you're handing out there. Kudos to you.

I don't think there's any BAL over Piara Waters and you're definitely not inside any ANEF contours.

What's the zoning? If it's R40, then Lot 2 is the standout for me - you are allowed to add back in 20sqm for a truncation, that makes the lot 440sqm for subdivision purposes - so a duplex. But, something tells me it's not - more like R25 or R30.

SaberX - I have sent you a PM.

 

[Tano]

Thanks Aaron. Just trying to give back to the forum for all those years of help from other members.

You already seem to have quite a bit of knowledge and are very thorough in your research. I will see if i can answer the others questions soon

--
If you settle on the land first: 295k would prob be 306k after settlement and stamp duty. 80% (LVR) of 306k = 245k loan and 61k equity (or deposit). Then its 80% of the construction value, 80% x 200 = 160k loan and 40k more equity (If the land value has increased you can use some of that value as equity) <-Someone might have to check these calculations.

No holding costs, just drawdown staged payments.

Im guessing its about 6- 8 months to hand over from slab down, maybe up to 12 months from when you sign the contract. I signed 2nd Sept and hand over is mid april. Bricklayers are in high demand so prices rise and delays increase. Alot of people went back home (O/S or interstate) after the mining boom.

I dont think pre approval means much, just ensure you have roughly the equity needed and can afford the repayments then make your offer subject to finance.

Attached is a LMI graph another forum member created. It may be useful.

 

[boeman]

2)Flat lots themselves-> If you have a corner block with a retaining wall >0.5m ? i think builders may charge an extra fee since they are working at elevated heights.

If there is sufficient (900mm to 1200mm) room for the bricklayers at ground level to work between them and the boundary it is fine.

Fall has to be 1m or greater to warrant a handrail.

HOWEVER, if your roofline is 1m or less from this boundary and the height from the footpath (not your FFL within your property) to your gutters is 3m or greater you will need roofsafe (roof handrail) for the roof tilers/roof plumbers. So your 28c external brickwork (2400mm high) + 600mm retaining will put you into this category.

Doesn't cost the earth, but if it suddenly applies to one entire elevation the builder will hit you up for cost + margin. Couple of thousand dollars there to be wary of.

 

[SaberX]

Thanks Tano - some great advice. I am in a rush to get out to see the builders today so Will comment further when I have time.

Currently the planning process still appears in draft approval with the council hence I cannot get any easements noted on the stage plans... I think the contract as attached in my post #6, state a clause that these easements can be added in between now and after settlement - is it normal for these catch all clauses to be included? Obviously I don't want any whopping big easements hitting the lot.

I would appreciate some thoughts from members by tonight (as I need to make a decision) - but I am tossing up between lot 16 and lot 9 now.

These are : lot 16 - 398 sqm ($295k), and lot 9 (351 sqm - $275k).

In post #6 above I attached the contract, page 13 has the stage 1 layout, page 22 - the zoning, page 23 - local development plan provisions and page 25 shows the whole master plan estate. From page 25 you can clearly see that lot 16 faces the western boundary (page 25 is flipped in orientation, so northern direction boundary on page 25 is actually western boundary when you look at the actual stage 1 plan on page 13). While the intention is that the empty land across from lot 16 will be developed, you can see this clearly runs down the side of the whole estate. WIll this potentially attract hoons, traffic flow problems, or generally make lot 16 less desireable in the future? Or if another estate springs up across from this, the chances are another grid like traffice flow in this area? The worry is of course can someone build a commercial property or back loaded garage facing opposite your lot, given that land could be developed by another developer going forward?

I had also attached in post #19 the seperated price list and stage 1 dimensions/lot diagram.

Would appreciate some thoughts really. Lot 9 was an alternative as it is tucked away in that side "T" street.... unfortunately 350 sqm seems abit odd and small compared to 375sqm blocks. However living space wise when you can build 60% it works out to be 210 sqm max. Versus lot 16's 398 sqm * 55% = 218.9 sqm.

Obviously lot 6 as per dimensions show 12.5 m frontage, versus 15 m frontage on lot 6... but the price difference is 20k... and one faces east (9) and one west (16). I know most would prefer south or north facing blocks....

