I see where you are coming from. That said, I would say 80sqm blocks would have to have road frontage. I don't know if small blocks are necessarily 'more efficient' but I guess that bigger blocks out in the sticks aren't that efficient for people who then spend a lot of their time and significant money on transport costs. It's a tradeoff I guess. In my case, I am helping out a mate who is a first home buyer with limited funds. He has a preferred area but can't get into a normal house in that area. He has found a small block (270sqm) and should be able to afford a modest build on that block. But I guess compared to 80sqm, 270sqm is spacious!
. Not ridiculous when the cost to bring a site to market is $150-200k excl land (roads, gas, sewer, water, storm water, street lighting, parks, open space, community facilities etc which are all paid upfront by the developer).
A great thread to read. Enjoyed the first 2 pages. With an 80 sqm block. You have to think about setbacks ect aswell surely they have a 1-1.5m setback sides and back with the front being greater. Are these going to be all double storey houses? @Aaron Sice on Sice are you talking about 120sqm floor area or site area with your example?
setbacks become redundant at these sizes - boundary to boundary - see my Ruth St example. 120sqm land area.
I don't think there is a hard and fast rule. For example, in Ellenbrook, they have 7.5m wide, 225sqm lots with zero lot setbacks to both sides, although there is still a front setback. That is a variation to the residential design codes though.
Okay so i guess the council maybe over rules the residential codes where it seems fit. Does it not apply the other way?
I know councils can vary the r-codes but I don't know too much about it. @Aaron Sice might know more about it. I'm not sure.
RMD Provisions pretty much nullify any DAP or planning application likely to be needed for proposals outside the R Codes. R Codes become dysfunctional at lots this size and shape, anyway - which is why the RMD provisions were needed. RMD provisions have put in place what every developer in Perth has known the for the past 15 years - that the R Codes break down and become a hindrance at smaller lot sizes, requiring more and more performance criteria based applications. DAPs used to remove this, now the RMD provisions mandate it. Important point - single houses only. Grouped Dwellings inside new estates untested. @property world - see the attached pic for typical lot sizes that break down when R Codes applied. They were only ever written for standard suburban lots. RMD Changes here courtesy of CLE > https://gallery.mailchimp.com/ac68b0f9275cec2b9e48045ec/files/9050PPT40.pdf
You can see the RMD provisions above have simply allowed what we used to write and apply for approval with DAPs for - see attached.
for @property world because PMs don't allow uploads. See the laundry internally? they don't need external access. ignore for the thread please.
Well some of the Ellenbrook trial microlot packages have been released. The builder who is doing my Clarkson projects was allocated a few and will be doing some as leaseback display which may attract some people. Ellenbrook Land for these is 126-168sqm and smallest is a 2 x 2 x1 and largest is a 3 x 2 x 2
I did think it was about providing some diversity and affordability - but the $440k takes the cake. $385k for the other 3 x 2 is much better but again not really diversity. 2 x 2 for $365k is better but you'd probably stump up the extra $20k and go for the 3 x 2
kinda loses the plot to be honest. the whole idea is to live smaller with less land and reduc e land AND building costs, not take a small piece of land and put as big a house as you can. then I forget it's bluddi perf' innit?
