Forrestfield/High Wycombe - Dual Density Restrictions

Hi Guys,

New thread here to discuss and plan how we are going to combat the 1,000sqm restriction on the dual density (and other restrictions proposed by the shire of kalamunda). I believe a traditional petition will be next to worthless, a well designed letter with clear and precise comments sign by residents (land owners) will have more of an impact.

I have asked the office owner at the Professionals if we could host an information/planning night here at the office and it was approved so ill start working towards an early new year day for that. In the mean time if people would like to voice their opinions and ideas please do and ill collate it all.

I look forward to hearing from you all.

 

We need to find out how many newly coded lots are >1000sqm. If its only a small percentage then this will make a great argument as most cannot develop and their LHS has pushed for more new and smaller stock. i.e THey want the old houses renovated or knocked down and they want people to stop building large 4x2's since the market wants 2 and 3 bedders. People ar e building these large 4x2s since the density is so low and it would be a waste to not build the largest 4x2 you can on the block (i know i did)

At R25 the only option i have is knock down the old front house and build ONE brand new one in its place. Fat chance thats going to happen. Cost me 200K to build , plus a year of lost rent just to get $30-50/week more rental income. If i could knock down front house and build 2 new dwellings in its place then thats feasibile.

ALso why do >50% need to be 2 storey? These are large blocks in the outer suburbs not tiny blocks near the city

 

Kalumunda Local Housing Strategy Summary

 Much of the housing stock within the Shire of Kalamunda is modest in scale, approximately 40+ years old, and of average to good condition.
 It is clear that the Shire has a lack of variety when it comes to housing options.
 The variety of housing types available to residents is limited in comparison to the rest of Perth, even though the age structure and household composition of Kalamunda is very similar.
 There is clearly a mismatch between dwelling types/sizes, and household types, with an oversupply of large dwellings, and a commensurate undersupply of smaller dwellings. This is a problem common to Kalamunda and most suburbs of the Perth metropolitan area.
 There is also a need for more small dwellings to enable housing to remain affordable to first home buyers and to those on lower incomes.
 The R20 codings prevailing in some areas in the foothills (designated through Town Planning Scheme No. 2) prevent any further subdivision of lots in a majority of situations.
 The majority of subdivisions in areas coded R25 are two lot battle axe subdivisions, with the old house typically retained at the front. This form of subdivision does little to upgrade the old streetscapes in these areas.

 The need for a wider variety of housing in terms of size, price and location has become more urgent. In many instances older residents want to stay in the area but have no alternative to a 4x2 with a large back yard. Young people also need appropriate properties available to enable them to enter the property market. Young families who would like to buy in the hills area presently don’t have many options. The large numbers of single people living within the Shire require a residential product that currently doesn’t exist.
 The majority of older suburbs need a “facelift”. Any proposed new densities with matching policies relating to dual density requirements must address how new developments should best proceed in order to achieve better streetscapes

 

Isn't the counter argument that they want people to amalgamate their lots together to do the development?

 

Not sure, that was my theory unless you heard that somewhere else. Not many people have the funds to buy out their neighbour and then do a large R40 development on 1500-1900sqm

 

Yes that is there intent which as Big Daddy has mentioned is just BS,

 

I can do this rather easily, give me 48 hours or so and ill have an excell list ready.

 

@nevernotspurs join @Aaron Lane in the fight

 

My block is opposite Scott Reserve and for some reason they now propose that to be R25/R30 instead of R40. Count me in.

 

Ambit Where is this updated map?

 

Kalamunda shire minutes from 26th October I think, I'm on the road at the minute. You should find it on the shire website

 

Found it

 

Policy

 

Hi Guys,
Iv done a data dump for Forrestfield all properties affected by the local housing strategy, and those which are >1000sqm.

It works out that all properties in the strategy is approx 3407. Properties that are over 1,000sqm are 243
so 243/3407 = 7.13% less then 10% of Forrestfield will be affected by the local housing strategy if the 1000sqm restriction goes through.

