Perth three unit subdivision - unreasonable public open space requirement?

J

justlearning

My sister has received back conditions from the WAPC/City of Gosnells for her three unit survey strata subdivision in Thornlie (just shy of 1000m2). The proposal is to retain the front old house and create two blocks behind.

All the conditions seem pretty standard, except this (WAPC condition):

'An area of land at least 97.6m2 in a position to be agreed with the WAPC being shown on the diagram or plan of survey (deposited plan) as a reserve for Local Open Space and vested in the Crown under Section 152 of the Planning and Development Act 2005. Such land is to be ceded free of cost and without any payment of compensation by the Crown (Local Government)'

The City of Gosnells then has the condition:
'With regard to the condition [above], provisions of Section 153 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 provide that arrangements can be made, subject to further approval of the WAPC, for a cash-in-lieu contribution by the landowner/applicant to the local government'

Her planner has indicated that the cash in lieu would be in the vicinity of 10% of the land value...which seems crazy. Her planner also said he's just received another one come back with a similar condition (he's never actually seen this applied before).

I'm thinking her options are to approach the council and see if she can contribute a nominal cash in lieu amount (considering it doesn't really make sense to leave public open space on such a small subdivision).

Alternatively, change tack and go for a built strata subdivision as she's planning on building anyway (although she's worried she wont' get finance that way).

Any thoughts on other options?

thanks
Justlearning
 
Oh, and I think her planner mentioned she could wait for new R-codes, which would change things (not sure how)...but then whole application would need to be resubmitted (and fees are going up).
 
Interesting. I've only heard of things like that for much larger subdivisions - I've not had anything like that for a 3 unit

Was it 97m2 under the amount required which is why it went to WAPC?

Sorry - I'm not much use :)
 
I think it was just under the R-code sizes, but within tolerances. My understanding is that all survey strata subdivisions go to the WAPC...which is why I thought built strata is usually a lot quicker.
 
justlearning said:
Oh, and I think her planner mentioned she could wait for new R-codes, which would change things (not sure how)...but then whole application would need to be resubmitted (and fees are going up).
Click to expand...

The new R codes are out as of last week. What zoning is her block - R30?

R30 needs 900sqm for 3
R25 needs 1050 for 3

No changes on that with new R codes but easier justification if you are 5% out from what you need
 
Also found this:
http://www.planning.wa.gov.au/dop_pub_pdf/dc_2.3.pdf

3.1.5...doesn't' usually require a contribution for five lots or less where..

...the proposal is within a locality where
the Commission, on the advice of the
local government, following an
assessment of the locality, has concluded
that there is sufficient open space in that
locality.

So I guess she could speak to the City of Gosnells to find out if there is in fact adequate open space in the locality
 
At 1000sqm it should have been paid in 1950 when the original subdivision went thru.

Cant double dip...even if there is a century in between
 
They can't require POS for subdivisions of less than 5 lots, plain and simple. Gosnells tend to operate in a world of their own and it seems as though the planner at WAPC failed to check the conditions received fr Gosnells. I would firstly have your planner ask the WAPC planner to have this condition removed as it seems to be in error, and if that doesn't work, lodge an application for reconsideration and speak to Craig Shepherd (Manager for that region at WAPC).

As Aaron said, POS and any cash in lieu would've been provided/paid for when the area was originally chopped up
 
Email from my sister...

I spoke to City of Gosnells yesterday. And they said they were imposing this condition because in Thornlie they're concerned as there are not many lots that would be 5 or more, but many that are 3. And it means there will be higher density living but no extra public space (or money for it), so they want it added to all 3 lots or more....

I rang [planner] and said I wouldn't appeal because of the cost. He said that he's done a bit more enquiring and it appears they have indeed been adding this condition for the past few months for all 3 or more lot subdivisions.

So I think if I actually wanted this removed then I would need to appeal to WAPC. But [planner] seems to think it's not as simple as stating the below, because each lot is unique. You need to see how far the lot is from public open space etc.

So essentially I'm not too sure what to do...[planner] also did say that Thornlie as a whole does meet the 10% of public open space, but again for my lot I still might not have too much to appeal on depending on where its located to the space.
 
UrbanPlanner said:
They can't require POS for subdivisions of less than 5 lots, plain and simple. Gosnells tend to operate in a world of their own and it seems as though the planner at WAPC failed to check the conditions received fr Gosnells. I would firstly have your planner ask the WAPC planner to have this condition removed as it seems to be in error, and if that doesn't work, lodge an application for reconsideration and speak to Craig Shepherd (Manager for that region at WAPC).

As Aaron said, POS and any cash in lieu would've been provided/paid for when the area was originally chopped up
Click to expand...

This link indicates they can impose the condition...

http://www.planning.wa.gov.au/dop_pub_pdf/dc_2.3.pdf

"similar proposals containing five lots or
less would be likely to eventuate in the
locality."
 
R30 is not high density. It's not necessarily an appeal, it's simply another application to WAPC requesting that they reconsider that condition. The fee is around $3k and they have 60 days to make a decision. But I would be contacting the relevant officer at WAPC, not Gosnells as the WAPC are the ones that make the determination and have the power to decide not to impose conditions recommended by Gosnells if they wish.

The sticking point is if the WAPC/City of Gosnells are adamant on imposing that condition, then they need to prove where the cash in lieu will be spent, as the intention for cash in lieu is that it be used to upgrade existing POS or provide additional POS. If they can't demonstrate where they'll be spending the money then there is no nexus between your subdivision and the upgrade of POS and that condition in rendered invalid.
 
They all want their pound of flesh, doubt you will get them to change their mind.

I have a 5 acres I am trying to subdivide into 8 half acre lots. I will be handing over cash to the value of one of the lots to the local council under the same agreement.
 
Friends of mine did a 4 unit in Hocking (City of Wanneroo) subdivision that was completed 12 months ago. They got surprised with the POS levy but due to some capital growth over the last 12 months have managed to recoup the costs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Steps following subdivision approval
Replies
0
Views
2K
serrz
S
S
CGT obligation on sale blocks subdivision
Replies
14
Views
2K
Rob G.
R
The Y-man
The KathrynD Interview
Replies
1
Views
77K
The Y-man
The Y-man
The Y-man
The MIW Interview
Replies
1
Views
10K
The Y-man
The Y-man
The Y-man
The Jingo Interview
Replies
1
Views
7K
The Y-man
The Y-man
Back
Top