Brisbane, 2 lots into 3, BIG electrical easement.

I own an existing residential (low density) rental property in Durack, Brisbane. Currently it is 2 lots on 1 title, with the lot boundary running through the existing house. Total land size is 1454m, with about 44m of frontage (so no problems there). Quiet residential street.

We are looking to;
1. Re-alignment of boundaries to keep the house on 1 lot (saving demolition costs, etc).
2. Subdivide the remaining vacant land into 2 lots.

Problems; There is a HUGE electrical easement diagonally across the entire property, with high voltage grid based power lines overhead. I have managed to (after considerable pushing) get details of exactly where the easement holder will accept buildings within the easement area.

Question;
1. Does anyone know if the necessary 'development footprint plan' rectangles (9x15m or 14x20m depending on lot size) can go into the 'restricted building area' part of the easement?
or Do the rectangles need to be on clear buildable land?
(I have employed a town planner and the best answer I can get out of him is 'maybe, let's lodge it to council and see how we go'.)

2. If I can get 3 lots out of this, What is your opinion for either selling off the whole thing with DA in place, or selling each block separately, or building a house on each vacant block and then selling?
Profit vs Time vs Risk in the current Brisbane residential market.
(My preference is to sell for capital gain and move on to other projects)

3. What is your opinion of what to do to maximise profit in the current market on a block/development like this (Change lot layout, keep as 2 lots, something else) ?

This is my first subdivision, but far from my first investment property ownership experience.

Following is existing lot plan showing lot boundary running through the existing house. Also the info from the easement holder showing where they would accept buildings within the easement area. Also the proposed 3 lot plan from the town planner that we are considering lodging soon.
TIA for your opinions, it is really appreciated when so much of this is solo work.

 

My land is Lots 28 and 29 on RP 135034.

The left highlighted lot and the one to the left of it.

 

Here is the allowable building area supplied by the easement holder. Both existing lots are included in the highlighted area.

 

Here is the proposed plan for 3 lots, keeping the house entirely on the first lot.

If we are able to get this (or something similar) through we would be over the moon.

Any advice or input as to how to make it better is appreciated. Thanks.

 

How will the third lot cope with boundary setbacks? This may need to be an innovative 2 storey design.

 

Innovative will be a polite way of looking at it, yes. I am thinking the only way will be to make it 2 storeys, and run the garage to the left side boundary. Probably a 3 bed, 2.5 bath, 1 car build, with lots of further parking available in the front yard or driveway.
Could suit someone that needs to park a truck or something.....
At least the front yard is well oriented North East.

 

Wow that is some powerline easement!

I think the 3 lot scenario is going to be very very difficult. 150sqm of land and working with setbacks for a 2 storey is not easy.

I assume the easement is so that Energex can always have access to the lines for repair etc. I think that would be a major turn off to anyone on lot 3 and it might be better to do it as a 2 lot and make the second lot something you can put a house + tennis court or something on. I say this because it will cost you, maybe $250-300k to build that dwelling on it - how much will it be worth when selling? Does it give any return at all? Sometimes it's best to not even build on those lots and just make one larger one.

Run through all the scenarioes and talk to some local REAs and get their thoughts on end values.

 

Does the gas line run under the overhead wires above your property?
It does in many parts of Brisbane.
Marg

 

Hi Marg4000,
I have run a 'dial before you dig' search and there is only the sewer line along the rear boundary (like many properties have). So no, nothing showed up there.
The easement is to Powerlink, not a gas company. They have given me the parameters of where can be built on within the easement area.

Any thoughts on what is allowable for the 'Development Footprint Plan' when subdividing?

 

I'd be trying to get some numbers together to see whats worth building and what's a waste of time. Also it's something like 28k unfra fees per extra lot subdivided. Go over all your options for best end product and profit margin then decide. Its gonna be a hell of a ride that's for sure . If you go ahead, consider engaging a subdivision project manager .

