If you have to accept a site limitation - which would it be?

Discussion in 'Development' started by Mark77, 18th Dec, 2017.

Join Australia's most dynamic and respected property investment community
  1. Mark77

    Mark77 Active Member

    Joined:
    6th Dec, 2017
    Posts:
    36
    Location:
    Australia
    Different council's have different policies regarding land clearing, flood prone land, bushfire prone land, etc, however the resulting hoops that have to be jumped through are probably quite similar overall. I'm curious to hear what emphasis people put on the following types of site limitations that may increase costs or add to the risk of developing a site. This would be helpful for novices like me that haven't had extensive dealings with council. I realise that regardless of this it always needs to make financial sense in the individual situation.

    For the experienced developers / town planners / surveyors, I was wondering which order of preference you would place on the following limitations (also include your state please). Are there any that would make you disregard the site immediately?

    Heavily treed land

    Flood prone land

    Bushfire prone land

    Development requiring building out a neighbours view

    Unfavourable soil analysis/complex foundations required

    Lots of cutting and filling/retaining required

    Unfavourable slope requiring more complex connection to services

    Irregular shaped block meaning that although min lot size is achieved, building pad size requirements or set back requirements under LEP cannot be met.

    Any others i've missed?
     
  2. Tufan Chakir

    Tufan Chakir Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Aug, 2016
    Posts:
    872
    Location:
    Victoria, Australia
    Firstly ignore the #/sqm yield - so many people just work initial feasts on the site area - problems:
    Flood liability
    Bushfire liability
    Heavily treed (if there are tree controls in place)
    Everything else can be dealt with though good design
     
    Boreas, MTR and Sackie like this.
  3. sanj

    sanj Well-Known Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    3,461
    Location:
    Perth
    I would accept any limitations provided the numbers justified it. Be guided by the numbers and not the limitation or any other arbitrary rule as ultimately it all comes down to $$ and whether the proposed project justifies then $$ spent, risk taken and time needed in order to make the $$ your feasibility indicates
     
  4. sanj

    sanj Well-Known Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    3,461
    Location:
    Perth
    Of the ones listed above though the neighbours view is a non event and not a limitation as there is no legal or planning basis for anyone having a right to a view
     
    Scott No Mates likes this.
  5. Mark77

    Mark77 Active Member

    Joined:
    6th Dec, 2017
    Posts:
    36
    Location:
    Australia
    Thanks Sanj I certainly get your point.

    I guess this is part of my question ie. out of the limitations listed which are likely to cost the most to overcome in terms of $$ and time. Maybe this is an impossible question to answer as too many variables across councils and also across individual circumstances.

    The limitations listed will obviously affect feasability and I do not know how they compare. For example, the local council here (NSW) would require a site in a flood zone to be filled to a certain height as part of DA approval, a bushfire prone block will need an asset protection zone (APZ) with specific setbacks. The width of the APZ will vary with slope, vegetation, Fire Danger Index (FDI) and construction level. Treed land I don't even know what the process is for approval - there is limited information released on when they will allow someone to clear land for construction. It also depends on the types of trees e.g. ones that koalas eat, pest species etc. An application requires a full aborist report. Which of these is going to cost more and be harder to get through council?

    Hard to work out the impact of these things on feasability without having gone through the various processes myself and council haven't been very helpful - it is just too general.
     
  6. sanj

    sanj Well-Known Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    3,461
    Location:
    Perth
    As you said the question is too general to be accurately applied to a specific site.

    Again though, it doesn't really matter what limitation or impediment costs the most etc because it's the profit at the end of it that matters. Id.also challenge the assumption that the above would affect feasibility because if an apparent limitation means a site is sold for less than it would cost to deal with that issue then the supposed "limitation" has actually potentially made you money and not cost it

    Eg, i once bought a site that was on the market for 4 or so years and i put in 5 or so offers over 2 and a bit year period before accepted

    Horrible 2 existing properties on there and a 10m or so drop from front of the property to the rear. There was.over 400m3 of fill.i had to bring in and around 140m of lineal retaining

    The thing is though, the margins were fantastic due to the more difficult sites often not having interest from the annoying pretend developers who buy sites way above any price possible to make decent margins on, ruining that segment etc

    It.was also the only option for me to be able to achieve the end goal I had with a fairly limited amount of capital available at the time


    So again, not to repeat myself annoyingly, all that matters is that the final numbers (expected profit or yield whatever) work, the numbers work from a capital required point of view and that you achieve what you're looking for, keeping in mind the time and risk of any proposed project.