GIven these facts... could someone please give their detailed advice/analysis of which block they would choose given the circumstances, pricing, and dimensions (for future flexibility in building costs and choice?).

I have both lots on hold... but I have to make a decision by tonight.... I think without knowing where easements would go, you woudl be less likely to get a big pipe on lot 9, whereas lot 16 being a long road pending development across the road, would more likely indicate any big easements/utilities?

I could be wrong... first time buyer - so any and every personal opinion would be great.

Intention to basically make money own the road, if not live in it. I'm kind of covering as much flexibility as possible. Considering giving up the free landscaping and reticulation option if it means just holding and paying off the land as one thought was this area will be awash with supply for the next few years.

Thanks guys.

 

[SaberX]

I might also add lot 9 is 12.5 m frontage but has identical sides. Lot 16 has one slightly longer side. Does this add much to building costs or lack of flexibility?

Gemmill homes - the advice i got there was a smaller 375sqm block with the same living area would rent just as well as a 398 sqm block with the same living area given the increase building ratio % required.

WHile lot 9 is 351 sqm... the living area as noted above is nearly identical.

Just don't have the experience to make a decision on whether a) the side "T" street adds to lot 9's appeal versus lot 16 potentially being on a long road, subject to an estate being built across from it and traffic control being put in place.

b) whether more capital return can be made on a cheaper purchase like lot 9, as many new home buyers in the future will look for a smaller lot with less grass (lot 9) versus a larger lot, with similar living space but a perceived larger look given larger frontage of 15m, and more grass?

Am i the only one who prescribes more visual value to a larger frontage, more grass block? Or do buyers really prefer the lot 9 as they can perceive the living area to be just as big as lot 16s, albeit at a cheaper overall cost (given my initial costs will be $20k cheaper for the land).

Sorry to make you all my personal advisers. Have to make a decision by tonight and I am really just relying on the help of members here.

If all would be so kind.. i promise to continue my research and give back down the track! Cheers.

 

[Tano]

I would be working out the $/sqm but i dont think you need that extra land. You want to build approx the same size house as everyone else is building. Dont build a monster 4x2 or 2 storey (overcapitalise) or build a tiny 3x2 if no one else is doing it.

There will be no easements ( i think). Usually only utility companies (Water corp, atco gas , wp) may add an easement but this is before the block has been titled (done ages ago). The only easement is maybe council light poles etc (Page 13) but for laneway blocks.

Im confused with the plans on Page 13 and 22 . Which is Lot 9 and 16.

The T street will only be a problem if you house is at the T and a car can come flying through your house if it doesnt make the turn.

12.5m frontage is great. If you go 15m frontage then there will be alot more front yard (Due to 3m setbacks) and less backyard compared to smaller frontage.

The 8m2 is the size of a study and i dont think anyone would notice 8m2 missing if they inspected both houses. If renting then what is the demographic ? eg How many rooms do they need and would they like a larger backyard and nicer house then a 210m2 house with a smaller backyard?

Without doing any research i prob would have selected lot 9 and put a very nice 3x2 + threatre or 4x2 (prob 170sqm max) and then a kick *** alfresco. Something like this but smaller

About 70% of rentals in Piara Waters were for 4x2's with an average rent of $510/week

Income:
Rental Income at 510/week = 25,500 (assuming 2 weeks vacancy)

Expenses:
475k loan = 24k a year
PM fees = 3300 assuming 9% with 2 weeks letting fee
Council Rates, 1500
Water Rates , 1200
Insurance 800
Repairs 1000
Depreciation report 500
==$32,200

Loss of =8k a year (maybe zero loss after you add back your depreciation) but you still have to factor in holding costs. You will be paying the loan for the land and the progressive payments for the build whilst earning no rental income.

Building the max 210sqm will cost a lot and leave you more negative geared. Save some money and make the smaller house stand out (better elevation and nicer fittings).

 

[Tano]

When looking for a builder please make sure G3mmill is not included. Out of the majors i think Ventura ID , Ross North and Aveling are ok. Colliers is a cheap (low end) builder and Red Ink quality is slipping.

If you hold the land with no intention to build in the near future then loan interest payments are not tax deductible.

