Looks like someone chopped off a tiny piece of their land and have listed it for $749,000 - $779,000 with an approved DA for a 3 bedroom house.
The land size is 101.2 sq metres with a 6.1m frontage.
Listing
Landsize
Streetview
PropertyDescription
Over $7,500/sq metre for a piece of land?
Does that council just tick whatever piece of paper comes across the desk as long as the fee is paid?
Although the rainbow fence is quite nice now I look at it.
Probably won't get approval to remove the tree either :)
haha! that would be pretty funny!
The person who buys it will probably also know that so they will just poison it…………or just cut it down and wear the fine ……….. like all developers do………oh whoops soz, ill just pay the fine
DA approval means the tree can go.
Never know….. a council that approves something like this stupid may have only approved a property that goes right up to the tree. The "artists impression" in the pictures only show the front of the approved structure!
Will say it once and will say it again, the housing situation in Australia is a bloody disgrace.
In theory you cannot build within 90cm of any boundary I think (could be wrong), so the footprint of the house would be small and cramped.
At least from the toilet to the fridge to the bedroom is within 4 steps in any direction HAHA
You could be grabbing a beer from the fridge and piss in the dunny from the same position
Trick shot it by bouncing it off the tv in lounge
The artist who drew up the concept drawings was good and it looks great, but a for reality it will be like one of the old CDB terraces as they were narrow in width and long.
I lived in one of those terraces for a few years and no matter how nice it was I still couldn't get used to almost being able to touch both sides of the room at the same time.
In theory you cannot build within 90cm of any boundary I think (could be wrong), so the footprint of the house would be small and cramped.
As it has a frontage of less than 6.1m that is going to make an extremely narrow house - results in an outside width of 4.3m.
Hope they don't go with a double brick construction as that takes about another 500mm away too.
This development probably has approval for buulding to the boundary. Lots of terraces do this. It will likely just require fire/noise rated walls.
What Sort of Council Approves This Sort of DA?
err… Parramatta ? from the listing.
Plot twist, OP wants to buy and disguised the post.
Damn - someone caught me.
You'll notice that I cleverly didn't post this until well after the closing date for offers too.
Offers closing 15th July 2022 5pm
What is the difference between this and a townhouse development or a block of apartments?
It makes sense to increase density in urban areas. Sure, a house this size isn’t for everyone, but someone will like the location.
Why is this a forum topic, belongs on the bargains page?
One of my points was about the 'value' of land - you think ~$7,500 per sq metre is any where near value?
Considering that
< In 2021, one square meter of greenfield land cost an average of 1,501 Australian dollars in Sydney. Sydney has one of the highest land price rates for greenfield development in Australia.
Looking at the last few months sales in that area properties have been selling for $3,000-$4,000 per sq m (including very reasonable houses with the land).
If this sells for the asking price it shows that there is someone out there with a strange idea of value.
$1.00 acre is too much for Shitney
In NSW a lot of development approvals are done by Complying Development Certificates (CDC) instead of going through the Council. In about 2008 the government got sick and tired of people having to always go through Council and having to run the gauntlet of bureaucrats that could make their lives hell and take up to 6 months. So the CDC process was introduced where a private certifier (called a principal certifying authority, PCA) could give a CDC which was equivalent to Council approval. The government wanted only 'important decisions' to go to Council and the rest to go by private certification. In practice it's much easier to get a CDC for questionable developments which the Council may have opposed. However, a CDC is equivalent to Council approval so if the Council doesn't like it then they have to take it to the Land and Environment Court like anyone else. So that might be why you're wondering why a Council approves that sort of thing, but in reality it's not the Council it's being done through the private certification process.
Certain zoning makes it compulsory to go through Council only because those are sensitive zones where the government doesn't trust private certifiers. For example heritage properties, properties in heritage conservation areas, properties in bushfire areas, and properties in sensitive areas like the Snowy Mountains dam, must always go through Council.
Lot width at the building line/ Building height at any point/ Minimum required setback from each side boundary
6m–10m / 0m–5.5m / 900mm
6m–10m / >5.5m–8.5m / (building height–5.5m) ÷ 4 + 0.9m
This appears to say that it needs to have these setbacks for it to qualify as a Complying Development and therefore would need to go through council..
https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/epi…
It has an approved DA. Whatever the current design is in the DA is good to go. You can get approval for encroaching the boundary - with approval.
Complying development is a shortcut system to streamline the DA process but you need to meet more stringent requirements. Anything outside that and you need to go for the full approval process.
I had a read through the DA and I still wonder what the exact point of the process is.
It has setbacks that are recognised as not able to comply due to site constraints ie it's too small.
But they get approved like this -
Minimum rear setback
No, however acceptable due to site constraints
So, it doesn't comply due to the site constraints but the reason given for allowing it is the site constaints?
It’s a fairly thorough process that would have involved notification/consultation with neighbours to get approval. If there are objections with reasonable grounds, then they won’t approve the encroachment.
End of the day you can submit whatever you want for approval. It doesn’t need to comply with anything but it does need to be reasonable for it to pass and may involve negotiating to get final approval. Eg may need to be set back on one side and not the other, or reduce the height so as not to block sunlight for a neighbour, or delete windows etc.
I understand the process but my point is why have a set of rules whereby you can use the exact reason for not passing as the reason to approve it?
That makes no sense to me - "doesn't meet this requirement so therefore we approve it for that reason" - it's too small so we will approve it because it's too small?
it's too small so we will approve it because it's too small?
Yeah. Seems pretty dumb, but it makes sense in another way. It recognises that it’s not ‘normal’ and with a tick a box approval process you need to say something. In this case, they recognised having a small site wasn’t enough reason to deny a building but couldn’t word it effectively in the DA.
I suspect the whole process started with a conversation with the council then they put in a DA for subdivision with the building at the same time. Wouldn’t want to have the subdivision approved and then find it you couldn’t build anything habitable on it.
Crap that's small,
my unit now is roughly 90 sq m including the balcony, 2 bed, 2 bath. For a house, it's gonna be skinny, even if it's 2 story. Geez, but someone will def. buy it and build, always a buyer even though I think it's a stupid decision.
Yuck - 750k for a tiny sliver of land 30km from the CBD….no wonder everyone moved up here to QLD.