R Codes - Subdivision and Battle axes?

Trying to get around he r codes at the moment (self education I guess)

Just a few things im trying to figure out and its battle axe subdivisions (at least from my definition if not WAPC)

So with battle axes I am aware there is a minimum lot size for the rear lot and where the access (handle) is solely for the rear lot unto 20% of the lot size can be included in the handle.

Is this for both survey strata subdivision or just green title? Have seen many survey strata rear lots with well < min battle-axe lot size

Also anything to look out for doing feasibility when subdividing lots that are battleaxes? say 1000m2 + handle blocks with the intention of subdividing again into 2 (strata or green) (r20 for example)

Thanks

 

hey @gach2 good to see you've opened the books and seeing how it all works

Not all rear blocks off a rear driveway are true battleaxes.

If the driveway is common property due to the front house having their parking off it, or there is 3 houses (ie 2 rear houses off it) or the front house has it's windows/openings too close to the driveway THEN the rear block can be the normal dwelling size and use the normal min/maxes.

Generally a true battleaxe would be green title but it doesn't have to be - can also be survey strata. Most people these days find it hard to get enough land to make a true battle axe work so go for a common property access leg.

 

Thanks for the reply and the encouraging words

I think I've got it - Where theres a common driveway the rear lots are not considered to be a battle axe hence column 4 (battle axe lot size) would not apply.

Would this also apply where the green lot being subdivided is also a battle axe to start of with? or in this case each of the lots have to be > column 4 sizes whether is a future strata survey with a common driveway (note front green title lot would have no rights the to handle)

Also might be unrelated but where grouped/multiple dwellings are sort after without subdivision does this need to comply with all r codes as if its being subdivided?

 

Correct for the first bit

Not too sure I understand the middle bit but I think you are talking about re-subdividing an existing lot which is a battle axe. If you are subdividing a battle axe lot into 2 or more lots then the access leg would automatically become common property as the furthest lot would need to traverse it to get to it but it would only be common property to those lots within the original battle axe

Yes - the process in WA is called built strata and it is where you get a development approval with proposed lot boundaries and must comply with the rcodes but at the end of construction you just don't apply for titles and leave them on the one title.

PS multiple dwellings is the term used in WA for apartments in the rcodes so be careful using the term.

 

Just realised that the private handle would up end being common property if it was re subdivided

What I was trying to ask when subdividing an existing battle-axe green title property (lets say for this example a r40 750m2 including battle axe handle of 100m2). Would it be possible to divide that into the lots using column 3 (min 180/avg 240 in r40) or would column 4 (380m2 for battle axes in r40) be required?

Also In this example I have 750m2 including 100m2 battle axe handle. Would the average be of the 750/number of lots - or would it have to be minus the 750 - common property

 

Thanks for giving an example that does help.
It is possible to divide it using column 3 - min 180/avg 220. The calculations would be on the 750sqm
With lots like this with a handle you will need to watch out for reality and mathematics not being equal. If I change your example to 700sqm inc 100sqm then it mathematically meets the requirements for 3 lots as 3 x 220sqm is 660sqm and it meets that. However for the min lot size it has to be a dedicated lot - you need to fit 3 x 180sqm in the main body of the lot and extend the common property driveway into the main body to get access to the last lot. It might be tough to get 540 (3 x 180sqm) plus the extension of the access leg into main body with only 60sqm left.
It might work but it might not. Depends on the shape of the block etc. Just something to be aware of.

 

Thanks

Definitely get you there and appreciate the feedback

The block I was looking was actually 750 with a 660 excluding battle axe and I was actually looking at just 2 strata surveys (even if it could be developed into 3 I think 2 would be better in current market especially to bring down building costs by keeping it single storey.

But on another note just realised the agent has advertised r25/40 while intramaps says its r25/60 (which has a lot more conditions that would not be allowed) so feaso was wrong but either way did learn a bit from these examples so thanks @Westminster. Hopefully if anyone else has the same question this thread gets found

On another note (think its best I kept this thread going than starting a new one) are Town Planning Scheme's firm on the rules or is it possible for variations based on justifications?

An example of this may City of Swan. Where dual R codes are provided one of the condition is to use the higher code in developments over 2 units/titles the lot must be >1300m2. From this i believe if <1300 it can be subdivided into 2 lots (using either lower or higher R codes - whichever is applicable). Is it possible to get them to variate from this condition

Eg 1000m2 r20/50 lot can be subdivided into 2 green title lots (440m2 at front and 560m2 at the back including a handle) on either codes in this case. I also believe each lot can then be divided again into 2 effectively providing 4 lots. Could this be justified for example to the council to overlook their TPS and allow assessment at the higher r code.

Maybe the only person that can answer is the council but has anyone had any experience?

 

Sorry didn't see your reply.

1. Never trust what REAs put in the advert

2. Councils do have the discretion BUT are generally real sticklers for rules and will only accept very minor variation. Split coding is inherently difficult because they often only want the higher density for a specific outcome - for some councils this means they only want large parcels all done with small lots so it gives a consistant outcome rather than small lots here there and everywhere producing a less consistant outcome. If you read through the minutes and strategy around the area for when it was rezoned you may get a feel for what the councils intention was with the split coding.

 

No - need to be sorry at all

1) Called the council and for once it wasn't the REA's fault. The property R code was upgraded (downgraded for this particular property) from r25/40 - r25/60 on 02/06/2020 well after the property was advertised. Unfortunately the conditions in the TPS for r25/60 make this lot undevelopable unless amalgamated with neighbouring lots (25m frontage and 1400m2)

2) Did speak to the town planner at City of Swan and pretty much he said they wouldn't usually allow developments that are nowhere near compliant. But when given the example of 1000m2 r20/40-50 lots (where minimum lot size was 1300m2 to allow >2 lot subdivision) lots he did mention its common for developers to split it into using r20 code and then further splitting each subdivided lot again into 2 (r40-50 would apply as its only into 2 lots) but did have the issue paying 2 application fees etc

Thanks

PS - have submitted a few offers this week (little lowballish - though 2/3 properties offered have been in the market > 6months and with the other block the same agent sold a comparable 2 streets aways for the same price I offered. Hopefully something comes through but if not will keep looking

 

Good luck!!

 

Thanks for all the help