Join Australia's most dynamic and respected property investment community

Belmont retain and build issues - flexible code

Discussion in 'Development' started by Perthguy, 25th Jan, 2016.

  1. Perthguy

    Perthguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    23rd Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    4,668
    Location:
    Perth
    My builder applied to Council for a retain and build 2 townhouses behind on my block in Cloverdale. This proposal has not been supported by Council. This is a R20/40 flexible coded lot which was to have 3 dwellings total (1 existing). The TPS provision Council has cited is:

    5.7.3. In dealing with development applications involving or contemplating development of land
    within any of the flexible coded area up to a maximum density of R50 depicted on the
    Scheme Map, the base R20 code shall apply to any dwelling but may, at the discretion of
    City, be increased to a higher code up to the maximum specified provided -


    (c) Development comprising of two or more dwellings in a front to rear arrangement
    achieves a minimum side setback of 6 metres between the side wall of the first
    dwelling fronting the public street and the side boundary of the parent lot.

    The reason for the Council not supporting at this stage is that the existing dwelling does not achieve a minimum side setback of 6 metres. I wasn't sure they would apply this provision to a development proposing the retention of an existing dwelling but apparently they are. Council has given us two options:

    1) Developing at R20, i.e. one (1) additional dwelling to the rear
    2) Amending the proposal to three (3) new dwellings, with the demolition of the existing dwelling, which could meet the requirements of the scheme. The owner/applicant can apply to enter a legal agreement, at their cost, to retain the existing dwelling until the rear dwellings are complete.

    We are going with option 1. In our situation, it's not feasible to demolish an income producing asset. I'm also considering doing a front green title lot for the front house, so I don't want to spend additional money pursuing a three group dwelling development application at this stage.

    My only concern for option 1 would be if there are any differences in setbacks between R20 and R30 which might make our design, which complies at R30, not comply at R20?

    @Westminster, you saw the plans for this one. We thought there should be some amendments to the middle townhouse, particularly the master ensuite. There were some other refinements too.

    I'm not that unhappy about only building one at this stage. I am just a little dissapointed about the time we have lost pursing a proposal that has ultimately not been supported.
     
  2. Big Daddy

    Big Daddy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    25th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    470
    Location:
    Perth
    When i spoke to TP's at belmont this was their response:

    The City does not support variations to these requirements of LPSNo.15 under any circumstances.

    The 6 metre side setback is implemented to ensure an outlook from the rear dwelling to the primary streetscape is achieved so as to increase passive surveillance. The side setback applies to the front dwelling only and is from the side lot boundary to the side wall of the front dwelling. Unfortunately the City does not have any diagrams illustrating this requirement
     
    Perthguy likes this.
  3. Big Daddy

    Big Daddy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    25th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    470
    Location:
    Perth
    Is there any room to build a 1x1 infront of the existing house that complies with the 6m side setback? That way the existing dwelling does not need to comply
     
  4. Perthguy

    Perthguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    23rd Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    4,668
    Location:
    Perth
    I won't be looking for a variation to the requirements of LPSNo.15. I just wasn't clear on whether they would apply the 6 metre side setback to an existing dwelling.

    Possibly room but definitely no demand. There is a definite oversupply of the 1x1 type product in the are now with more being built. I wouldn't even contemplate such a product in that area. Good thinking though! :)

    I think the best solution down the track is a green title lot for the front house and strata the two grouped dwellings behind. The front green title won't be subject to the 6m requirement. :)
     
  5. soggy

    soggy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    19th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    68
    Location:
    Perth
    Could council still prevent you doing 2 grouped dwellings on rear green title lot? They still have discretion over R40.
     
  6. Perthguy

    Perthguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    23rd Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    4,668
    Location:
    Perth
    I can't say I am 100% sure of this but this is what I think:
    - the development of the rear dwellings would be at R30.
    - we would be creating a duplex sized green title rear block (assuming R30).

    I would be interested to see Councils reasons for refusal for two grouped dwellings on a duplex sized block.Whether the 6 metre rule would still apply to a battleaxe block is unknown. It would depend on council's interpretation of this provision:

    Development comprising of two or more dwellings in a front to rear arrangement
    achieves a minimum side setback of 6 metres between the side wall of the first
    dwelling fronting the public street and the side boundary of the parent lot.

    Considering the "first" dwelling will not front a public street, I would like to see their justification for applying the 6 metre rule.

    I am reasonably confident that on a green title battleaxe block, where the minimum and average lot sizes meet R-Codes for R30, Council will allow two grouped dwellings.

