New laws or wacky agent?

[simbi99]

So i just recently made a call about a property in the suburb of Seaford, Melbourne.

This property on first glance looks completely subdivdable, it has easy access to the back yard, the house is positioned at the front on the land and looks to have a sizeable block ( roughly 560-600sqm)

Now i call the agent listed to the property and i ask does the property have the potential to be subdivided? To my surprise she replied with a "No" as she thought seaford or the frankston city council had changed its laws, which now state that block must be 600+sqm to be subdivided now?

i searched and couldn't find anything, has the law been changed or do i need to call back and correct her?

 

[Jamie_]

So i just recently made a call about a property in the suburb of Seaford, Melbourne.

This property on first glance looks completely subdivdable, it has easy access to the back yard, the house is positioned at the front on the land and looks to have a sizeable block ( roughly 560-600sqm)

Now i call the agent listed to the property and i ask does the property have the potential to be subdivided? To my surprise she replied with a "No" as she thought seaford or the frankston city council had changed its laws, which now state that block must be 600+sqm to be subdivided now?

i searched and couldn't find anything, has the law been changed or do i need to call back and correct her?

I'd be confirming with the seaford/frankston city council rather than the agent..

 

[simbi99]

I'd be confirming with the seaford/frankston city council rather than the agent..

Yeah good point, there's no info provided by the council website either

 

[DaveM]

If you ask granddad he can probably tell you.

 

[WattleIdo]

It's been 600sqm for years, hasn't it?
The only one who ever said you could try to get away with less was GD.

 

[westminster]

Melbourne did pass new zonings this year so it may have changed.

Ring council tomorrow and confirm

 

[Bargain Hunter]

The only thing I could find is the following under the Frankston Council planning clauses 56.

Unless the site is constrained by topography or other site conditions, lot distribution should provide for 95 per cent of dwellings to be located no more than 400 metre street walking distance from the nearest existing or proposed bus stop, 600 metres street walking distance from the nearest existing or proposed tram stop and 800 metres street walking distance from the nearest existing or proposed railway station.

Lots of 300 square metres or less in area, lots suitable for the development of two dwellings or more, lots suitable for higher density housing and lots suitable for Residential buildings and Retirement villages should be located in and within 400 metres street walking distance of an activity centre.

http://planningschemes.dpcd.vic.gov.au/schemes/vpps/56_04.pdf

Perhaps the site in question does not meet these requirements, alternately it may sit within a specific overlay which prevents this type of development.

 

[alicudi]

Hi

I have spoken to Frankston City Council many times and whilst I don't believe it is set in stone, Frankston City Council generally like the property to be at least 600sqm before it is subdivided. Of course council has allowed subdivision's to occur in residential parts of the area with smaller sites in the past, in some circumstances I believe sites around 550sqm and slightly upwards have been approved.

If the site is a corner site you may in fact get away with just under 550sqm.

It all depends on a large amount of issues that need to taken into consideration.

Sounds like the agent is going off this way of thinking or they have in fact had another buyer already try to find out this information and then they have relayed it back to the agent.

Regards,

alicudi

 

[simbi99]

I'll call council today and let you know what the outcome is, thanks everyone