 

Make sure you get good advice before proceeding.
Houses under huge power lines are unpopular and often sell at a significant discount.
Marg

 

My thoughts: Lot 3 won't be a small lot so setbacks are governed by the QDC. Assuming 2.0m side boundary setbacks, you are going to left with a triangular building envelope with an area of roughly 90sqm. Assuming a 2 storey house, your floor area will be roughly 180sqm (maximum) which assumes a triangular shaped custom house design that maximises every sqm of available floor space. It's technically doable, but you would probably need to design/build this yourself. It's unlikely that someone will want to buy this lot with that limited a building envelope.

To answer your questions:

1) As you are aware, when subdividing in Brisbane you need to demonstrate to Council that each lot you are creating has a minimum building envelope (9x15m or 14x20m depending on lot size). The purpose of this is to demonstrate to Council that each lot has a sufficient area to accommodate a new dwelling house. Lot 3 definitely won't achieve either of these and Council almost certainly won't accept you providing a development footprint that extends into an area of the site that Energex have said that can't be built on (which is common sense). In my opinion, the only way that you could get this subdivision layout across the line is to get indicative house plans prepared for a new house on Lot 3 that complies with the required setbacks etc, which will demonstrate to Council that a house can be constructed on this lot (notwithstanding the fact that the lot can't achieve the minimum building envelope). If you are going to try and sell Lot 3 as a vacant lot, I would recommend that you prepare house plan/s for this lot anyway to provide to potential buyers to show what sized house can fit on there. The question is do you bother. You could try talking to a real estate agent to see what interest there would be for a lot of this size with a very small/constrained building envelope. My gut feeling is that you are better off keeping the lots as they are (2 lots).

2) In my opinion, you aren't really offering any value in getting DA approval for the ROL and then on-selling with the DA in place. Any future buyer can get the DA approval (and they can potentially do it for cheaper than you can if they have established consultants etc). As for whether to sell the blocks or build on them then sell, you will need to go through this exercise yourself as there are a number of factors (i.e profitability of each option vs your appetite for risk, finance etc).

3) The site is already on 2 lots and the site already contains 2 sewer connections and 1 water connection, so the simplest solution would be to just install a new water connection ($6k) and apply to the titles office to separate the titles ($1k?) and you're done - no town planning required, no plan sealing etc. You can then sell off the larger lot or build on this yourself. How much did your town planner say it will cost you to subdivide (total costs)? My guess is somewhere around the $60k - $70k mark for this site. If you do want to push for the 3 lots (and it stacks up financially), you could reduce the size of Lot 2 to 350sqm, which would provide more developable area for Lot 3. This would be fully compliant with the subdivision code (as the average lot sizes exceed 400sqm) but it would trigger an Impact Assessable DA.

Before proceeding any further with the subdivision, I would spend more time crunching the numbers and working out whether subdividing the site will be any more profitable that keeping the site as 2 lots.

Cheers
Liam

 

I'm not at all familiar with the building requirements up there, in my council you seem to get away with anything on the grounds that it's too hard to meet DA requirements .

Rather than subdividing, could you argue for a rezoning of the lots to allow a strata complex (I realise the area is supposed to be low density) and have it in the allowable area, on the basis you have a huge area that can never be utilised?

That would probably mean demolition of the existing house, I'm not sure if you are trying to keep that and sell the rest off?

 

Hi Liam,
Firstly thank you for your well thought out and detailed post, it is really appreciated.

For us the numbers do stack up to try and get a 3rd lot out of this property, even spending $60k to $70k to do it.
For part 1. Spot on about the house needing to be a custom design (if allowed). Fortunately we own lot 2 and allow a boundary relaxation to allow the house/garage to be built much closer than the 2m side setback normally needed.
For the minimum building envelope rectangles (6x14, 9x14, or 14x20m) this is where I have had some real confusion. Reading through the councils definitions and requirements, it states it is really a development footprint plan rather than a building envelope plan, and can include 'landscaping or open space. a carpark, road, or access track (read driveway) or area used for vehicle movement. another area of disturbance'. I couldn't find any requirement for a minimum BUILDING envelope needed for a subdivision to be approved.
If I'm wrong here please let me know. I agree with you that if the 9x14m or 14x20m rectangles need to be OUTSIDE the easement areas then a subdivision would never be approved.
For part 2. Agreed, unless there is an approved 3rd lot being created then I'm not offering anything substantially different that what is already there.
For part 3. Yes, we have had a close look at reducing the width of lot 2 (down to 354m2 and 11m width) so as to increase the potential building area on lot 3 (a usable 25m2 increase). There are plenty of standard house designs that would fit on lot 2.
Bringing lot 2 down to 354m2, will this really trigger an Impact Assessable DA?? My reading of the BCC plan is that if the average lot size is above 400m2 then we can have lots down to 350m2 (as you point out). The lot width remains 11m, so plenty wide enough.
For this lot 2 , we would apply for a rear boundary setback relaxation to allow a larger house, citing a large front yard and house plans oriented to the front yard (which is a perfect NE aspect anyway).
If you have any further insight I would love to hear it.

