Perth (Joondalup) Subdivision - not meeting minimum width?

I came across the below linked block for sale on realestate, and was a bit surprised it has been approved with a frontage of only 9.8m.

10A Fleetwood Circuit, Woodvale, WA 6026

My understanding from the below document was that 10m was the minimum allowable frontage (section 7.3).

https://www.joondalup.wa.gov.au/wp-...Planning-Policy-Effective-14-January-2016.pdf

Has anyone seen this before? When searching the address on th CoJ website I couldn't find a DA to try to follow it through, only an SU# which didn't lead anywhere. What are the possible reasons you would be able to subdivide without meeting the minimum frontage requirement?

Many thanks

Kieran

 

I'm not 100% sure, but as far as I know if it is very close you can still apply under the assumption that at the setback where the house is actually built there is 10m then it should pass. This normally happens in cup de sac or curved lots.
That's what my architect told me a while ago.
Others in this forum can confirm.
Cheers
Tiago

 

This is quite common with WAPC survey strata if you are proposing 2 street frontages. They detest battle axe lots and will give you concessions

 

Joondalup will/used to also allow it if the block is a bit tapered and it's 10m at the setback as the wording used to be a little different - used to mention street setback not lot boundary frontage.

I have subdivided in City of South Perth an R20 block that was 19.8m wide into two side by side lots via WAPC as it was still the better outcome than battleaxe so they allowed some discretion.

 

PS that feels like an expensive block? are they really able to achieve end values per square metre that high in Woodvale???

 

Thanks for the responses. Good to hear there are options with blocks not 20m wide. Bit of a risk though assuming the city would approve without meeting the criteria. Without going too far off topic, what are some things you could do to help your submission to pass in this instance?

That block does seem overpriced, but looking at others for sale, in the new estates there are 154sqm blocks from $225k (!) but 474sqm for $395k.

There are not many land sale figures on RE.com, but I cant see them achieving that. You wouldn't think Woodvale would be more desirable than the suburbs on the western side of the freeway at that point.

Thanks again.

 

In addition to the above, I noticed on a subdivision in Balcatta there is a weird little part of the property on the boundary at the front. Is this common property? Does this also help with allowing reduced frontages get approved?

Thanks

 

Quite awhile ago yes you used to be able to do a square like that where both properties own it to get it to 10m but it's not allowed anymore.
That might be the case for this instance or it might just be where the dome and water metres are and they've elected it to be common property.

 

Thanks for the info Myf, much appreciated.