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. Aaron Lane

    Aaron Lane Member

    Joined:
    11th Dec, 2015
    Posts:
    24
    Location:
    Forrestfield
    Ok while "amalgamations for development is a legitimate tool" there is no way that enough people will take up amalgamation to achieve the target of Directions 2031 and Beyond, which is really the purpose of this scheme, as stated " The shire IS required to meet future housing needs of its residents" see section 2 of agenda - 26 October 2015.

    For the shire to suggesting amalgamation as a legitimate approach to increase density they must know/ at least have an idea of how many properties will amalgamate to achieve the target. A way to do this is look at other shires which require amalgamation to achieve higher density's and how many people have done amalgamations. (currently Melville does, and the are now rezoning their dual areas to just the higher density as NO ONE has done amalgamations)
     
  2. Big Daddy

    Big Daddy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    25th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    998
    Location:
    Perth
    My neighbours will not sell as they wish to do this development and make some money, nor can i afford to buy another site and develop 2 large parcels of land and build 50% of them 2 storey. Nor am i going to sell them my block unless they pay a ridicious premium since i have held this land negatively geared for so long waiting for the new zoning. Im guessing most other residents will feel the same.
     
  3. Aaron Lane

    Aaron Lane Member

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

    The shire have release the dates and venues for the forums relating to the Local Housing Strategy.

    28th January at The zig zag cultural centre

    4th February at the Cyril Road Hall

    and 10th February at the Woodlupine centre
     
  4. ppnuwan

    ppnuwan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    21st Jan, 2016
    Posts:
    49
    Location:
    Forrestfield
    I bought a corner block in 2014 solely due to dual density anticipation so that I could build a new house at the back which has got its own crossover/drive way.. I'm ****** now as it's almost impossible now as my land is less than 1,000 sqm and there won't be a good profit if I'm to demolish the old house anyway.. I spend a fortune renovating the old house and now it looks so in vane..!
     
  5. Big Daddy

    Big Daddy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    25th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    998
    Location:
    Perth
    It would be wise to attend one of these meetings and make your voice heard.
     
    ESKN likes this.
  6. ppnuwan

    ppnuwan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    21st Jan, 2016
    Posts:
    49
    Location:
    Forrestfield
    Yes mate, will be attending to that one.. See how it goes..
    By the way, I'm curious on how many people (as a percentage) would actually support 'new developments' in the area.. I'm sure there is a significant crowd who don't want the suburb to look different than it is now.. What do you guys think on that?
     
  7. Big Daddy

    Big Daddy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    25th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    998
    Location:
    Perth
    The council's local housing strategy wants the old large stock replaced with newer smaller stock. Eg they are saying there is too many ugly 4x2s and want newer 2x2 and 3x2 to match the demographic
     
  8. ppnuwan

    ppnuwan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    21st Jan, 2016
    Posts:
    49
    Location:
    Forrestfield
    May I know from where did you get that information? I thought their intention was to have new houses instead of old ones. Now it looks like they want more urban like smaller houses rather than big houses. If that's the case, then why don't they encourage developing smaller lands..?
     
  9. thatbum

    thatbum Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    5,792
    Location:
    Perth, WA
    Probably because its easier to carve out 'better' smaller lots when subdividing up a much larger lot.
     
  10. Big Daddy

    Big Daddy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    25th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    998
    Location:
    Perth
    @ppnuwan. Local Housing Strategy

    -The Shire needs to encourage the development of smaller dwelling units that are better suited to the population profile.
    -There is little choice in housing for older people in the Shire. Currently 93.6% of housing is separate housing for “families”. As 25% of the population is over 55 years of age, there is clearly a mismatch of housing to community needs.
    -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 percentage of four and five bedroom houses in the Shire of Kalamunda is substantially larger than in Greater Perth. Equally, the number of zero, one and two bedroom houses is substantially smaller than Greater Perth. (See Figure 16)
    Analysis of the household/family types in the Shire of Kalamunda in 2011 compared to Greater Perth shows that there was a higher proportion of couple families with children as well as a similar proportion of one parent families. Overall, 34.4% of total families were couple families with children, and 10.3% were one-parent families, compared to 31.6% and 9.9% respectively for Greater Perth.
    However, this still means that nearly half of all Kalamunda dwellings do not contain children, and are occupied by just one or two persons. 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.
    -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 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.


    And some notes in their strategy regarding zoning
    The higher residential densities experienced in High Wycombe, Forrestfield, Kalamunda etc., (compared to the Shire as a whole) are still very low by comparison with contemporary “urban” or even “suburban” standards.
    It must be acknowledged that the Shire of Kalamunda has the ability to influence any population projections made by others, by, for example, increasing the quantity of land available for housing development, and changing R-Codings and increasing densities in existing residential areas
     
    ppnuwan and Aaron Sice like this.
  11. Perthguy

    Perthguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    22nd Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    11,767
    Location:
    Perth
    [QUOTE="Big Daddy, post: 147140, member: 1041"-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.[/QUOTE]
    I agree and this is the whole foundation of a vibrant community. If you want a diversity of residents (singles, couples, upsizers, downsizers, retirees, families), you need a diversity of housing options.
     
