New WA Residential Design Codes are out! (effective 2nd Aug)

Thanks Westminster for the info

I've had a browse for properties that might be affected by the changes. Came across this...
http://www.realestate.com.au/property-house-wa-bassendean-113919383

Does this mean that you can now retain this front house and build on the back (when previously you couldn't)?

I'm thinking instead of renting when we build, we could buy. We have two big dogs and need a big yard.

In older suburbs they had a 'grandfather clause' where you could get away with 900sqm for a duplex block as the older R codes allowed it, then they increased it to 1000sqm

The upside of these new R Codes is that you only need to carve off 350sqm if this is a R20 block - leaving you a respectable 627.

You could also just do work on that barn and make it a granny flat :)
 
Another big change in my view is that they've made it easier to get a 5% reduction in min/avg site area by changing the word AND in P1.2 5.1.1 to OR:

"facilitate the protection of an environmental or heritage feature;
facilitate the retention of a significant element that contributes toward an existing streetscape worthy of retention;
facilitate the development of lots with separate and sufficient frontage to more than one public street;
overcome a special or unusual limitation on the development of the land imposed by its size, shape or other feature;
allow land to be developed with housing of the same type and form as land in the vicinity and which would not otherwise be able to be developed; or
achieve specific objectives of the local planning framework."


making it much easier to justify a 5% variation to the min/avg site area.
 
Another big change in my view is that they've made it easier to get a 5% reduction in min/avg site area by changing the word AND in P1.2 5.1.1 to OR:

"facilitate the protection of an environmental or heritage feature;
facilitate the retention of a significant element that contributes toward an existing streetscape worthy of retention;
facilitate the development of lots with separate and sufficient frontage to more than one public street;
overcome a special or unusual limitation on the development of the land imposed by its size, shape or other feature;
allow land to be developed with housing of the same type and form as land in the vicinity and which would not otherwise be able to be developed; or
achieve specific objectives of the local planning framework."


making it much easier to justify a 5% variation to the min/avg site area.

Very good point - that could be a huge winner for those on the cusp and needing easier justification.
 
Nope sorry :)
You'll need to still meet the 450 average but with the 350 sqm minimum lot size you can vary the size of your lots if you wanted. But in your case I'd keep them as is around 500sqm each.

The R20 changes are really good for people that want to build behind an existing house as they can then do a 350sqm lot in the rear and 550sqm at the front to cater for the existing house.

in karrinyup, duncraig, greenwood etc the planning commission have been approving all lots at minimum, disregarding average when all lots are street front.

see pascoe, brown for karrinyup and allenswood, blackfriar for the others.

you are on the money as usual, though, the reduced minimums are to facilitate better urban infill scenarios.

Linda, considering your scenario with Ashfield you may be in an interesting situation. I think you a Bayswater from memory? if so, might be worth opening some dialogue with the new planning manager, Helen Smith.

one thing I love about the new RCodes though, is the explanatory guidelines figures form part of the gazetted tables! no interpretation now! yay!
 
Another big change in my view is that they've made it easier to get a 5% reduction in min/avg site area by changing the word AND in P1.2 5.1.1 to OR:

"facilitate the protection of an environmental or heritage feature;
facilitate the retention of a significant element that contributes toward an existing streetscape worthy of retention;
facilitate the development of lots with separate and sufficient frontage to more than one public street;
overcome a special or unusual limitation on the development of the land imposed by its size, shape or other feature;
allow land to be developed with housing of the same type and form as land in the vicinity and which would not otherwise be able to be developed; or
achieve specific objectives of the local planning framework."


making it much easier to justify a 5% variation to the min/avg site area.

I also noticed now you only need a 0.5m step between wall setbacks to claim it as a different wall for setback calcs, previously was 3m! this is just getting better and better!
 
also the fact that min lot sizes are now 100sqm instead f 160sqm is a huge win for affordability, was having this discussion in a previous thread re affordability arguments and FHB product.

expect some 6x20m villa sites around parks now in new subdivisions.
 
