WA to potentially remove paprtment developemt provisions from R30/R34 zones

More potential hurdles for small apartment development in Perth:

Amendment to State Planning Policy 3.1 Residential Design Codes ? Multiple Dwellings, parking and other incidental changes.

The West Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) intends to remove the multiple dwelling provisions that allow development using plot ratio, on R30 and R35 sites. This provision is what has made the apartments so attractive and profitable to develop on R30/R35 sites post-2010.

According to item No. 9.1 of the State Planning Committee Agenda for May 2014 (attached):

It is proposed to amend the R-Codes to require each multiple dwelling under R30 and R35 to achieve the same site area and open space (minimum total percentage of site) requirement as currently applies for single and grouped dwellings. Placing a limitation on the maximum number of multiple dwellings and minimum open space in R30 and R35 areas will ensure alignment with existing R12.5 to R25 codes and ensure dwelling density intended and expected by local government and the community is preserved. It is also proposed to increase the minimum parking standards for each multiple dwelling from 0.75 to 1 parking space...

There have been concerns raised by some Local Governments regarding the consequences of allowing multiple dwellings to be located in lower (R30 and R35) density areas. This appears to be in response to community opposition to specific multiple dwelling development proposals and concerns that multiple dwellings are out of character when placed in an area comprising predominantly single dwellings.

There is also concern that the resultant increase in resident population places increased pressure on local services and results in resident and visitor parking overflow problems, particularly given the R-Codes advocate lower resident parking requirements for multiple dwellings than for single and grouped dwellings.

Some local governments have indicated their intention to amend their schemes to resolve these problems.


If you plan on building villas or townhouses (single/grouped res) there?s no need to worry. But if you were thinking of the added incentive of townhouse-type apartments, that option may soon be taken away.

How does this affect you as a potential developer or buyer?
If you are interested in developing multiple dwelling apartments, it may be best to avoid R30 and R35 sites as there may now be a time limit in which approvals are issued.
Also be careful which areas you select R40 sites in because a number of local governments are preventing multiple dwelling development on R40 zoned sites. In all cases, we suggest you do thorough due diligence to avoid getting caught with the wrong property or missing out on the full potential of your property.
Note however that the above changes are only a proposal at this stage. Consultation must still be undertaken for the proposed amendment. The WAPC/minister will need to consent to the amendment being advertised, upon which it will be publicly advertised, before being assessed and given final approval.
 

Attachments

  • 20140527 Statutory Planning Committee Agenda Report (RCode Amendment).pdf
    70.8 KB · Views: 287
  • 20140527 Statutory Planning Committee Agenda Attachment (RCodes Amendmen....pdf
    141.7 KB · Views: 112
did you see they want 1.25 bays for a single bed dwelling not close to a trainstation / HF bus? like, just keep it at one bay already.

so much for the affordbility incentive to remove carbays from dwellings.

so much for the reduced reliance on cars in inner activity rings.

pfff. should have seen it coming.
 
did you see they want 1.25 bays for a single bed dwelling not close to a trainstation / HF bus? like, just keep it at one bay already.

so much for the affordbility incentive to remove carbays from dwellings.

so much for the reduced reliance on cars in inner activity rings.

pfff. should have seen it coming.

And changed the units from sqm sizes to bedroom sizes for parking.
Glad I'm getting all mine in before this ***** hits the fan
 
it's a bit daft - i mean, the whole point of the provisions as per the discussion paper was affordability and the removal of vehicle ownership from dwellings to bring prices down, if the market saw the need.

let the market sort out where multi dwellings should be, not the govt.
 
Update

By way of update: A colleague spoke to Paul Ellenbroek (the WAPC contact point for the review). Apparently the reports that were published on the WAPC website for this Amendment were supposedly meant to be confidential!! Ha!

The Statutory Procedures Committee decided that the R-Codes Amendment be circulated for advertising to local governments and WALGA (NOT the public), which has been undertaken. The DoP also sent letters to Property Council, UDIA, PIA, Australian Institute of Architects and HIA for industry feedback. They have from 29 May to 27 June to provide comments to DoP.

