WA Perth Development Sites

still doesnt stack up, especially in the current environment..

without doing any feaso it wouldnt remotely appeal unless it dropped in the region of100k from here and even that's still not enough imo. if developing in a mrket with a lot of unknowns like the one we're in atm you gotta have fat margins to justify the risk and effort otherwise just keep the money in the bank and use it for other opportunities

400k raw cost per site in bayswater just doesnt make sense imo

 

Yes it does not stack up because end values have dropped which is why it's still on the market. Prob get 550 to 580k for a med to high spec house on 280sqm

 

What do you guys think the chances are of the Shire of Kalamunda changing that criteria to meet the high coding? It looks as thought it got voted 7/0...

 

An idea for down the track if the criteria is here to stay, talk to a neighbour or two and get a joint development happening.

 

400 a week would surely be CF+ with that 60k you invested?

Just keep leasing the property out hopefully CF+ see what a bit of infrastructure will do.

Maybe the legislation can change down the track? Not sure if it can.

It seems some councils must be getting worried about neighbors teaming together to make money and almagamate properties as people are becoming smarter and property forums like these are becoming more popular with tech savy generation.

For me they should simply have a rule of not being able to almagamate rather than a rule in sqm.

The first year of owning property is always the hardest the most stressful and fearful for me im almost through mine and everyone says it so. Now i have a bit of cashed saved up again i feel better but still not without full fear or worry. The 1300 sqm law has hurt me from city of swan aswell. However im still pretty happy with whats happening around and the curtin science medical school going ahead to be opened for 2017 year plus other things.

Maybe a granny flat has to be a plan for me aswell now.

It does suck but learn. Ive tried to convince myself going bankrupt isnt the worst thing in the world. I know itd be bad but always can come out of it in 5-7 yrs time. Not saying you will though. All the best i invested ~40k savings of mine as a 23yr old so not alot different

 

Forrestfield: "Satterley Property Group is planning to build up to 420 homes in Forrestfield, after buying the old Western Power site on Hawtin Road from the state government for $30 million."
Satterley buys Forrestfield land

 

That will certainly put an additional spring in the step of Forrestfield.

 

This retainable house in bedford sold within the first couple of days too,
114 Birkett Street Bedford WA 6052 - House for Sale #121304694 - realestate.com.au
Similar priced to the usual bayswater lots now.

 

How much do you reckon this would have gone for?
3525m2 R20 mount lawley on major road.
68 & 70 Guildford Road, Mount Lawley, WA 6050 - Land/Development for Sale #501745022 - realcommercial.com.au

 

R20 in that spot does seem pretty bloody silly

 

$107k(inc approx 50% costs) per site. End product is $200k+. Nice!

@D.T. don't you have one in forrestfield?

 

My one there is a fairly newly built home (ex ppor), on a tiny block not a dev

 

@MTR @Westminster @Aaron Sice and others
What do you think about this design? Clever or stupid? They couldnt demo in that heritage protection area so they worked around the problem.

867 Beaufort St Inglewood.

http://www.stirling.wa.gov.au/commu...1, 875 and 877 Beaufort Street, INGLEWOOD.pdf

 

I can't get past the structure they put over the police station house. Whyyyyyy!!!

There is no transition from single level to multi level. No harmonious architectural style between the two.

Quite simply - don't like it, might even hate it. Won't even look at the apartment designs to see if I like that a little bit.

I tried the buy the North Perth Police Station on Angove and had some cool ideas for it - none would have looked like that.

 

geezus almighty above - no sense of scale or imposition there.....much.

you'd think there'd be a little more sympathy for the existing structure - but nah, fudge it. Just make it look like it got in the way.



typical Stirling approach, too. Planning-by-Numbers means it's okay....

 

OMG..that's a sight for sore eyes

 

Lets see how well it sells. If its cheap enough people might buy for the location and quality interior and layout and just cover their eyes on approach to the complex.

 

As far as I can tell, the scheme maps have been updated and the Scheme Amendment has been gazetted. It seems like the 25m min frontage has been dropped. It appears as though the 1300m2 only applies for more than two grouped dwellings (for a development) or more than two lots (for a subdivision).

It is hereby notified for public information, in accordance with section 87 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 that the Minister for Planning approved the City of Swan local planning scheme amendment on 7 October 2015 for the purpose of--

1. Inserting new Clauses 5.2.4 and 5.2.5 as follows--

5.2.4 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Residential Design Codes, within a dual coded area, when considering an application for approval of a residential development, or a residential built strata application, and when making recommendations to the Commission in respect of a subdivision for 'Residential' zoned land, within a dual coded area, the Council is to apply the base density code, but may increase the density in excess of the base code and up to the maximum of the highest code designated for the site after having regard to the provisions of Clause 5.2.5.

5.2.5 In a dual coded area, when considering an application for development approval or a built strata approval which involves more than two grouped dwellings or more than two multiple dwellings on a lot, or when making recommendations to the Commission in respect of a subdivision application for 'Residential' zoned land that proposes more than two lots, in any of those cases, where there is a proposal to apply a density code above the base code as provided in Clause 5.2.4, the following provisions shall apply--

(a) The lot the subject of the application must have a total lot area greater than 1300m2; and

(b) Where the application proposes more than four grouped dwellings and/or four multiple dwellings or more than four strata lots, or where the subdivision or survey strata subdivision application proposes to create more than four lots, at least one dwelling or lot must be provided as a single bedroom dwelling or as an aged or dependant persons dwelling.
​

source: Reference:. Gazette No.160 / 23-Oct-2015 _ p4376 _ PL404____________________________________________________________________________

Am I reading that correctly or have I missed something?

 

Nope - you are entirely correct. Gazetted version dropped the frontage requirement.....meaning corner lots don't get the higher coding. I know Swan Strategics aren't too happy about it.

 

Holy crap that is not good news. So the only way to get the higher part of the dual coding is amalgamation?

Interesting to see the single bedroom dwelling/over 55s dwellings requirements for 5 or more lots/dwellings.