 

Development footprint plan definition from the BCC. For the 6x14m, 9x14m, or 14x20m rectangles needed for a subdivision approval.
Am I reading in the wrong place?

 

Hi QAK,
Thanks for the reply. I am trying to get this one through as a code assessable subdivision because I do not want the powerline company (Powerlink) involved in the process. They are not keen on having anything much happen to the land there, despite what the easement conditions say.
The street is all detached houses, so trying to put apartments there would be a really tough ask, and definitely involve an impact assessable application.
If I can keep the house cleanly on 1 lot then the savings are HUGE (no demolition, 1 lot can be sold with a decent house already on it, less building costs, etc) and we want to keep the house there.
The plan is to subdivide and eventually sell off (timing determined by tax liability etc), and I expect that we might have to build on lot 3 (if approved) because of the odd building envelope shape and siting.
Cheers, Jac.

 

Hi Marg,
Yes, a big discount for the land value has been factored into the calculations. If we can keep the house on lot 1 then it is worth it to pay to get the 3rd lot in place.
Cheers, Jac

 

Hi Sackie,
Having dealt with 'Powerlink' for some time now, we are well and truly on one hell of a ride!
If we can keep the house on lot 1 and get a 3rd lot out of it then it does stack up for us, even considering the significant discount that land/houses sell for when near/under high voltage power lines.
Town Planner has been engaged.
Cheers, Jac

 

Your town planner should be able to explain all this to you. However, in a nutshell, the minimum rectangle dimension specified in the Subdivision Code isn't a development footprint plan or a building envelope plan. It forms part of the acceptable outcome of the subdivision code (AO1.2).
AO1.2 Development provides lots with dimensions in compliance with Table 9.4.10.3.B.

The "dimensions" referred to above include minimum lot size, minimum frontage and a minimum rectangle dimension. You could try and argue that the lot is able to achieve the minimum rectangle dimension (i.e by including the area that can't be built in) but I don't think it is a very strong argument. Keep in mind, this is an acceptable outcome only. You TP will just need to demonstrate that the ROL will comply with PO1. That is why I suggested that you get plans prepared for the new house on the constrained lot to demonstrate to Council that a lawful use (i.e house) is able to be established on this lot, notwithstanding the fact that the lot can't actually achieve a 14m x 20m area that can be built on.

No, creating a lot less than 400sqm will trigger an Impact Assessable DA (even though it is supported by the subdivision code).

Also, just to clarify, you won't be able to avoid referring the development application to Powerlink (or Energex) just because the DA is Code Assessable. Any assessable development (Code or Impact) for an ROL will require referral to Energex or Powerlink (whichever entity owns the infrastructure and is benefited by the easement on your land) as an Advice Agency.

 

Hi Liam,
Thanks for the detailed reply.
I really wanted to avoid a 'impact assessable' application to give the easement holder, Powerlink, nothing to complain about or block the subdivision.
Sounds like they'll be pretty involved anyway, so I'm hoping that we can get it approved with these rectangles going into the restricted area.
Yes, I agree, some house plans (or at least sketches) showing how we can fit a reasonable house on the buildable area will need to be drawn up.

I have engaged a TP and an application is now in, so I hope he is doing his job properly.
Your expertise is appreciated by this noob. Thanks.
PS: You're not a TP are you?
Cheers, Jac.