    Step 1 is to create the front lot at and density of R30. This is supported by the scheme:

    5.7.7. In dealing with subdivision of land within any of the flexible coded areas depicted on the
    Scheme Map, the City may support subdivision provided:


    (a) a maximum density of R30 is not exceeded

    Step 2 is to get planning permission to build the second grouped dwelling on the rear battleaxe lot. The front dwelling is exempt from planning approval provided R-Codes compliance.

    I always wanted the front house to be on it's own green title block anyway, so this solution meets my ultimate goal.
     
  7. soggy

    soggy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    19th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    68
    Location:
    Perth
    That's a fair bit of money to put into subdividing without knowing your final outcome. Are numbers ok if you had to do worst case single house (single storey) on rear lot?

    Does council allow DA on a proposed lot? Not sure if you could amend DA to be 2 grouped dwellings on proposed rear green title lot, then you'd know for sure.
     
    Aaron Sice likes this.
  8. Westminster

    Westminster Tigress at Tiger Developments Business Member

    Joined:
    13th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    2,942
    Location:
    Perth
    I'm a little confused why you are mentioning R30? It's a R20/40 lot - yes?

    So they are saying you don't meet the criteria to get R40 so you only have R20. Is the lot big enough to duplex at R20? Sorry I can't remember. Don't worry dug out plans and you are 905sqm ok so big enough to duplex at R20.

    How is the feasibility at just duplex?

    Are you saying you will try this?
    1. create a rear 350sqm R20 lot and put a grouped dwelling strata townhouse on that using the common 100sqm driveway from existing concept. Or 450sqm battle axe?
    2.leaving ummm around 450sqm as lot 1
    3. green title lot 1 so it can be split - how? it still won't have the 6m required so will only be R20

    I can't see how it's going to work without demolishing the existing house
     
  9. Perthguy

    Perthguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    23rd Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    4,668
    Location:
    Perth
    True it's a bit of a gamble but I don't believe it is an unacceptable level of risk. I would get the preliminary approval and then proceed to planning approval (for the rear lot, not the front lot). I would not pursue servicing and other subdivisional works without a DA approval for two grouped dwellings (one existing) on the rear lot. Cost would be $2,978.47 based on current rates, which I do not think is excessive. The alternative is to "lose" around 36 sqm of developable area, which I would conservatively value at around $25,000. So you can see why I want that 36 sqm back from Council! :p

    As far as I know, they do. I would confirm this before proceeding.

    I don't think Council would contemplate such a proposal without prelminary WAPC approval for the proposed new lot as a minimum, which is not something I am prepared to pursue at this point.

    My fallback option is to simply develop (in the future) with two additional dwellings at the front where the front complies with the 6 metre rule. I would only do this if further investigations indicate that two grouped dwellings would not be supported on a rear battleaxe block.

    We will definitely be proceeding with the development of the rear townhouse now which will leave us two clear options for further future development:
    1) create a green title front lot to be developed with a house and two grouped dwellings on a rear green title lot (subject to Council supporting the rear development)
    2) build two additional dwellings at the front with the front dwelling complying with the 6 metre rule.

    It's good to have the potential pitfalls pointed out so I can check some things before each step.
     
    MTR and soggy like this.
  10. Perthguy

    Perthguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    23rd Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    4,668
    Location:
    Perth
    Essentially, the R20/40 applies to development. R30 is for subdivision. Effectively, the land can be subdivided up to (but not exceeding R30) without the pesky flexible coded area rules applying. That means a front R30 green title lot would comply with the scheme.

    This refers to the development side. At this point the proposal for three grouped dwellings does not comply with the flexible coded area rules to achieve R40, because the front house does not have the required 6 metre side setback. The idea of developing at R20 for stage 1 is that Council will not apply the flexible coded area rules to the development and the proposal will comply with the Scheme requirements.

    Not as good as triplex ;)

    Neither. We are doing development first and tenure later. We are not creating any lots at this stage. This is the current plan:
    Step 1: (now) DA for two grouped dwellings (one existing). The rear (new) dwelling will be in its current location to ultimately allow three dwellings (total) to be constructed on the lot.
    Step 2: (optional) if required for valuation purposes (unknown at this point), create a two lot strata over the two grouped dwellings
    Step 3: (the future). At some stage down the track:
    i. priliminary approval to create a 300m2 green title block at the front
    ii. apply for a second townhouse on the rear battleaxe block
    iii. build a house on the front block at the same time as building the second rear townhouse
    iv. take the lots to title
    v. Strata title the rear grouped dwellings​

    This would depend on Council supporting the DA for the second townhouse in step ii.

    For the front green title block, the existing dwelling will have to be demolished. The front block can be subdivided off at R30, according to the scheme. The 6 metre rule does not apply to an R30 subdivision. But the front house would have to be demolished, which was always our intention. This is all based on 5.7.7. of the scheme, which states:

    In dealing with subdivision of land within any of the flexible coded areas depicted on the
    Scheme Map, the City may support subdivision provided:
    (a) a maximum density of R30 is not exceeded

    As mentioned above, this is the idea scenario. The fallback is to develop 3 towhouses with the 6 metre side setback for the front dwelling.
     
