Melbourne townhouses - is this achievable with today's planning requirements?

I'm impressed by this example of a Malvern townhouse development built in 2004. I'm curious if it is still possible in today's regulatory environment (setbacks, height restrictions, garden area, etc).

4 townhouses on an 883sqm block, all 3br 2bath 2car (basement).

Address is 11 Ascot St, Malvern (and the other 3 subdivided as 1A, 1B, and 1C glenview avenue).

It seems to me like these townhouses are of far superior quality and amenity than most townhouses being thrown up today, and with a higher efficiency use of the land.

I see often 3 townhouses on 900sqm blocks, or people struggling to fit less on more.

Google maps link

Example of interior

If this style of not achievable today, what would need to change and why?

 

If it is the look you are asking about - it will depend on location and "neighbourhood character".

If it's about the number of houses it will depend on all the usual factors, shape and size of land, setbacks of adjacent houses, site coverage etc etc

 

We fit four nice townhouses on 560m2.
Two 3 beds & two 2 beds.

We targeted the right site for "overdevelopment" and it worked well.
Based on this the right site could house 5 or 6 dwellings.

The point is that there are sites and there are sites!
The size is one key factor but there are other
factors.

PAUL

 

Thanks for the reply Paul. I would be very interested in reading more about your development, could you elaborate with some more detail?

• What is unique about your site - as you say there are sites and there are sites!
• How did you satisfy the council planning
• Could you share some numbers

Seems like an efficient use of the site.

 

Hi Vindi

Yes happy to offer up info.

When we develop or when we look for a development site for our clients we look for an "edge". Ideally you buy a site that has more potential than it's price reflects.
This is the basis of PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT.

So we identified this site as one that could be "over developed".

In this case it had the rail line at the rear. We turned this into a positive by understanding north is a the front, lets face this way towards the school and turn our backs on the railway with a two story wall right on the rear boundary. If there were neighbours at the rear we would not offer them a two story wall and in fact we could not build close to their fence. This combined with the generous width of the site allowed for a heavier development option.

In basic terms we turned $2.6m into $3.8m plus depending on who values the four houses.

I hope this helps

PAUL