 

[SaberX]

Tano.IM out now so will msg a further response when home but go with page 13. The page 22 where zoning is ia incorrect numbering. Go with the stage 1 plan numbering.

Why no g3mill? I had a productive convo with a sales guy Brad at aveling which really struct me. ClAimed to be a designer for 10 yrs and selling for last 6 months. His design experience thought the 15 m frontage lot 16 would build for cheaper with a more square wide design. Versus lot 9 which with a 12.5 m frontage he reckoned would cost more due To the longer cavity walls to make it stretch.

Given both lots have similar living size maximums, wouldn't the 398 sqm allow a more square bbackyard grass where one could do a large alfresco that doesn't count towards living area? Versus the narrower lot you could get similar living spaces but less grass and area to bring out and alfresco.

Would buyers or rentera though be more geared towards a wide lot with a perceived larger feel? Not to mention is the the designer from aveling right regarding the building costs being cheaper on the wider frontage lot. They dogs have a fair few lots designs that for 15 m frontagea. He also spent a good hr just talking to me about materials and educating me. Whether this is part of the sales process i dont know but i thought he was trying to be more objective in which lot size he thought building suited Better.

However he reckoned the extra land size for lot 16 would be the true value in years to come and not just the building. So he reckoned the 295k was More worth it than saving 20k.

Be curious to see your thoughts. I did like the front elevations and designa on avelings pics. The prices seemed around 175-190k which seemed decent?


I went into ideal homes and the lady thought the opposite so I'm quite confused. Although arguably the aveling guy comes from a 10 yr designing back ground. Previously ross grifiths.

Id really like your opinion on the actual location of street as thats what's really nagging me. Lot 9 tucked away in its "T" side street. With lot 16 on one long western boundary line road with as yet undecided land across it. Assumedly it will be residential urban but still it's an unknown. Would lot 16 have less future value being on a more main roaD? Not by wharton Road Standards but for the estate?? Or is the street location between the two negligible. Thanks

 

[Tano]

However he reckoned the extra land size for lot 16 would be the true value in years to come and not just the building. So he reckoned the 295k was More worth it than saving 20k.

Very true, whats 20k now for ~50sqm of land? It would be worth a multiple more in 10-15 years. But if i saved 20k then i could afford another deposit sooner and be ahead.

Yes Alfresco does not count towards living area but there is a limit to how big you can make it (2/3 of outdoor area must be uncovered)

If the road on Lot 16 looks like it may be a 2 lane road (now or in the near future) then you will want the quieter rd for Lot 9. I presume the area owned privately will be developed one day and should affect mostly everyone at Mason Green the same.

I didnt know that a 12.5m would be more expensive than a 15m wide frontage unless the narrower lot used zero lot walls. The larger lot should be bigger alfresco/outdoor but then again your paying extra for it. Both are good choices but if its cheaper to build on 15m then go for Lot 16.

I had alot of delays, lies, excuses when using G3mmill but maybe i was the only one.

Not sure about how buyers/renters percieve wider lots (unless the lots are very narrow eg 10m or less) . I know front elevations and quality of fittings will help you. Maybe someone else can chime in.

 

[SaberX]

Hi Tano,

REplying to your other big msg currently in another post.

My idea was perhaps get an offset loan out... chuck as much as i can close to 100k in it ( don't know if theres a restriction on how fast you can offset/repay off your loan - i plan to demolish it so this would be essential to me) and then I can withdraw amounts from the offset to make another deposit on land down the track....

The page 22 or something confusing you from the overall contract.. that shows the whole local development plan... basically lot 16 sits at the western boundary as indicated in stage 1's release in that top left corner... if you were to copy the whole estate and plonk it opposite lot 16 then that's the equivalent land empty. It's like they took a whole block of area, cut it in half from north to south, then took the far right portion and cut that in half from west to east...essentailly becoming 4 quarters. This is the top right quarter...

Opposite lot 16 would be the other top left quarter.. and hence why I said given its' such a long road smack down the middle, I would assume it makes sense for any future developers to make this a dual lane way.. it wont be a "Main" road like wharton road or wright road.. but certainly it will be one of the more main ones to get out of the whole grid area if this eventually gets developed.

