Mason Green - Piara Waters

Why does the footpath increase the setback? All setbacks are from the site boundary (above the verge)

I think a 12.5m frontage will grow as fast as a 15.

A 12.5 x 30 would be a good block in any estate. But if you have the extra money then a bigger block will work well too.

At the end of the day a good block can be ruined by an awful design.

My favourite picks for the estate would be 107-113 as that are on the short road. They aren't the best in terms of North facing but that can be designed around. Out of those I then strike off 113 as it has 2 neighbours, then take off the 10m wide ones. Leaving 107, 110, 111 or 112. For the $10k price difference I'd then pick 107
 
Westminster, the contract attached a few posts back up (post #6 i think i referred to it) - the second last page or whatever has the local development plan's provisions... and the 4.5m rule from footpath to garage door is specified on there.... the garage also has to be 0.5 m behind the main building design... i.e. not one of those designs where the garage is slightly forward more.

Unfortunately 107 is sold, 108 on hold, 109 (greyed out as it's a builder allocated h & l, which I think ruined many good lots that are on that middle row of lots such as lot 11, lot 39, lot 38 etc) , 111 is avialable but at a T junction I don't see how this will appeal for renters or resale given the connations, 112 and 113 were also on hold...

The fact that lot 9 is not a normal 12.5 x 30, it's actually 12.5 x 28.06 do you think this would lead you to go with lot 16 ... with the more squarish shape (15.53 one side, 27.53 the other, flat 15m at the back, 15.13 m at frontage due to the longer side). I assume given your principles of good design, this would allow a much better design that gives a feeling of space and breadth than the usual 375m blocks being produced en masse by investors and rented by low maintenace people?

Therefore you'd be taking the contrarian view of being one of the fewer 15m frontages with open spaces and some garden at the back for the kids.... I don't know if renters that dislike garden and are keen for a reduced rental price in return for narrower, more cramped lots/feelings outnumber those that would like the wider, more open space lot 16.

Also to burst my bubble, one user did point out that my idea of a grand large alfresco outside to make use of the larger lot and cheat in terms of allowable living space.. would be useless as renters wouldn't want to furnish/use it anyhow given they'd only be there for a short while. Good points.. which makes me second guess going the smaller lot to get a house off the ground cheaper, rented out, and ready to be cashflow positive after i drill the loan down abit.. then hopefully some adjacent stages/land will be out... they'll be more pricey but perhaps then I can get my bigger, 400+ sqm block that I could build open spaces, and potentially live in one day?
 
Between those 2 I'd go for 16 I think.

I don't agree about the alfresco not being important to tenants. I always build with an alfresco at least 3 x 3 so that it can have a dining area and bbq. It doesn't have to be massive though.

I'm not sure if you understood the 2/3rd rules with alfresco. So each zoning has a minimum required private open space. For R25 that is 30sqm and it needs one of it's borders to be at least 4m wide - so for example it can't be 3 x 10m as that is not very useable, it needs to be 5 x 6 or 4 x 7.5m minimum.

Of that private open space you can cover 2/3 of it and that can be your alfresco area.
 
For a block that has North at the front and a good width (ie 107) a design like this is what I'm talking about where it has living areas to the front which you could enclose behind a wall for privacy if you wanted.

http://www.plunketthomes.com.au/house/the-cottesloe-beach

This is not the only one but it's one that I knew of easily

I like that design but if you enclose the front then how do you get around the Street Survellience rule?

images
 
I like that design but if you enclose the front then how do you get around the Street Survellience rule?

images

Same as a villa with visually permeable fencing - such as slats.

BTW my friend built her dog one of those from an old front loader washing machine door.
 
They look pretty awesome, but i wouldnt want to walk past those things at night with a big scary dog in the yard.

Yes, slats. My brain is a little mush tonight. Thanks
 
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.

Sorry just noticed this old post. TO clarify - yes the setbacks from side do count towards the open space building % required? It appears the local design plan (which seems to be the DAP/Estate Design Guidelines you mentioned) is varied anyway... as speaking to Tano it appears that for a R 25 they go by lot size for site coverage %... with 391m2 and above subject to 55% max build coverage, between i think circa 320-391m2 i think it is 60% max.... which from memory differs and is greater build % than the standard R codes yes?

WIth the full turnkey costs, is there a website or checklist that details a good cost guide as to what is usually required on top of an usually quoted building design and price to get it ready , unfurnished, for a renter? Obviously the landscaping, paving, windows treatment from what you said, but what else could one reaosnably add on this list that has a material dollar value? And is there a reasonable guide to how to cost each item for budget purposes?

You seemed to like the 12.5m frontages... you find adequate side set backs to avoid the boundary wall builds when you have 12.5 m? not too cramped for you? I think the side and back are 1 m setbacks but i have gotten abit confused reading the local design plan to be honest... will check that again this weekend.

I saw you mentioned.. "Of that private open space you can cover 2/3 of it and that can be your alfresco area. "

Well I assume that the private open space can be utilised 2/3 by alfresco provided the alfresco is boundrary by only two permanent walls.... would the temporary railing fixtures/curtains that you can pull to enclose an area void this rule? Or are considered to 'temporary' in nature to do so?

I did notice that lot 108 came back onto the market - thoughts? it is only 300 m2 though.. with 10m frontage... probably 12.5 m was doable but i assume10m frontages you get boundary walls and squishiness... and that 12.5 is the minimum one should go? Do you reckon even if you legally can, that you can build an 'appealing' 4x 2 on a 300m2 block? or would the bare minimum be 350-375 m2 for a 4 x 2?

Out of interest lot 20/21 are just above lot 16... 10k cheaper but you'd bump down to 12.5 m frontage... would you say probably not worth it, and that only lot 9 would have been a good alternative given it's $20k cheaper and in the side road?


They've released stage 2 already this afternoon... again only to VIP users from previously, so not open for general public access. I"ve attached a copy of the price list/stage plan again - any thoughts? Personally I couldn't see anything decent as many seem to be small still... the odd lot (i assume due to nearer to the future park' have bumped up in price relative to the same size lots in stage 1.... Doesn't seem like many 15m frontages.... if they are its 15 x 25 as per lot 105 - what do you think? Do you think the shorter depth for this sort of 15 m frontage works better, or the 15m frontage designs really work well with a deeper lot like 15 x 30... with my current allocated lot i guess im half way between with 25.53 and 27.53, thinking of going with the garage on the opposite side to typical front loaded designs...that way you can use the extra length on one side... and still have the garage set back the 4.5 m required by the LDP from the footpath.. 4.5m sounds an aweful distance... probably have to see it in person..

anyway please see attached stage 2 - any thoughts. or anything worth switching lot 16 for in the new stage? Is north or southern orientation really worth the hype of direction to switch to stage 2? Or negligible with modern advancements in design and insulation/6 star energy ratings etc?

Lot 103 would appeal if i had some spare cash for additional property.. build a small little joint just overlooing the future park... then again maybe 300 m2 and 10 m frontages will make for a more niche renting and may be harder than the money your saving on upfront costs... annoying how a few of the 375 m2 12.5 m frontages that many would be after are again on hold for builders. why do they bother? Why not just release everything to public who im sure would snap it up anyway.. and be much happier rather than builders being able to have the pick of the cream of the crop?

P.S. westminster - just curious why you didn't think that row of lots 107-113 in the stage 1 weren't that crash hot northern orientations?? Care to explain? They're all facing north I thought?
 

Attachments

  • Plan - Stage 2.pdf
    511.3 KB · Views: 62
  • Pricelist - Stage 2.pdf
    468.4 KB · Views: 68
Top