3 townhouses on a 650 sq m block in Whitehorse council

Also interested in this queston. Although I am not going to do it in Whitehorse Coucil, I have heard stories of people squeezing more units onto a block of land than they should be able to accoriding to council rules by having a draftman who knows the system and produces clever designs.

Or are these stories stretching the truth and coucils generally have sets of rules that can not be bent or broken no matter what?

Cheers,
Luke

Hi,

Even with Res 1 zoning, you'll still need to have a chat to a draftsperson or architect. For a short answer you can call the council to get a real vague, maybe, almost or sometimes answer.

Heaps of things will impact on what you can put, where easments are, setbacks from the street, overlays, trees, what else is in the street, whats around in that suburb, what suburb..etc etc. Pay an expert.

In Box Hill South (Whitehorse) for example near the uni there are no minimum block sizes, (fit 2 or so townhouses) parts near the old brickworks have been rezoned to high density (apartments), all under the Res 1 zoning. So it really does depend on all of the information.

Luke; I think that is a bit of hooey, the planning scheme is in place for guidelines.If you know somwhere where council is allowing more dwellings rather than less, let me know, I'll be there

Cheers

D

Consult a good architect on how to plan a solution.

In Doncaster its not uncommon for a block to allow for  more than expected number of units by substitution of things like underground parking and clever layouts for compliance with general council rules.

The correct thing to do with this is consult council on their actual requirements and allowances. And if these things have been done in Doncaster .. i have no doubt the architects concerned would be able to do this in other suburbs to meet compliance.

I have no idea which architects are doing this in Doncaster but if you ring a couple of area estate agents they probably do.

Hi Anand,

You’ve probably already spoken to Breece a couple of times with your other project. For everyone else I would agree with Maurice (above) that he is very knowledgeable in planning and very helpful.

I’ve been doing a bit of work recently with an architect, Roshan – his website is here:
http://www.caxdesigns.com.au/house-building-design-melbourne.html

He has some great design ideas and I would recommend highly.

Check land.vic.gov for the zoning of the property (a free service). Council town planners are neither here nor there and will often give varying opinions as you most likely already know.

Regards,

Municipal planning schemes are complex and often overlaid with strategic planning objectives that can vary widely within a small area. Understanding not only the zoning, but the strategic goals that underpin that zoning, can be the key to delivering the best possible outcome for any given allotment.

On the face of it, 3 town houses on 650m2 is "tight" however a 20m frontage is generous and allows for more that one typology for the land use. The orientation of the land will also have an impact on the design opportunities.

In very broad terms, most councils will encourage higher densities where one or more of the following occurs:

1. Close proximity to quality public transport.
2. Close proximity to shops and employment.
3. A land size of greater than 1,000m2 within a R1Z.
4. A corner allotment, or dual street frontages.
5. Location within an activity centre.

Or are these stories stretching the truth and coucils generally have sets of rules that can not be bent or broken no matter what?

Luke, the councils certainly have rules that cannot be broken, but there are a number of subjective controls that can be manipulated to help get a proposal over the line. As for bending rules, this has as much to do with understanding why rather than how a council will grant approval for an application.

I think that is a bit of hooey, the planning scheme is in place for guidelines.If you know somwhere where council is allowing more dwellings rather than less, let me know, I'll be there.

DWolfe, sound advice as ever, but I will have to politely disagree in part. All councils have areas that are "informally" deemed more appropriate for higher densities, as well as those areas formally earmarked for higher densities. I spend a lot of time dealing with municipal planners and these things come up from time to time. Discussions with strategic planners within municipal planning departments are also often quite illuminating!

There are also trends that can be followed, and to a lesser extent, zoning changes that can be anticipated by understanding the proposals being considered by the DPCD.

Hi everyone,

Cheers christianb, always happy to be corrected by an expert.

I guess I am speaking from my personal experience, where even in an area formally designated for high density (apartments) a major planning backflip happened by council. It really does pay to have all the information. And be prepared with a backup plan, just in case.

I guess it really does depend on the council as to whether they are happy to encourage more/smarter development and what your expert knows about that area and it's planning scheme

Always excellent information. keep it coming.

Cheers

Thanks christianb,

Been a long time coming. Still working on it too!

"And a lot about how you put the knowledge into practice."  Nailed it.

Cheers

Of course.

Send it to the enquiries email at my website and it will find its way to me.

Just mark it "attention Christian".

Anand, thanks for the property details.

And, for the benefit of others, Anand is happy for me to publish the advice.

It may be of interest to others considering the same sort of project.

I have omitted any identifying details.

Thanks Anand, for allowing me to share the information.

Anand,

I have received your email and note you have previously approached us about another property.

I will, as promised, give you my opinion, however, my advice now will be the same as the advice I gave you then.

The property will be able to accommodate three dwellings.

These dwellings would be small, perhaps too small to make the project viable.

For a dwelling of two bedrooms or less, one car space is required, and for a dwelling of three bedrooms or more, two spaces are required.

Along with this, there are private open space requirements to meet.

So, mathematically, there is only so much that can fit into any given space.That's my opinion.

My advice is to carry out a more thorough assessment of the feasibility of the proposal, in the context of the site's opportunities and constraints.

The way we do that is by carrying out a Property Development Assessment.

This assessment gives us the information we need to give you the qualified advice you, as the investor, must have in order to make informed decisions.

One last issue, Anand. Would you be prepared for me to publish the advice on PI.com for the benefit of others?

Above is the opinion I gave Anand.

It is the usual sort of stuff we deal with, and it is not always straightforward.

So the short answer to the original question is yes, three units can be accommodated.

However, this may not be the best outcome for the project.

The frontage is unusually wide (the most common frontage is 15m (50')) and this is an advantage.

There is not a lot of precedent in the area, and that can be a disadvantage.

I have not researched the planning scheme or overlays for the property, nor have I sought advice from the municipal planners at Whitehorse on the particular or strategic planning issues affecting the property or its surrounds.

The less formal feedback is that it's "touch and go" and there may be other options worth exploring.

Are two four-bedroom dwellings more feasible than say three two-bedroom dwellings?

Is an apartment typology more appropriate?

Can all or part of the existing building be incorporated into the proposal?

What strategic needs does the council have?

The advice received and the decisions made early in the process will have a profound effect on the final outcomes. Anand seems to me to be a sophisticated investor, and should he go ahead with this sort of project his exposure will be greater than $1m, and that's a lot of money. Decisions about typology, yield, size and complexity need to be made early in the process, and the implications need to be understood.

My closing comment here is in no way a reflection on my dealings with Anand. I don't know Anand well, but he is polite, does his research and seems to be well on his way.

But here goes.

Most people I deal with are happy to spend say $20,000, late in a project, to upgrade finishes to a property. The investment/expense seems less consequential in the context of say a $600,000 building contract.

Many people however recoil at the idea of spending say $500 commissioning an assessment. This always surprises me.