When it doesnt it will be a single lane on the edge of the boundary... haha perhaps i could get out before development occurs!

Well the "idea" i got told was a 10 x 10 m building is perimiter wise less (wall cavity) than a 20 x 5m setup. Both have 100 sqm space. So this mirrors the wider but short, vs longer and narrow lot (lot 16 vs lot 9). So by that, Aveling argued that it's about $600 or so a metre if I recall for the extra wall cavity... At a bigger house it would be a big difference.. not sure if I'm overthinking it on lot sizes this small.


That said I was also considering lot 9 having no footpath.. likely 3.5 m setbacks (4.5 m with footpaths like lot 16), and the fact that to maximise an alfresco you need more garden/open area at the back... again you said 2/3 uncovered open area... should be fine as say a 398 m2 x 45% open space = 179 m2 of open space. 1/3 of that is a 60m2 alfresco.. which would be humungous. Most of the designs Ii've seen are 3 or 4 or 5 metres by the same amount... indicating 20-25 m2 at most. So even if I bumped it up to 35....

But anyway... do you think I am going about this the wrong way in considering setbacks from the front working better for the narrow block? Or should I just place faith in the honesty of the Aveling guy whose comments were to go the more flexible 15m frontage and maximise wider, bigger open spaces?

Frankly the decision hinges on this:

Would wide, more open fatter spaces, with a slightly larger open areas, and a more wider appealing front, costing 20k more for the land, but being on the road that it is on (potential dual way estate artery if the whole surroundings get built up) be more overcapitalised than going for a 20k cheaper, narrow lot (potentially more exp to build), with less open spaces and more of a narrow walkway type style (as all 12.5 m homes) where bedrooms are sloted in the sides as you walk down the main hall??

I think you would probably be able to tell me which would wring out more money down the track... the display homes I went with 15m frontages had wide open kitchen-dining-entertainment/lounge areas that wow'ed me.. but would families or those looking to buy in such an area even care? I asssume for 20k more + my profit margin in x years, they'd rather the smaller, more narrow cramped feeling lot?

Thoughts?? Feels like I've listed two or so different alternatives, but with no industry or life experience to tell me which is more right

 

[SaberX]

Hi Tano,

Home now... thought id' reply to your post... probably have a few more hours before i have to plug back a decision to them, so hopefully you will see this before then!

Aveling homes guy reckoned that new developments these days run the major easements that used to impede into your backyard blocks such as the major sewage pipes etc down the road side now.... his comments were lot 12,13,11 and 10 which surround the back of lot 16 are essentially zig zag, the cost of zig zagging a pipe through the backs of all of these would be inefficient and he'd be surprised if they ran everything straight down the back of lots 9 and 16 as you'd cut right through poor lot 13 on the bottom end.....

Interesting insight from a designer pov... and I don't have the experience to know whether to trust him.. but he did speak highly ovf Aveling yet provided all he knew about materials, what they use, seemed accountable and clear... and generally mentioned costs, what he was doing for other clients.. and answered me like he was my personal financial adviser (about all my design related queries, what he thought about each lot, possible of easements etc). Might be getting smooth talked... haha. don't know.

T street - wasn't worried about the car going straight through (lot 111, poor guy). What i meant by the T street is the street that turns off the east-west street at the top of the stage plan (Mason road - the main street) to access these houses such as lot 9, would only be used by a select few.

Again the consideration of lot 16 where it could potentially be a long street.... versus lot 9's tucked away, not worrying about parking on the street etc.

Good maths, that's sort of why I figured buying and holding the land might be a better option... I see what you're saying about get a smaller 3 x 2, allow for a bigger kickass kitchen, family room/dining area etc... tbh I went into Aveling's today and the 15 m frontage gave it a nice wide look. Inside the dining and island kitchen bench top, entertainment area made it look so much more grande... so my worry with the 12.5 m frontage is even with a 3x 2 i assume you would need to have a narrow "tunnel vision corridor walkway" style house.. than walking into more open living area... i know with the new house paros chose that we are moving into in canningvale (sadly leaving willetton - a bad choice transport wise if you ask me!!) the open living space area hit them as why they wanted to buy versus all the other 375 m2 properties and around that they viewed. This just "felt" more spacious. Low maintenance garden.

