Attempt to subdivide below the required average lot size @ R20

Nice try I suppose.

I have some sympathy since it seems next door and a bunch of other similar 'undersized' subs were allowed previously in the area.

GAUCI and WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION [2017] WASAT 42 (10 March 2017)

@Aaron Sice

 

Good one @thatbum. It's a bit of an epic read but there is some interesting info in there. That is the first time I have actually seen WAPC's Interim Policy 2014 and WAPC's Interim Practice 2015 in writing. I have heard about them from @Westminster but had not seen the details of the 'policies' until this decision.

 

Sounds more like someone bought an R20 lot and didn't understand the difference between "Average" and "Minimum" site areas and what they mean.

No research into why the non-compliant neighbouring properties were approved; and if those approvals related to the proposed development application.

Oops.

 

But - "The applicant operates a real estate business in Bateman and the surrounding locality" and also purported to be an expert witness in "real estate marketing in the locality of Bateman and surrounding areas".

Ha this could be a good addition to your Rcodes seminar and why not to believe what the REA says.

 

Timely too - my next one is Thursday.

Cheers.

 

Looks like they saw that next door had been subdivided and considering the subject lot is the same lot size figured that it should be able to the subdivided the same. There are many reasons why it may not have worked.

The other take away from this is that just because next door got approval and your lot is the same doesn't mean you can get approval too. It's not automatic and as far as I understand, WAPC and SAT are not bound by precedent.

 

Depending on the age of the ones next door, it could well be that they were approved under the previous version of the R-Codes (early 2000's I think?), where there was a loophole clause that didn’t have an average lot size requirement for R20, so you only had to meet the minimum (or vice versa, my memory is a bit rusty as those cases are rare). I dealt with a client years ago who had built 3 units on a site in Claremont based on the old version of the R-Codes but never subdivided and we got put through the absolute ringer with Town of Claremont getting the thing approved, despite the fact we were simply formalising what was already there.

 

That is going back! From memory, the loophole only worked for survey strata, not freehold. As far as I understand, the adjacent lot that was given subdivision approval after 2014. This is the information on the decision:

the neighbouring property, Lot 70, is exactly the same size (850m²) as the subject site and had been approved by the WAPC for subdivision into two lots (of 425m² each) on 7 August 2015​

It seems to me like the WAPC Interim Policy 2014 and the WAPC Interim Practice 2015 were important in approving the subdivision of Lot 70. However, since Lot 70 was approved, the City of Melville has gazetted LPS 6. It seems that the LPS was given some weight in the decision.

 

....build strata.

Applied right up to 2013.

 

Next door may have been owned by a friend of a councillor if you know what I mean.

 

In Western Australia, applications for the subdivision of land are determined by the Western Australian Planning Commission. Council doesn't really have a say.

 

She clearly didn't look into the reasons why the others were allowed. Whoopsie.

 

With the interim policy everything was still on a case by case basis, no precedent allowed.

Bit of a unfortunate decision to be in though and wouldn't have been cheap to fight it.

8 more days until we find out if we've gotten our WAPC side by side R20 green title blocks - it's 931sqm so we meet the minimum and averages but we only have 9.96m frontages instead of 10.

 

4cm is a lot! Or so my wife tells me....

 

Your wife MAY be being generous.
996cm however IS a lot!

 

Interesting! What is in eight days that will determine the outcome? Is it going to an SPC meeting? Was the Council recommendation in favor? I'm sure being one of your developments @Westminster there was a substantial case to be made for the positive streetscape outcomes!

Do you already own the land? Slight bending of the R-Codes like this (and/or relying on the Interim Practice) really speak of the advantage of 'subject to subdivision approval' clauses in the offer, where a vendor is willing!

 

It would have been interesting to show two street elevation renders and floor plans of the proposed development- one at current width and one at 10m wide, just to illustrate that there really is NO appreciable difference between the two outcomes.

 

We bought it off Housing Authority so there was no Subject Tos allowed - weren't even allowed to apply to WAPC before Settlement. We took the risk and have a back up plan should it not happen.

Our 60 days WAPC application finishes in 8 days - I don't believe it's going to SPC we've had no notification and I've been checking agendas. Council actually responded within 2 weeks of lodgement but when asked the WAPC officer wouldn't give a hint which way they were thinking. I was hoping that such a quick council response might mean an earlier application turn around but so far it seems not.

I'm really hoping that discretion will be made as the streetscape for 2 street frontages vs front and behind is so much more positive and much more effective use of land than a wasteful driveway to the rear. Design has been done and as you say there is no difference in design for the 4cm each lot doesn't have.

 

Can I ask what the back up plan is? What happens if WAPC draw that line in the sand and say "nope, needs 10m"?

Is it just a change to battleaxe design? Wont that hurt the feaso some?

 

Yes that is one of the backup plans. In this project one half is a friend's PPOR and the other half is an IP for me so although it would hurt end values I'd still get the front block.