    It doesn't matter if retaining costs 100k,.10k or.300k, likewise with any other issue. It's irrelevant without context and consideration of the above
     
    Westminster, thatbum and Mark77 like this.
  7. MTR

    MTR Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    19th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    27,786
    Location:
    My World
    I wont ever forget the last development/DA with vegetation protection overlay, even though we had a arborist check it out we were dealing with tree hugging council made it very difficult, eventually got it over the line.

    I probably try to avoid this one in future

    MTR:)
     
    Last edited: 19th Dec, 2017
    Deuter, Tufan Chakir and Mark77 like this.
  8. Boreas

    Boreas Member

    Joined:
    5th Jun, 2017
    Posts:
    5
    Location:
    Melbourne
    With my limited experience, among the limitations you listed, I'd be more worried about the issues that I would have limited control on. Mainly:

    1- high number of significant and healthy trees with high retention value when they are protected by the zoning or overlays;
    2- irregular block shape making it infeasible to design a development that satisfy the code requirements;
    3- unfavourbaly sloping site where connection of services will leave you at the mercy of your neighbours (however, if there is enough profit in the deal, mechanically pumping can be considered).

    With a very thorough study of costs, the other limitations can be factored into the feasio and as @sanj suggested may even provide you with an opportunity.
     
  9. Gavin Ng

    Gavin Ng Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    22nd Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    198
    The answer really depends on what you're doing, subdivision, apartments, villas? etc. Every site is worth it if you get it for the right price.

    Lot shape is the ultimate deal breaker for me because there is no way to wriggle out of that, and even if the site is developed, if really affects the marketability of the product. You'd be surprised how many people buy a block thats full of sewer, easements, bushfire, flooding and they don't even know, even if they did, after you develop it, the buyer of the end product wouldn't really care. Just make sure your numbers reflect the constraints.

    Bushfire - not a big deal unless you're BAL 40 or FZ
    Trees - Is the vegetation threatened species such a blue gum or terp? If not, Councils have a reasonable expectation that the site will be developed to its potential even if trees are removed. Replanting and even VPA's (voluntary planning agreements) can be done to compensate.
    Flooding - solution can be engineered.

    Most limitations can be solved with money, it's only the really severe affectations that will restrict development potential or debilitating costs. Even then, if you get the site for the right price and the numbers work it's all good.
     
  10. Mark77

    Mark77 Active Member

    Joined:
    6th Dec, 2017
    Posts:
    36
    Location:
    Australia
    Thanks everyone - great advice.
     
  11. Scott No Mates

    Scott No Mates Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    27,102
    Location:
    Sydney or NSW or Australia
    • Easements & covenants restricting what is able to be done on/to the land, sure you can build over a pipeline with appropriate footing design or lots of concrete but you can't build much under an easement for electrical transmission lines
    • Heritage listings impose their own restrictions - subdivision, maintenance, development
    • Zoning - doesn't just need to be fire/flood restrictions but environmental protection zone, significant ecology, archaeological etc pose extraordinary burdens.
     
  12. BuyersAgent

    BuyersAgent Well-Known Member Business Member

    Joined:
    20th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    1,401
    Location:
    Oz
    As the others have mentioned above: it depends. I know of a council who are very generous when it comes to flood zone but very difficult when street frontage is not wide enough. Another council next door are the reverse, flexible re frontage but no fun at all re flood.
     
  13. melbournian

    melbournian Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    2nd Sep, 2015
    Posts:
    3,038
    Location:
    melbourne
    one site limitation that will not accept - single dwelling covenant. you gonna have to go supreme court and apply for removal or variation which can result in a denial. If this was a 1+ mil dollar property it would mean a big loss of potential

    other stuff like vegetation and abo or floor overlays you can still do a workarounds
     

Build Passive Income WITHOUT Dropping $15K On Buyers Agents Each Time! Helping People Achieve PASSIVE INCOME Using Our Unique Data-Driven System, So You Can Confidently Buy Top 5% Growth & Cashflow Property, Anywhere In Australia