My first development

Oh I see. That's funny that you must have room at the front for passive surveillance, but at the same time you can build front and back.....how does the back house do surveillance

Yeah I don't mind paying for moving the tree, I just want to make sure that they will allow it before putting in the WAPC application, otherwise it might result in loss of $4k and 3 months.

What do you (@Westminster and @thatbum ) think about the rental value of the back house compare to a side by side, would there be much difference? I am planning to rent the second unit.

I am still confused but for the life of me I am unable to convince myself on the narrow lot homes. Wouldn't the loss of value in the back house be made up in extra value of the front house if I go front and back?
I am also planning to put an electronic gate in the driveway to the back house so the common property driveway can be use exclusively and as a front yard for people living in the back unit.

 

Again, a rear house is an inferior product, but I suppose the effect on rentals is less extreme.

If anything, even the front house would possibly been seen as inferior compared to a side by side narrow house. That's because the front house will have the stigma of having a rear lot house 'attached' to it, as well as the loss of privacy and the like for the backyard and driveway side.

If I was buying for myself I would easily go for the narrow lot house, assuming it was decently designed.

 

Well I am myself living in a front house, with a house at the back, for over a year and have never noticed a thing. I am not sure how exactly a back house is "attached" to my front house.

Another thing is when I look at the satellite view in the area I am building, in Morley, the overwhelming majority have decided to build front and back. I am talking about the blocks with exactly the same R-code, similar area and frontage.....so why would that be? It seems that about 8 of 10 new subdivisions are front and back. Even if you assume half of them are front retain and build, still the back and front outnumber the side by side.

 

Why would you assume half? I would probably assume 100% of them would be retain and subs.

 

It is actually very easy to see which ones are retain&sub and which ones are both new units. The building type, the roof type and color overall style of construction is a give away.

See here

 

There might be a planning regulation to do with it then. Sometimes its to do with qualifying for the dual coding, like in Hilton. Or sometimes to do with limiting crossovers.

Or maybe its just laziness and ignorance. Shrug.

Still doesn't change my advice to go for side by side unless its actually impossible. If anything, it makes a side by side product more rare and valuable.

 

I would say it was certainly easier to go front and back and up until about 5yrs ago it was the norm to go front back.
Maybe have a chat with some local REAs and PMs and show them the 2 concepts and ask them for their opinion.

With a front-back option the rear house still can do the passive surveillance and must have a window facing down the driveway.

This is a high end example of side by side with a high value price
135 A & B Mickleham Road Morley WA 6062 - House for Sale #122626934 - realestate.com.au

 

Hi WM that's very nice example of side by side. Thanks for sharing.

Do you think I have more chances of council agreeing to move the tree if I go side by side? Because then it would be significant impact to the development if the tree were not moved. In my opinion, anyway

 

Or even if I went front and back with no common property? this will reduce the front lot size but then council can't say why don't I use the common property with side garage access for the front unit.

 

Hi @Westminster do you think i will have better chances of council agreeing to move the tree if I were to go battleaxe, with no common property?
I feel like I'm addicted to reading WM's replies. She is so helpful and energetic Wish I had known her before starting on my project.

My_first_development by zac101 posted 22nd Jan, 2017 at 9:59 AM

 

Speak to Daniel Warne @ Carters Real Estate Bayswater for advice
You wil need a 4m wide driveway for green title (battleaxe)
Bayswater will allow 2 crossovers on a case by case basis. Just drive around and you can spot a few

With battleaxe you have to pay extra to run the services down the back, plus the extra cost of paving/fencing and both houses have lower land component due to the common driveway

Most times rear is less desireable but some people like the extra privacy at the rear.

 

Thanks BD, What's Daniel's expertise? Can he help convince the council to move a tree 2 meters? This is the only hurdle in getting another crossover, it seems after talking to council

I am not looking for Battleaxe (green title) but battleaxe (survey strata). So I believe a 3 meter drive way is possible.

Yes I understand. If I can get a separate driveway for the back house, it is not a total waste of land. It can be used for kids playing, extra cars parking etc.

My block being 19.3 frontage, after plenty of thinking, discussions etc, I have set my mind on going front and back.

 

What a strange addiction

If you went side by side it's possible that you could use the existing crossover then put the extra crossover between the trees rather than the far side.

 

It is all sorted. Confirmed with my surveyor. The crossover does not have to be 4 meters, it can be much smaller. The 4 meter requirement is only within my boundary.

 

Daniel is a real estate agent so can't convince council but can tell you which type buyers prefer. 3m driveway if you retain the house and can't go any wider. I'm pretty sure WAPC will force you to go 3.5m or wider if it can fit.

 

Im pretty sure your rear lot cant cut into the CP like that and you will need a truncation also at the front boundary

 

Thanks BD. I can see both types on city of bayswater maps. I am not which one is better.

 

it was probably done awhile ago. WAPC wont let you cut into the CP anymore. Thats what happened to me. Maybe if you get a different officer the rule would be different or they may be more leniant.

"Under WAPC rules the truncation area at the rear of the CP access leg cannot be allocated to the rear lot – it must be allocated to the CP access leg. This is a recent rule the WAPC has been policing strongly"

 

Is that new? I remember reading a SAT case some time back where SAT ruled that the truncation could be included in the rear lot area.

 

That's interesting. I actually got this as suggested layout from my architect. So I would like to know too whether this is now acceptable or not.