Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM


Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.




Aaron Sice

on 15 September 2010

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of APN_150910

three big reasons why two storey
homes are a pain in the bum. 1 - they're expensive! two storey homes are disproportionately more
expensive per square metre than single storey homes. scaffolding, painting, harness hooks, cranes,
extra labour costs (those stairs don't climb themselves),
concrete pumps, site lifts..... lately, a lot of people are getting into R60+ sites with no knowledge
of what can be physically done on an R60 site - yes, we can get more homes on these sites, but at 160sqm of site area, we can't get a 100sqm single storey 3x2 with a 33sqm double garage, 4sqm store, 16sqm courtyard and CP setbacks. so we have to look at a 2 storey setup - where our feaso figures were $175k turn key per single storey house, we are now looking at $275k turn key for only 10-15sqm more of useable living area - essentially a stairwell and a little more passage. your square metre rate just went from $1150sqm finished, to $1700sqm finished for the same amount of living area. do those R60 sites seem like a "good deal" anymore?
well.....don't write them off just yet. you don't HAVE to take full advantage of R60. While the WAPC have a DC policy that stipulates that a site must developed to it's maximum potential, it's very easy to argue that high density is not in keeping with the immediate surrounds. So does the site work at 200sqm lot sizes? local govt might no be responsive to exceptionally
high development. all local govts have a "NIMBY" dept
- this can work in your favour with negotiations. 2 - setbacks the R Codes don't like two storey homes.
when we break down the setback requirements, you'll uinderstand why. the R Codes, for those that don't know, govern what we can and can't do on our little plots of land. lets not delve into the underworld of town planning schemes, though.
we'll just keep it simple :). there's a little figure that gets very easily forgotten about, and one that makes my heart miss a beat every time i see it on a letter of comment. "...setbacks according to Figure 2d and 2e of the RD COdes..." they hate you. 3 - height restrictions while the R Codes have their own height
restriction policies everyone's friends in local govt have their own. there's a nice little doosie called "average natual ground level" - or ANGL. this differs from "natural ground level" - NGL - because it's an average across the site, generally to "average out" the site levels to provide a level playing field for the street. another classic example of how local govt policy this fails to achieve ANYTHING other than keeping themselves in a job by making you jump through hoops. this job is being "reviewed" internally - after a LOT of lobbying - because the slope on the block falls outside "regular" jurisdiciton, needs another six to eight weeks in council....oh, and regardess of our conditional approval, it requires neighbour's approval.

"...hi, my name's joe nextdoor.

i'd like to build a house next door to yours that's over height requirements laid down by the local council.

please sign here to say you're okay with that...." 1) two storey homes
2) narrow lot development
3) 7+ units sharing a common drive. narrow lot homes - don't be afraid! why do people feel so strongly
about narrow lot homes? councils hate 'em. they've even got internal policies effectively banning them. neighbours hate them too. " it's all garage."
" there's no house to look at."
" where's the yard?"
" i'd hate to live that close to anyone."
" god, i'd hate to have my living room next to their bedroom." bollocks. i'll bet if i suggested "rear strata" or "battleaxe" their faces would turn a paler shade of white, as well. you can't get around these people - but remember, for every vocal person would wouldn't buy it, there's probably 20 that would consider it and 10 that would be actively pursuing it.

the good news is, you can still turn a pretty penny out of them. 43% of all projected new development in WA until 2031 will be urban infill.... ...so get used to it. there are good and bad ways to do narrow lot homes. good - all for 10m lots. dont be fooled by the glossy "rear loading" homes
- where the garage is at the rear and all you see is house.
they don't fit 90% of suburban lots. what would this house look like with a garage poking off the front? where are all the garages accessed on your street? yes, yes - there's some plans too :) what NOT to do with your garage. how to incorporate your garage into your design,
without it dominating the streetscape just when you thought it was safe to go back into the water.... remember that statistic i showed you earlier?
that 43% of all new homes by 2031 will be urban infill? what if i told you that WAPC policy is going
to stifle the amount of infill you can provide? Development Control Policy 1.3 stipulates Driveways for survey stratas up to six dwellings should be designed in accordance with the R-Codes.

Access ways for survey stratas in excess of six dwellings should be designed in accordance with Development Control Policy 2.6 what DOES DC2.6 say? Reserve widths should be in the range of 10-14.5m and should comprise:

a carriageway of 4-5.5m, although where four dwellings or less are served, widths as low as 3m may be acceptable;

verges of the minimum necessary toaccommodate services, parking bays and
in both verges large canopied mature trees of a species specified by the local
government. so to summarise, driveways serving 7 or more survey strata dwellings won't be accepted if they're not ... ...wait for it... ten metres wide. survey strata developments are now being
treated the same as green title homes - with a
calculated 10 (yes ten) individual traffic
movements per day per household. how may trips how many trips did you make today? so forget what your DA is approved as. a 34 year old head statutory planner lived in a development once, and she didn't like it, so here we are. this means a reduction in yields which doesn't
abate the supply/demand argument. but you "can" build to the R Codes if you like, it just has to be build strata. never mind the recently published fact that only one in twenty developers can meet the serviceability requirements for a build, hold and sell of units in a build strata scenario. and then we get the WAPC holding "affordability summits" on ways how streamlining their internal processes will suddenly change the way in which we live our lives and affect house prices long term. It was a "self importance seminar", on how great the WAPC was.
i brought up DC1.3 and was interrupted and overtalked. this policy will have a direct and measurable effect on house prices in WA.

a drop in yield means less supply = higher end cost.

an increase in upfront costs means an increase in sale price = higher end cost.

an increase in holding costs means in increase in sale price = higher end cost.

too much upfront costs mean development does't start, means less supply = higher end costs. amongst all this though, you still need to ask - how can you profit from these shortsighted policies? i would have thought 'land' would be a good place to start. here's an example across my desk last week. not only does the client have to worry about the 10m rule, we also have to allow a 25t garbage truck to enter, turnaround, and exit the site as per City of Armadale req's we already know the issues with larger strata
subdivisios - they never technically yield what
they're supposed to.

this lot is 'technically' an 8.74 unit site (so 8 units),
but after common property, it becomes 7. the
purchaser has made an offer on 7 units, and if
this has to come back to 6 units, who wears
the cost of the higher upfront purchase price?
Full transcript