  11. Big Daddy

    Big Daddy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    25th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    470
    Location:
    Perth
    Let us know how it goes and good luck!
     
  12. Perthguy

    Perthguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    23rd Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    4,668
    Location:
    Perth
    See you in 10 years. :D

    Of course by then, we will be 2 town planning schemes on from now, so who knows what the rules will be?

    I might be contemplating something that might not even be an issue in 10 years. :)
     
    MTR likes this.
  13. Perthguy

    Perthguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    23rd Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    4,668
    Location:
    Perth
  14. Westminster

    Westminster Tigress at Tiger Developments Business Member

    Joined:
    13th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    2,942
    Location:
    Perth
    Ok I understand now how the R30 comes in.
    Seems doable
    I do read 'first' as in not time but distance to street. ie first is the dwelling closest to the street, not the one first built.
     
  15. Perthguy

    Perthguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    23rd Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    4,668
    Location:
    Perth
    I agree - that is my interpretation too.
     
  16. Aaron Sice

    Aaron Sice Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    895
    Location:
    Ocean Reef, WA
    Is the goal income or sell?

    You could create a pair of strata 450 sqm lots, one battle axe, and do a 4x2 on the rear with an ancillary dwelling and then put another on the front house.

    Then you have 4 income streams. And a 5 x3 in Belmont should value up well in StudentLand°
     
    Perthguy likes this.
  17. mrdobalina

    mrdobalina Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    22nd Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    990
    Location:
    On the ski slopes
    Ancillary dwelling such as a granny flat?
     
  18. Aaron Sice

    Aaron Sice Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    895
    Location:
    Ocean Reef, WA
    Yeah, same/same. But ancillary can be a 2x2.
     
  19. Perthguy

    Perthguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    23rd Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    4,668
    Location:
    Perth
    No go.

    Apparently it is very difficult to get approval to build 2 grouped dwellings on a 4 unit site :rolleyes:

    The current proposal is to build the rear new townhouse on an indicative lot size of 290m2, which is a not because the proposed density exceeds R20. This is despite the fact that the indicative lot size has no statutory effect.

    What we want is this:
    1) strata lot 1, with a lot size of 490m2 to retain the existing dwelling.
    2) strata lot 2, with a lot size of 290m2 to construct the new dwelling.

    We are not permitted to do this:
    1) apply for a DA for 2 grouped dwellings with indicative lot sizes of 490m2 (lot 1) and 290m2 (lot 2)
    2) apply for a building licence for the above
    3) commence construction
    4) apply for a built strata with strata lot sizes of 490m2 (lot 1) and 290m2 (lot 2)
    5) go to title with strata lot 1 (490m2) retaining the existing dwelling and strata lot 2 (290m2) containing the new dwelling

    We are permitted to do this:
    1) apply for a vacant lot strata with strata lot sizes of 490m2 (lot 1) and 290m2 (lot 2)
    2) create the strata lots
    3) apply for a building licence for the new dwelling on strata lot 2 *
    4) strata lot 1 (490m2) retains the existing dwelling and strata lot 2 (290m2) contains the new dwelling

    It is the same outcome either way, the existing house is on a 490m2 stata lot and the new house is on a 290m2 strata lot. The ironic thing is that using option 1, the new dwelling definitely requires planning approval, using option 2 the new dwelling may not require planning approval *. Considering the outcome is the same either way, I think either option is valid but the council sees things differently.

    * According to the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, 61.(1)(c) development approval is not required for the erection or extension of a single house on a lot if the R-Codes apply to the development and the development satisfies the deemed-to-comply requirements of the R-Codes. This is assuming a "lot" includes a strata lot, which I don't know if it does.

    Assuming "lot" does not include a strata lot, the process in the "are permitted to do" would include planning approval as step 3.
     
  20. Perthguy

    Perthguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    23rd Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    4,668
    Location:
    Perth
    I think the way forward is this:

    1) amend the DA plan to show the rear proposed new lot as 350m2
    2) lodge an application for a vacant strata with lot sizes of 490m2 (lot 1) and 290m2 (lot 2) - complies with the scheme and we need the strata lots for valuation purposes for our loans
    3) building licence
    4) commence construction
    5) go to title with the strata lots

    Steps 3 and 4 will depend in which happens first, planning approval and building licence or strata approval

    I want to run this past council because there may be timing issues with constructing on one lot that becomes a different lot during construction. I think this might affect the building licence?
     
    MTR likes this.