The DoP will then report back to WAPC to determine if they want to proceed with the R-Code amendment. If that occurs then public advertising would also occur.
 
Update

Another update, if anyone is interested:

All feedback has now been received from LGAs and stakeholders and the Minister?s consent is currently being sought to progress the amendment. The report to the Commission is being prepared which is likely to be recommending the amendment as proposed or as amended. It will likely be on the August meeting agenda. The August meeting is on the 26th, however it is likely that the item will be a confidential agenda item so no insight into the DoP report I?m afraid. If they determine to proceed with the amendment it will then go to public advertising (when we will get to see the report), then final recommendation etc.

The few LGA submissions I have seen (City of Bayswater, City of Stirling) have been in favour of the amendment, so it will be 'interesting' to see how this turns out.

My money is on no more multi-res provisions...
 
Oh and if all that planning crap about meetings etc makes no sense, the short version is this: not much is happening till the end of next month. I'll try report back when things progress.
 
As long as they don't stretch their little tentacles onto R40 it should be ok as far as I'm concerned. I know Stirling have their tentacles onto their R40 but that is workable to avoid.
 
As long as they don't stretch their little tentacles onto R40 it should be ok as far as I'm concerned. I know Stirling have their tentacles onto their R40 but that is workable to avoid.

+1

When you say R40 is workable what do you mean??

What about City of Melville with regards to R40, I think early days with this Council and perhaps we have some time to go?? What I mean by this is currently not as much infill as say Stirling.
 
I have already recieved a letter from city of belmont saying they wont approve multis on any dual coded r30 lots.
So i dear say most councils will be in favour.
As long as they dont go overboard.
 
Fremantle objected to it, and I think City of Cockburn did as well. As did PIA (Planning Institute of Australia) and UDIA (Urban Development Institute of Aus).

But alas, I dare say most Councils were for it :(

Sucks for me as my PPOR is a 590m2 R30 lot in Stirling that is in an area that will become part of Bayswater in the LG amalgamations. Stirling currently have a clause in their Scheme that prevents Multi's in R30 zones anyway but Bayswater don't have that, so when the amalgamations take place and they all eventually review their Schemes, assuming the R30 coding was maintained I could've had a 4 2-bed apartment site. Probabaly would've been 10 years away but still!

Always have the option of a 2 lot subdivision I guess..
 
+1

When you say R40 is workable what do you mean??

What about City of Melville with regards to R40, I think early days with this Council and perhaps we have some time to go?? What I mean by this is currently not as much infill as say Stirling.

I mean that if I wanted to put multis on R40 that I will just avoid buying in Stirling.
 
I have already recieved a letter from city of belmont saying they wont approve multis on any dual coded r30 lots.

Hi HD, I'd be pretty keen to take a read of that letter if you'd be happy to share (that is, if you even hung onto it). Is that something legislated in their scheme like Stirling or are they just 'warning people' that such applications wont be viewed positively (which sounds like an invitation to end up in SAT, if anyone could be bothered).
 
Fremantle objected to it, and I think City of Cockburn did as well. As did PIA (Planning Institute of Australia) and UDIA (Urban Development Institute of Aus).

But alas, I dare say most Councils were for it :(

Yep. I'd be interested to know where Vincent, and to a lesser extent Cambridge, stood on the issue, being reasonably progressive inner urban councils. I cant imagine Property Council, AIA or HIA were in favour either.
 
If this were to be approved, would it apply immediately? Or would you still be able to sneak it an R30 multi development?

Or would it depend entirely on the respective council?
 
Hi HD, I'd be pretty keen to take a read of that letter if you'd be happy to share (that is, if you even hung onto it). Is that something legislated in their scheme like Stirling or are they just 'warning people' that such applications wont be viewed positively (which sounds like an invitation to end up in SAT, if anyone could be bothered).

Yes i still have it, it was only just sent to me the other day so have not read it in full. Im home next week so will pm it to you.

I am guessing its pretty much just a follow on from the talks i had with them last year when i wanted to develop on my r30 block. Their formal advice at the time was they would not approve and I would have to fight it down the court route and they were going to write it into their town scheme. So guess it has become official.
 
Back
Top