  12. RTDream

    RTDream Member

    Joined:
    25th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    5
    Location:
    West Coast
    Im following this closely too, interesting proposal from the shire,
    There is that property on maida vale rd (2000sqm) which sold, I received a letter from the shire that the developer has put in proposed plans to build 13 1x1 elderly homes.
    Ill be down there on feb 4th as i too have property in the shire.
     
  13. Bob Malpass

    Bob Malpass New Member

    Joined:
    16th Dec, 2015
    Posts:
    4
    Location:
    High Wycombe
    Called the shire today about my Bandalong Way block, building a 4/2 at the rear and with higher zoning later could build two townhouses at the front. But as we know with minimum 1000m required this won't happen.

    The reply when I said that there won't be many existing owners able to finance a development over two properties to meet the minimum 1000 : 'sell to a developer'.

    Then asked why are you doing this 1000m minimum "Because it's easier".
     
  14. Big Daddy

    Big Daddy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    25th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    998
    Location:
    Perth
    What address ? I'm 26 bandalong
     
  15. Bob Malpass

    Bob Malpass New Member

    Joined:
    16th Dec, 2015
    Posts:
    4
    Location:
    High Wycombe
    number 12, a work in progress, any news from last nights forum?
     
  16. RTDream

    RTDream Member

    Joined:
    25th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    5
    Location:
    West Coast
    26 bandalong? Im 30 im sure u have seen me busy lately big daddy
     
  17. Big Daddy

    Big Daddy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    25th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    998
    Location:
    Perth
    Sorry I dont live there , its an Investment Property.

    Backup plan if the >1000sqm restriction is enacted is we need No 28 to amalgatamate. I wonder if its possible to create an entity in which it recieves all 3 lots, then it subdivides the 3 lots into 12 lots and 3 common driveways and sells 3 lots plus one common driveway back to the original owner WHILIST paying minimal stamp duty or CGT. Maybe a Disposition?
    http://www0.landgate.wa.gov.au/docvault.nsf/web/PS_STRATAFORMS/$file/FOR_DLI_Form39.pdf

    I will be going to the meeting Feb 4th.
     
    Westminster, ppnuwan and Perthguy like this.
  18. ppnuwan

    ppnuwan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    21st Jan, 2016
    Posts:
    49
    Location:
    Forrestfield
    Went to today's meeting at High Wycombe.. (Couldn't participate to Forrestfield one). Not really happy with what I've found. Even though council is seeking for public comments, they are not willing to change amendments based on that. They will still submit dual density policy with same amendments to WAPC regardless of what we have to say. However WAPC will be provided with a report on community feedback as well (God knows to what extent our saying will be represented in that report though..!). As it seems they (council) will still do what they commenced and asking for community feedback is just for settling the angry public..! I noticed there was a significant crowd who strongly oppose dual density scheme in the meeting..

    Few interesting things that I got to know from the meeting which might be important to other users,

    1) Council MAY be willing to consider sub division applications on case by case basis instead of implementing strict rules

    2) Council is worried more about lack of street frontage rather than minimum area so if you have a long street frontage it's likely that you have got better chances in future in case above 1) is implemented instead of minimum 1,000 m2 rule..

    3) Demolition of existing dwelling is not really a strict rule; especially in lots where owner has done extensive renovation works to the existing property, council may consider approving the application to develop while keeping the existing dwelling

    4) It almost looked like what council don't want is 'rear battleaxe' developments with less or no street visibility at the back house

    Please come up with your findings and opinions as well if any of you guys attended to any of those meetings...
     
  19. Big Daddy

    Big Daddy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    25th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    998
    Location:
    Perth
    Yes I went tonight and asked the same 4 questions and got the same answer. Eg may be willing to relax rule if you have a 50m frontage. Yes 50m

    Didn't seem like they wanted to hear any objections and wouldnt change their policy based on comments. May allow retention of existing house and vary 1000sqm rule by 5 to 10% on a case by case basis. I wouldn't hold my breath. He was probably saying that to shut me up and get me of his back.
     
    ppnuwan and Perthguy like this.
  20. Bob Malpass

    Bob Malpass New Member

    Joined:
    16th Dec, 2015
    Posts:
    4
    Location:
    High Wycombe
    Having a chat with a few other owners last night, I would say "supported the dual density codes BUT strongly opposed the minimum 1000m"

    The reason for this minimum 1000 - If I was council and didn't want increased development I would say - yes lets have a new dual density code, but don't expect many to use the new density zoning by creating a 1000m rule. Who will this rule benefit? Not the existing land owners.

    Dean Nalder is on the right track with a train line to High Wycombe and Forrestfield but please don't expect a flood of passengers - owners cannot create the increased density required.
     
    ppnuwan likes this.