Forrestfield/High Wycombe - Dual Density Restrictions

Page 48 of the agenda for tonight's meeting, item 61(a).'The minimum area of the total development site must be greater than 1000sqm or the property must have access to two street frontages'.
That's the proposal so now I'm praying it gets voted through tonight without any issues because my block is on a corner too.

 

Thanks for that Ambit.. There's a separate attachment with proposed changes to Amendment 82 and to local planning scheme. In addition to the change you've mentioned (corner lot), there is another major change.. They have omitted the condition 'existing house must be demolished' as well.. Now that's a huge win for all of us...!

 

Even better! Hadn't seen that.
I just rang the council to confirm the two street frontage bit because I found one amendment that it wasn't on and was assured there's a later version and it's correct.
So fingers crossed those amendments are voted through tonight!

 

I can't find the attachment you're referring to re not having to demolish, the one I saw says existing house has to be demolished unless it has heritage value or some such.
There seems to be a few versions and I'm sitting at the airport trawling thru my iPhone so maybe I'm just not finding the right one.

 

I let the senior planner at Kalamunda know the immediate concerns of the electorate (he's in Canada atm) and I have a feeling he's actually passed on the info after seeing this thread. ...!

 

The City of Swan proposal that was recently approved had similar frontage exemptions but WAPC removed these from the final approved conditions. Just something to keep in mind.

 

Oh this just keeps getting better and better. Thanks for the heads up, what an emotional roller coaster ride.

 

Hi Ambit, It's the fourth attachment which has got the revised Amendment 82.

 

Are you referring to the Urban Housing strategy? It has got a condition of 25 m street frontage if that's what you meant. Has WAPC given any reason to why it's removed?
I always thought it was WAPC who was pushing Kalamunda shire for increasing it's housing while shire was being reluctant delaying, implementing conditions etc..

 

Seems it's through, split vote 5:5 with the mayor having the final vote.

Note - you don't have to amalgamate to secure this - just have an agreement in place with your neighbour to be smart about better access etc.

But I still doubt this will help...

 

Any idea how long it will take to be approved by WAPC?

 

Yes, the UHS. No idea why it was removed. I was under the same impression with regards to councils vs WAPC. Other members may have some more insight?

 

I still can't see minutes of the meeting and any updated information on Shire's website.. (That's pretty normal for Kalamunda website anyways..)
From what I understand, amendment 82 was approved by the Shire with the 'specific changes to corner lots and removed condition for demolition of existing house'. Have I understood correct?

Also, what did you mean by 'you don't have to amalgamate to secure this'? If the property is not a corner block and is less than 1,000 sqm, I always thought amalgamation is the only option.. What would be 'smarter' approach to overcome that? Thanks mate..

 

From what I understand you are correct on all fronts.

You may not need to amalgamate - for example, enter into an access agreement with your neighbour for any future development and the proposal for assessment becomes larger than 1000m².

 

Meeting minute is up in Shire's website.. Looks like a tight win for the modifications, there has been few debates (don't know over what, didn't bother to read throughout), good thing is, amended amendment 82 has been voted through (6:5)

 

http://www.kalamunda.wa.gov.au/file...00d29807/Item-1033-Att-7-OCM-27-June-2016.pdf

 

Interestingly, the vote for strike out 'demolish existing building' had been lost (5:6) however it's been removed from final document anyway...! Or am I missing something here?

 

Just had a very quick look before having to go back to work, have to have a good read later. Did the two street frontages exemption go through?

 

Yes it did mate.. But I'm not so sure about exemption of 'demolition of existing house' even though it's not included in the final document.. (looks like a mistake but I wish the document goes through to WAPC together with the mistake.. LOL)

 

Talked to Shire on Friday and asked about 'demolition of existing house' condition and the extent of it. It didn't look like they've understood the wide range of scenarios they're looking at. Existing house could be a two year old dwelling, heavily renovated dwelling or 40 years old next to useless dwelling.. I've seen some heavily renovated dwellings which are better than brand new houses.. But shire seems to categorize all of them as 'existing house' just because they've been there when we're planning to sub divide, which is ridiculous..!