Two 10x40m lots in Brisbane - potential?

Looking to purchase a house here in Brisbane and wondering about it's development potential before I put an offer down on paper. I called Brisbane city council, but town planners aren't available until tomorrow..?

- It's on a 810sqm block, made up of two 10x40m rectangular lots side by side making a 20m frontage.
- Located in CR2 zone. Current house was built pre-1946 and spans across both lots in the middle towards the front. It's about 12-13m wide, so it is difficult slide to fit on just 1 lot, even with approval, as it's too wide.

Ideas:

1)
My initial thought was to reconfigure into battle-axe formation and keep the DCP, CR2 house in the front and build a unit at the back or land bank. May need to slide house in front further towards one corner if needed, but it currently has enough room for a driveway either side.

Unfortunately the land has been flagged for overland flow flooding from waterway/creek. 3.1m to 3.9m 20% and 1% respectively. DFL is 3.9m, but weirdly enough the highest and lowest points on the lots are 3.1m and 3.9m too. Does this sound suss? Am I reading the report correctly?
Obviously I'd need a surveyor out there at some point.

I imagine the council would be reluctant to reconfigure 'flooded' land like this. However, if it's 3.1-3.9m, can the site be filled to alleviate the problem? It slopes down ever so gently away from the road towards back which is where the flooding mostly is. What if the new development was on stumps?

If I can get the battle-axe formation what does the new vacant land become? CR2 land??? Can I build a 2 storey unit on there? The lots on the other side of the road are all LMR2 and have units built on them already.

2)
Alternatively, can the existing house be partially demolished and slide to one side given it's DCP constraints? Is the only way burning half of it down with fire?

If I can fit it into one of the 10x40m lot then it leaves the other one vacant ready to build, which is probably cheaper to do than having to reconfigure.

Thoughts?
 
Hi Eek,

Sounds tricky, but I like the idea of sliding the exising one sideways and then just re-splitting the blocks back into their 400m2 small lot code lots. That's what I'm developing right now. It was an old house in the Demolition Control Precinct spanning two lots but it was built after the development controls cutoff date so was deemed demolitiable. I actually just bought the 427m2 small lot after the buyer bought the old house and knocked it down then split the block. We're now building side by side.

Ours is also in a designated floodway but that's not a problem. We're just elevated bearer and joist so no slabs down except right at the top of the block where the garage is. We back onto a public reserve which is the floodway but is mostly where the boys all play cricket and soccer as its a mown public park most of the time. Very nice!

Good luck,
Michael
 
Yeah, I think retaining the existing the configuration would be easiest.

Only problem is shifting a pre-1946 house that's already 13m wide to a 10m wide lot tricky. It's already on stumps - was actually restumped not too long ago. I don't understand why they didn't lift it up to 2.5m at the same time. It's maybe only 2m high off the ground right now.

I haven't seen many places where both levels are on stumps though - it's typically ground floor on slab with original house on steel posts. Sounds expensive though.
 
if you are happy to flick me the address via pm I will comment back through here sans any identifying info.
 
Ok. Character Residential 2 infil block under the new City Plan. Pity you are not 100m away its 5 storeys there.

So I get 11.4m wide eave to eave in 1974 aerial - too wide for side by side and too big to shave.

Min lot size in CR2 is 300m2 for front lot and 450m2 for rear lot so front to back looks feasible from that perspective.

You could be some townhouses or units at the rear. You would need to address the flooding issue here. The overland flow is potentially bigger than the flood issue. Hydrological study most likely required unless you are building on stumps.

45 % site cover, 2 stories and 9.5m maximum height.
 
Thanks for the quick reply.

Looks like there is potential but an expensive reconfiguration exercise (due to flooding?). It must be reconfigured into a front/back battle axe formation to release any of it's value.

I think given those CR2 minimum lot sizes, I can get away without shifting the house in front.
 
Great post RPI, Kudos given!

You're the man. When I'm done with my current build in Bardon I'll have to come see you about finding me a nice splitter block that I can do my next development on.

My current one is going gangbusters. Up to hanging the gyprock now, had the solar panels installed on Monday and the sparky is there now connecting power to the meter box so we can remove the builders pole. All internal roughout is done and getting quotes for wet areas and fitout now. Looking fantastic! :D

Cheers,
Michael
 
RPi, would there be restrictions on the house on the front to lift up and build in underneath? So long as if "looks" period correct I'm thinking if turning it into a duplex setup.
 
Great post RPI, Kudos given!

You're the man. When I'm done with my current build in Bardon I'll have to come see you about finding me a nice splitter block that I can do my next development on.

My current one is going gangbusters. Up to hanging the gyprock now, had the solar panels installed on Monday and the sparky is there now connecting power to the meter box so we can remove the builders pole. All internal roughout is done and getting quotes for wet areas and fitout now. Looking fantastic! :D

Cheers,
Michael

No worries.

Sounds like you are flying. Always good to get rid of the builders pole.
 
There is a house on Boundary Road at Camp Hill where the house straddled the double block and it was lifted and turned around so the side faced the street with a new front entry built. You would never know it you are looking at what was the side.

If your house cannot be removed, and is too wide for the block could you turn it a quarter turn and do the same?
 
There is a house on Boundary Road at Camp Hill where the house straddled the double block and it was lifted and turned around so the side faced the street with a new front entry built. You would never know it you are looking at what was the side.

If your house cannot be removed, and is too wide for the block could you turn it a quarter turn and do the same?


Great idea!
 
There is a house on Boundary Road at Camp Hill where the house straddled the double block and it was lifted and turned around so the side faced the street with a new front entry built. You would never know it you are looking at what was the side.

If your house cannot be removed, and is too wide for the block could you turn it a quarter turn and do the same?

It sounds like it would be possible if it wasn't built pre-1946? I thought about it too and I though council was pretty strict on modifying the street appeal of houses like this, so rotating it 90 degrees would change the frontage dramatically even if it's the same house. In my case the house I'm looking at is longer than it is wider, so wouldn't work even if I was allowed to rotate it.

The main issue with the property is how much potential is for a vacant battle axe block in the rear given it's potential overland flooding, CR2 zoning and location, which is okay. Lots of units and developments going up in the area. Google maps vs real life already shows a big difference. Potential oversupply of units/town houses in future and hence less interest in development sites?

It would need to be price to balance my acquisition, re-configuration and holding costs but still be attractive for a developer if I don't have the funds/skills to do it myself. Not sounding too great so far. Maybe wuss out and save up more for a LMR site that doesn't flood, haha.
 
You can do the rotation but if it is in a character area it needs to be the right type of house to still look character and not detract from the street.
 
Back
Top