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. ppnuwan

    ppnuwan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    21st Jan, 2016
    Posts:
    49
    Location:
    Forrestfield
    First, with approved sub divisions with brand new houses here and there will NOT make a suburb look brand new while we've got **** load of old houses everywhere else.. It's unfair only the person who's so keen on developing will have to pay the price of demolishing the old house not the rest.. I would expect some encouragement towards the guy who's keen on doing something rather than who don't want to do anything and keep streets just as bad as before..
     
  2. Ambit

    Ambit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    22nd Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    328
    Location:
    Perth
    Reading the minutes it looks like they were afraid WAPC wouldn't grant them further extension of time to debate more major changes in some cases so they voted against them, which makes the whole exercise pointless.
     
    ppnuwan likes this.
  3. ppnuwan

    ppnuwan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    21st Jan, 2016
    Posts:
    49
    Location:
    Forrestfield
    Exactly what I thought too.. When looking at who voted against which, it didn't make sense.. For an example, one member who voted against the whole amendment, then votes for a modified condition and vise versa..! I highly doubt any of those members knew what they're doing. It's a shame because they are supposed to represent us, the residents of the shire..

    I'm just wondering whether it's possible to make an appeal to WAPC, explaining whole scenario (and of course the lack of planning & development understanding of our good old council members) and push them to make changes (as I'm pretty sure they know what they're doing..) Has anyone heard of something similar..?
     
  4. ESKN

    ESKN New Member

    Joined:
    4th Oct, 2016
    Posts:
    1
    Location:
    Perth
    I just found this website and wow, I wish I've found it way before.
    I've got a house in forrestfield corner block about just a little over 900m2.
    Negative geared, been a killer holding on to it. And finally something good came out of it.
    I'm currently up to my eye balls in debt, I wouldn't mind the amalgamation tbh.
    Or a joint venture investment. Will take at least 10-15 years before I can summon up enough cash to build 3-5 villas on my block.
     
  5. Big Daddy

    Big Daddy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    25th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    998
    Location:
    Perth
    We should post addresses so with enough people we might find a forum member who wishes to amalgamate.
    Im in Bandalong Way so if anyone else is on this street i will post the house number. Dont want to give out full address as its tenanted
     
  6. ppnuwan

    ppnuwan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    21st Jan, 2016
    Posts:
    49
    Location:
    Forrestfield
    Though my block is located on a corner no amalgamation would be required hopefully, I'm on Tarata way Forrestfield if that helps anyone..
    By the way, does anyone have any update regarding Gazetting the dual density coding..? When I talked to Shire the other day, they still had the same reply (it'll take up to 12 months to finalize.. What? That's what they said 12 months ago..!)
     
  7. Ambit

    Ambit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    22nd Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    328
    Location:
    Perth
    WAPC told me it should be done by the end of the year! That was a few months ago
     
    ppnuwan likes this.
  8. Big Daddy

    Big Daddy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    25th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    998
    Location:
    Perth
    Just spoke to planner at Kalumunda and they are changing their dual density policy as WAPC have requested changes. I asked about Lot Size and the 2 Storey Requirement and they said thats changing and pretty much the whole thing is changing. They wont release what the new changes are but im guessing the lot size is <1000sqm and they have scrapped the 2 storey requrement. Dont hold your breath though as i recall someone mentioned once that WAPC actually increased the min lot size requirement for one council.
     
    Ambit and thatbum like this.
  9. Westminster

    Westminster Tigress at Tiger Developments Business Member

    Joined:
    3rd Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    11,331
    Location:
    Perth
    Interesting. Hopefully it comes up with something a lot more useable
     
  10. Ambit

    Ambit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    22nd Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    328
    Location:
    Perth
    Fingers crossed for a good outcome.
     
  11. Aaron Sice

    Aaron Sice Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    1,588
    Location:
    Ocean Reef, WA
    City of Swan.
     
    Big Daddy likes this.
  12. Ambit

    Ambit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    22nd Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    328
    Location:
    Perth
    Just rang WAPC, and was told progress has been deferred at shire's request while they work on a Local Planning Policy, so he reckoned things won't get going again till about the middle of the year. :eek:
    He said WAPC had some concerns, as did the local community, so optimistically it sounds as if they are on the same page as us. He wouldn't be more specific unfortunately!
     
    ppnuwan and Big Daddy like this.
  13. ppnuwan

    ppnuwan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    21st Jan, 2016
    Posts:
    49
    Location:
    Forrestfield
    At least if they could let us know the condition 'demolition of existing house' will be removed so that I can do some works on the existing house while waiting..! I've been waiting without doing anything to exterior of the house only because it's going to be demolished anyways.. This is so frustrating...!
     
  14. Big Daddy

    Big Daddy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    25th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    998
    Location:
    Perth
    I built new at the back in 2015 and they want me to demolish to meet the new policy. Where is the sanity in that . Or should be reworded to "bring the existing dwellings elevation to match the more modern streetscape"

     
    ppnuwan and Perthguy like this.
  15. ppnuwan

    ppnuwan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    21st Jan, 2016
    Posts:
    49
    Location:
    Forrestfield
    Big Daddy, during your conversation with Shire official, did you ask about that condition? I think it was one of stupidest conditions council put. Do you think WAPC would abolish that during the whole 're-writing' process?
     
  16. Big Daddy

    Big Daddy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    25th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    998
    Location:
    Perth
    No idea.

     
    ppnuwan likes this.
  17. ppnuwan

    ppnuwan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    21st Jan, 2016
    Posts:
    49
    Location:
    Forrestfield
    Looks like we're back in square one..

    This is what Shire web site says,
    "The Shire is progressing the development of the Draft Dual Density Design Guidelines as a Local Planning Policy (LPP) which will accompany the requirements for development under the Dual Density Codes adopted under Scheme Amendment 82.
    It is expected that Council will be seeking public comment by Approximately April / May of 2017"

    Source:
    Shire of Kalamunda - Dual Density Codes – Amendment 82

    This is ridiculous..
     
  18. dmb1978

    dmb1978 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    5th Nov, 2015
    Posts:
    353
    Location:
    ACT
    Classic, I grew up in that street. Can't believe lots of those huge blocks with beautiful front gardens are now dual occies! Sign of the times
     
  19. Ambit

    Ambit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    22nd Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    328
    Location:
    Perth
    Unbelievable
     
  20. Big Daddy

    Big Daddy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    25th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    998
    Location:
    Perth
    Are there any changes to amendment 82? I did t read it again but from the above info the WAPC did have some concerns and I thought they were really writing it.