Dropbox - Forrestfield Data.xls

(this link above is to my dropbox if the link doesn't work PM me your email and ill send you the excel sheet)

 

Ah, R20/R40 for my block. But it's the 1000sqm minimum that's the killer

 

Nice work. Can I suggest maybe the next step is to research the % take-up of amalgamation requirements for development in other local council areas?

I imagine its incredibly low, which would be a good argument if the policy strategy is a more general take up of development in the area.

 

If the rezoning is in response to the state government's policy to have 47% of new housing come from infill by 2031 it's not going to be very effective. They just seem to be wimping out on their original plans.

 

243 /3407 is 7.1%

My neighbour was looking forward to the rezoning and now that he can't he probably won't sell it to me so I can rezone or it would be for a very high premium.

 

The Shire of Kalamunda has moved to facilitate more infill development around transport infrastructure, but its proposed planning changes are restrictive and won’t achieve the desired results, according to a prominent industry player.

The Kalamunda council has flagged the rezoning of large parts of the shire, including areas in High Wycombe, Maida Vaile, Forrestfield and Kalamunda, to provide more opportunity for developers to provide higher density housing near the $2 billion Forrestfield Airport Link.

Currently, 93.7 per cent of the housing in Kalamunda is single dwellings, with units and apartments making up around 5.2 per cent of the housing stock.

With state government guidelines calling for 47 per cent of new housing development to occur within the existing boundaries of the metropolitan area, the Shire of Kalamunda says it is committed to encouraging higher-density development.

The shire has already created a concept structure plan for high-density housing within 800 metres of the proposed train station; a plan on which Business News reported earlier this year had become a concern for industry already operating in close proximity.

Outside of that zone, the planned rezoning proposes a dual coding, which would allow developers to create more dwellings on a particular lot if they meet certain requirements.

The dual coding is designed to provide an incentive to developers to help achieve infill targets, while also providing design criteria to ensure the built form is appropriate for the area.

But Momentum Wealth managing director Damian Collins said the requirements would make it difficult for the shire’s desired outcomes to be achieved. Among those stipulations are: a minimum lot size of 1,000 square metres to attain the higher density; all existing buildings on site to be demolished; and for developments to be two storeys or higher on sites coded R40 or greater.

Mr Collins, who is also deputy president of the Real Estate Institute of Western Australia, said the predominant lot size in Kalamunda was around 700sqm, which would force developers to try to amalgamate lots to meet the minimum size requirement.

“Rather than more boutique developments, you’ll have to amalgamate sites, which will be complex; not only that, the mix will potentially be quite extreme,” Mr Collins told Business News.

“You may have three or four blocks combined and have quite a substantial development, which is next door to a house.”


Mr Collins said the requirement for developments to be two storeys and above was also looming as a roadblock to increasing density.

“They are really making it harder to develop in the R40 areas,” he said.

“There are economic viabilities as well, Forrestfield is an up-and-coming area but it is still a lower socio-economic area, where two storeys may not necessarily be the most feasible product.

“From a planning point of view, it is too restrictive.

“Yes, there is a proposed structure plan around the train station but that will be quite high density.

“You have got to have a mix through the area.”

Mr Collins said the proposed changes were indicative of a local council that was under pressure from the Western Australian Planning Commission to make changes, but still wanted to hang on to their old development process.

“This is their attempt to do something, but it seems to me they are still thinking with a hills mentality of big blocks and a suburban lifestyle,” he said.

“If Forrestfield is going to get that infrastructure things need to change, and you’re not going to see a huge amount of redevelopment with these requirements in place.”

Urban Development Institute of Australia WA chief executive Debra Goostrey said infill developments were not always straight-forward, a reality many local governments across Perth were now experiencing.

“The challenge with infill is getting quality and balancing that with existing property owners’ rights,” Ms Goostrey said.

“You can achieve some outcomes on smaller lots but we need to make sure it’s quality ."

 

I bought my block through a Momentum Wealth BA, I think they have quite a few clients who have bought in the area, and they will be very active in objecting to the changes.