5.1.5- for bigger developments that provide communal open space as part of a common property scenario (pool, BBQ area etc) may reduce open space for those lots with direct access to said space by 20% as long as the total deductions do not exceed the provided area and outdoor living area sizes are maintained.

clauses like this are good in Cockburn, joondalup, Armadale, serpentine jarrahdale but totally useless in Wanneroo because of the TPS provisions.
 
in karrinyup, duncraig, greenwood etc the planning commission have been approving all lots at minimum, disregarding average when all lots are street front.

see pascoe, brown for karrinyup and allenswood, blackfriar for the others.

you are on the money as usual, though, the reduced minimums are to facilitate better urban infill scenarios.

Linda, considering your scenario with Ashfield you may be in an interesting situation. I think you a Bayswater from memory? if so, might be worth opening some dialogue with the new planning manager, Helen Smith.

one thing I love about the new RCodes though, is the explanatory guidelines figures form part of the gazetted tables! no interpretation now! yay!
It's Town of Bassendean. Any idea of who to speak to?
And Quoted below from Kent Cliffe on another Ashfield thread, is that included in the ammendment?

Quote:
Originally Posted by INVSTOR
There's no extra zoning for side lane ways is there? I wish!!
Yes there is:
Quote: Kent Cliffe
in the case of a rear battleaxe site, the site
area is inclusive of the access leg provided
that the area of the access leg contributes
no more than 20 per cent of the site area
as required by table 1. Where the lot
(excluding the access leg) adjoins or abuts
a right-of-way or reserve for open space,
pedestrian access, school site or
equivalent, half the width (up to a maximum
depth of two metres) may be added to the
site area.
__________________
We are a full service Buyers’ Agency that specialises in Western Australia.*
linkedin: http://au.linkedin.com/in/kentcliffe
 
a battleaxe lot is technically one not served by CP driveway.

the definition is cleared up 100% inside the new aug 2 definitions.
 
a battleaxe lot is technically one not served by CP driveway.

the definition is cleared up 100% inside the new aug 2 definitions.

I think she is asking if she can include the reserve/laneway that abuts her property into her total amount - under what Kent said it seemed like she could use 2m of the lane way/reserve
 
because the battleaxe lot created is served by CP, it doesn't enjoy the site area and setback concessions enjoyed by one without CP.

so no, Lindas site can't use the 2m rule and site area concessions.

which sucks, because that site wpuld now look to set precedent for min lot sizes as a whole. it's a 130sqm odd concession AFTEr the 5% to average is given.

does it meet the intent of the codes to provide for minimums only? thats the $1800 gamble.
 
a battleaxe lot is technically one not served by CP driveway.

the definition is cleared up 100% inside the new aug 2 definitions.

I think she is asking if she can include the reserve/laneway that abuts her property into her total amount - under what Kent said it seemed like she could use 2m of the lane way/reserve

because the battleaxe lot created is served by CP, it doesn't enjoy the site area and setback concessions enjoyed by one without CP.

so no, Lindas site can't use the 2m rule and site area concessions.

which sucks, because that site wpuld now look to set precedent for min lot sizes as a whole. it's a 130sqm odd concession AFTEr the 5% to average is given.

does it meet the intent of the codes to provide for minimums only? thats the $1800 gamble.

Thanks Aaron and Myf. Being a newbie it's a lot to take in! Aaron, by $1,800 gamble, is that a fee for putting plans into council or something else ?
 
The big news I was waiting for ...

Ancillary Dwellings (aka Granny Flats)

6.11.1
Ancillary accommodation
5.5.1.

Amended Heading “Ancillary dwellings”. The provision is amended to remove the family member occupancy restriction and to increase the maximum plot ratio area from 60m2 to 70m2. The minimum parent lot area requirement of 450m2 is retained. Also parking requirements reduced in accordance with sub clause 5.3.3.

Myf, Let's assume I don't know anything about granny flats or r-codes or building approvals or anythng. (because that is the case)

And let's also assume I owned an IP in Clarkson which is R20, 550ish m2, and has an existing 120ish m2 building on it. There's a big rectangular back yard, and ample side access.

Do I have any options to drop a 60-70m2 granny flat in the back yard and rent it out separately?
 
Myf, Let's assume I don't know anything about granny flats or r-codes or building approvals or anythng. (because that is the case)

And let's also assume I owned an IP in Clarkson which is R20, 550ish m2, and has an existing 120ish m2 building on it. There's a big rectangular back yard, and ample side access.

Do I have any options to drop a 60-70m2 granny flat in the back yard and rent it out separately?

Just double checked the zoning with Intramaps.

How good is intramaps?!
 
Back
Top