By that account I understand your "setback" thinking with a 12.5 m frontage.. you waste 3.5 m * 12.5m in space for front lawn vs say 3.5s 15... Just not sure without doing the maths if you could still get away with a kick *** alfresco, and max your living space with the 15m frontage as it still has that much room to build on...

My idea: 15m frontage: setback of 3.5m to garage x 15 m = 52.5 grass. Maximising living space to say 215m2 (incl. garage).

398 - 215m2 = 183 m2 in open air space. 1/3 max of it being covered leaves a 60 m2 alfresco - probably close enough to that awesome picture you posted!!

Then again... all diagrams i've seen show a small afresco in the corner so somehow physically maybe mathematics vs practicality..... hmmm :/

But you did mention 70% of rentals being 4 x 2's.. which makes me wonder how to decide between a 4x 2 on the 15m frontage, versus a 3x 2 on the 12.5 m2 frontage (you could go 4x 2 but i assume it would look squishy? without the open spaces in dining, kitchen and entertainment area to appeal)?

Do you reckon most families or demographics likely to rent don't give a rats *** about gardens these days? Just a decent living area and alfresco to entertain, bbq etc?

 

[Aaron Sice]

Council rates in Armadale are closer to 2300pa - more than I was paying in Burns Beach.

 

[Tano]

I usually build 4x2 rentals (with threatre) <=180sqm (house+garage+store) and they rent well.

That said I was also considering lot 9 having no footpath.. likely 3.5 m setbacks (4.5 m with footpaths like lot 16), and the fact that to maximise an alfresco you need more garden/open area at the back... again you said 2/3 uncovered open area... should be fine as say a 398 m2 x 45% open space = 179 m2 of open space. 1/3 of that is a 60m2 alfresco.. which would be humungous. Most of the designs Ii've seen are 3 or 4 or 5 metres by the same amount... indicating 20-25 m2 at most. So even if I bumped it up to 35....

You must remember you have 1 or 1.5m space running down each side of the house and another 1.5m running down the back (if you build part of it to the rear boundary) that is wasted space and cannot be included in your 2/3 calculation

 

[westminster]

I usually build 4x2 rentals (with threatre) <=180sqm (house+garage+store) and they rent well.

You must remember you have 1 or 1.5m space running down each side of the house and another 1.5m running down the back (if you build part of it to the rear boundary) that is wasted space and cannot be included in your 2/3 calculation

On the flipside (and sorry I'm late to the conversation) but building with these side setbacks is cheaper than building onto the boundary (zero lot walls) with a narrower lot.

Building on narrower lots (sub 10m) often requires building onto boundary and those walls need to be fireproofed etc which costs money.

Building on a wider block with 1-1.5m setbacks down the sides creates more light into the house, no fireproofing and the setback land does count to the site coverage %.

There is a fine line between how best to use each block and it is hard to determine that until you see designs placed on the block.

In the mean time carefully look at what beneficial special allowances the subdivision may have via DAP and Estate Design Guidelines. For example the block may be a R25 but the developer has permission from WA Planning commission and Council to have a reduced setback so that not so you can then increase the useable private space in the rear OR it may allow more site coverage than normally allowed for that R Code.

As to price, you need to factor in full turnkey costs. So the house might be advertised as $180k but then you need to add site costs, floor coverings, air con, landscaping, paving, window treatments etc etc and these all add up.

 

[SaberX]

Crikey God hopes rates arent daylight robbery. Arent they merging with Shire of serpentine etc? Economies of scale?

Tano - is that 180m2 inclusive of garage?? Including garage i was thinking of maximising space to 210-220 take depending on lot 16 vs 9... But obviously the fences and yard would be minimal on lot 9 by maximising living space to match lot 16.

You may be right and by building that big of a house (smaller 4x2) i could be saving 20k on land and going the narrower lot 9. What bugs me about property vs shares is you don't have many shots to 'try' and learn from experience. I had to make a decision this morning so they could release lot 9 as someone was looking at it. But even now i keep wondering if the narrow block despite higher building costs if you went the same living area as lot16... You could get away with a smaller building, cheaper overall cost (rather than per building sqm) and achieve a better %rent or future resale return.

