Forrestfield/High Wycombe - Dual Density Restrictions

Discussion in 'Development' started by Aaron Lane, 15th Dec, 2015.

Join Australia's most dynamic and respected property investment community
  1. PerthNoob

    PerthNoob Member

    Joined:
    27th Jul, 2015
    Posts:
    13
    Location:
    AU
    The opposite has happened with the recent Shire of Swan rezoning whereby the City's proposal was LESS restrictive, allowing for lots with frontage exceeding 25m to be exempt from the restriction of no more than 2 lots to be created. The WAPC, for an unknown reason removed this exemption from the approved scheme.
     
  2. Aaron Lane

    Aaron Lane Member

    Joined:
    11th Dec, 2015
    Posts:
    24
    Location:
    Forrestfield
    Yes they are actively fighting the restrictions, I speak to Kent about their plans and best ways forward, we agreed that it would be better for myself and the professionals office to put forward a case and momentum put forward a case independently rather then one giant argument.
     
    Ambit likes this.
  3. Big Daddy

    Big Daddy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    25th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    998
    Location:
    Perth
    If they are seeking public comment then let everyone know so we can voice our concern. It would be good for all land owners to go along to the council meeting when they discuss the issue ?

    I.would really like to know their reasoning for min 1000sqm and especially why they want mostly 2 storey?
     
  4. Aaron Lane

    Aaron Lane Member

    Joined:
    11th Dec, 2015
    Posts:
    24
    Location:
    Forrestfield
    Morning Guys,

    I have had a chat to the shire this morning, from what I found out the main reason behind the 2 storey restriction is that the shire wish to increase the variety of housing stock in the area and attract a different demographic of buyer.

    The reason behind the 1000sqm restriction seems to be the shire believe that "Larger lot developments allow for better building out comes, that is less crossovers and more landscaping (just one reason they gave)" another claim was that developers prefer to have larger lots to work with.

    well let me know what you guys think. (to me those reasons are **** poor at best)
     
  5. Aaron Lane

    Aaron Lane Member

    Joined:
    11th Dec, 2015
    Posts:
    24
    Location:
    Forrestfield
    Also iv had a chat to the city of Belmont and i have their restriction/requirements for R20/40 in the city of Belmont.

    These include, (grouped dwellings)
    16M frontage
    meet the average and min of the R-code
    50% of dwellings being 2 storey (in the case of an odd number of dwellings round up)
    6M access way between the dwelling and the boundary of the property (ie 6M wide drive way)

    Who knows where the shire of Kala pulled this 1000sqm and Demo ******** from.
     
  6. soggy

    soggy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    19th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    70
    Location:
    Perth
    Is the 7.1% pool for >1000sqm blocks large enough for shire?

    This must be what they're basing it on. Can't forsee how developers are going to get amalgated blocks. It's no easy task finding and buying up 2 blocks together.
     
  7. Aaron Lane

    Aaron Lane Member

    Joined:
    11th Dec, 2015
    Posts:
    24
    Location:
    Forrestfield
    They dont know the total number of houses in the affected area or how many are >1000sqm (as is), they have literally pulled that number out of their arses, i asked them where they got the 1000 from the response was "we had to cut it off somewhere"
     
  8. Ambit

    Ambit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    22nd Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    328
    Location:
    Perth
    I wouldn't mind betting that the first priority for developers who can afford to amalgamate blocks would be maximising their returns, no guarantee of 'better building outcomes' or nicer landscaping. I can think of a couple of new larger developments in the area that are not particularly attractive, have to have a drive around when I get back from site next week.
     
  9. Aaron Lane

    Aaron Lane Member

    Joined:
    11th Dec, 2015
    Posts:
    24
    Location:
    Forrestfield
    Yeah i guess you mean the one on Edinburgh Road, very unsightly.
     
  10. Aaron Lane

    Aaron Lane Member

    Joined:
    11th Dec, 2015
    Posts:
    24
    Location:
    Forrestfield
    Hi All,

    It looks like public commenting will be in February/March, the shire is looking to run 3 separate meetings (over 3 weeks) 1 for Forrestfield, 1 for High Wycombe and 1 for Kalamunda. Over the next week or 2 ill be drafting the letter for land owners which we will use as a sort of petition, I will be looking to get about 100 of them signed and ready for the public commenting.

    Cheers guys
     
  11. Big Daddy

    Big Daddy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    25th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    998
    Location:
    Perth
    Thanks Aaron
    I doubt that any big developers will pay a premium to to entice owners to sell and then have to build 50% of them as 2 story townhouses that far from the cbd. I thought the proposal was for mum and dad investors who already own the lot to build a few more dwellings without amalgamation.

    At >1000sqm the take-up rate will be small or non existant
     
  12. iDex

    iDex Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    25th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    55
    Location:
    Perth
    May I ask where can I find information of the zoning changes?
     
  13. Big Daddy

    Big Daddy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    25th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    998
    Location:
    Perth
    Proposed zoning under the planning section of the Shire of Kalamunda website. The proposed zoning shows the lots affected , their proposed zoning and a few other important details. The council meeting minutes on their website (28th Oct 2015?) show the draft rules (split coding density rules) for lots that are split coded. Once these rules are finalized they will also appear under the planning section.
     
    iDex likes this.
  14. Aaron Lane

    Aaron Lane Member

    Joined:
    11th Dec, 2015
    Posts:
    24
    Location:
    Forrestfield
    Have you found it iDex? if not i can email it to you.
     
  15. Big Daddy

    Big Daddy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    25th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    998
    Location:
    Perth
    Thanks Aaron

    Also when you get firm dates for the council meetings can you post them here. Or if its easier send us a link to the relevant webpage so we can keep checking for dates.

     
  16. Aaron Lane

    Aaron Lane Member

    Joined:
    11th Dec, 2015
    Posts:
    24
    Location:
    Forrestfield
    Yes of course I will post it here, i am due to talk to the shire on the 11th so ill see if they have dates then.
     
  17. Aaron Lane

    Aaron Lane Member

    Joined:
    11th Dec, 2015
    Posts:
    24
    Location:
    Forrestfield
  18. Bob Malpass

    Bob Malpass New Member

    Joined:
    16th Dec, 2015
    Posts:
    4
    Location:
    High Wycombe
    Thanks Aaron for the link and all your work in flying the flag as we fight this appalling thought bubble concerning the minimum 1000sqm restriction.

    The real reason for this policy - maybe they don't want development.
     
  19. Aaron Lane

    Aaron Lane Member

    Joined:
    11th Dec, 2015
    Posts:
    24
    Location:
    Forrestfield
    Hi Bob,

    It is either that, or they truly have no idea that the plan they have put forward does not support the aim of their scheme.
     
  20. thatbum

    thatbum Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    5,788
    Location:
    Perth, WA
    If you're going to properly argue against their proposal, you at least have to be realistic about the other side of the coin.

    The requirement to amalgamate lots for development is often a legitimate tool to achieve planning policy aims.
     

PFI provide our clients with the opportunity to purchase an investment property, together with performing equity investments from a wide range of ASX listed securities some providing monthly income. This is the value of advice.