Likewise now i wont know if the potential bigger Street will impact rent or resale value of lot16 than had i gone the tucked away Street with lot 9. Perhaps wider 15m frontage and nice inclines will appeal less cramped In comparison to 75% of new blocks that are now small frontage. I'll never know!

Thinking i could pick up a 350-375 small block later stages or when the surround land is developed to test this... But obviously you'd be at mercy of the same neighbourhood....

Or u go across the divide to calleya when the northern estate begins development....

 

[SaberX]

I might add - correct me if im wrong given this is a stage 1 subscriber release and not publicly advertised until next week... - But one thing my brother didn't like was qube didnt seem to have anythinf about it or going for the estate. Obviously stocklands calleya, satterlys heron park etc, all had a vast tract of info on intended community, facilities, potential infrastructures, and even grabbing my dad's old heron park pricing lists they show all possible lighting, utilities fixtures etc. Contrast mason green which cant state easements or the like... Which others such as myself are signing up for now...

Are stage 1 usually like these or is it being rushed out and hence draft approval of the local development plan means scant other details on lots? or have qube always been low profile about adverting themselves or their projects?

Supposedly hammond rise in hammond park and brookley east in brookley are there most recent projects. Has anyone had or heard any experience re their past development work?

 

[Tano]

On the flipside (and sorry I'm late to the conversation) but building with these side setbacks is cheaper than building onto the boundary (zero lot walls) with a narrower lot.

Building on narrower lots (sub 10m) often requires building onto boundary and those walls need to be fireproofed etc which costs money.

Building on a wider block with 1-1.5m setbacks down the sides creates more light into the house, no fireproofing and the setback land does count to the site coverage %.

The 2 lots are either 12.5m frontage or 15m frontage. I think a 12,5m frontage (10m wide house with no zero lot walls) will be okay but the 15m may give a better design but the land costs 20k more. This is something you have to decide if its worth the upgrade

180sqm includes garage. Go through some display homes that are about 180sqm and see if they feel okay. Im thinking 180sqm turnkey on a flat block is about 200k, but maybe 230-240k for a 220sqm 4x2.

 

[westminster]

12.5m is massively awesome

I'd go for non Main Street block.

 

[SaberX]

The 2 lots are either 12.5m frontage or 15m frontage. I think a 12,5m frontage (10m wide house with no zero lot walls) will be okay but the 15m may give a better design but the land costs 20k more. This is something you have to decide if its worth the upgrade

180sqm includes garage. Go through some display homes that are about 180sqm and see if they feel okay. Im thinking 180sqm turnkey on a flat block is about 200k, but maybe 230-240k for a 220sqm 4x2.

That much for a larger 4x2? I guess that's the issue. I went into the discussions asking about costs of a similar sized 15 frontage vs the smaller12.5m lot and obviously the 15 m frontage worked out better.

Like you said though if going with the 12.5m block perhaps you wouldnt even have to build as big of a living area to maximise its site coverage ratio. In which case you land cost plus build costs may be even less more than 20-25k diff.

Fundamentally do larger 15m frontage sized lots appreciate in capital and rental yield overall in comparison to the smaller 12.5m lots?

How would it throw a cat amongst the pidgeons if i suggested lot 22? A few lots above 16... 375 sqm so has 12.5 m frontage still as lot 9 but the full 30 m depth.

Of course this would now be on the same street as lot 16 and not tucked away. And the footpath increases the garage setback from 3.5 to 4.5m as opposed to lot 9...

Wish i could see what the possibility of getting a diff lot in future stages would be. Guess im torn between in my heart as to whether ill end up saving this to build my own home one day or all im really after is a money.making machine for investmenT..

Tano i cant see some smaller 12.5m blocks display homes in time by this weekend... Some advice is to wait for the next public release stage and now normal block shapes I'm now happy with. But ideally builders mentioned between stages costs rise up to 9% for the same lot size. Is this true?

That and you don't know potential public demand and if you'll succeed in getting a lot again hmmm... So many tough choices!