@dreamer: Currently area is under civil works but the developer is very responsible and respective of the environment. I have studied their projects and no where they have removed any tree. So they have retained all these beautiful gums. Obviously there may have been some vegetations removed but then they have made sure each house front landscaping then included native plants and vegetation which is why they have included that in the land purchase. Haven’t seen any other developer done that. Their sustainability program is quite good as well. Many other things. For example no gas cooking allowed etc. have provisioned for many trees to be installed on the verge as well.

Me too dreamer. I’m genuinely interested in how they’re going to reduce the current height by 5 metres and still maintain the three trees. Without the trees it’s not an issue they just dig away.

Thanks @dreamer. So I just got the answer from developer when I asked them a few questions this is what their reply is.

I am not sure if this answered my concerns. They talked about horizontal (lot width wise) however my conis from road to plot front that’s a difference of 1.4/1.5m how is that gonna resolve

I don’t think I am explained well by the developer. After that email I sent another confirmation email.

Per this. The lot is entirely flat at all corners. The gradual rise is from the street to front of the lot and I am told there’s no retaining wall and there will be plenty of room for double garage entry as well. I am not sure they will be providing any further information on this

I’ve read all the above and the developers reply mostly makes sense except for the trees. The trees are higher than the 11 level shown in the lot measurements. I can’t see how they can both maintain the trees and give you a level block at those measurements. If you already have a builder I’d seek their opinion.

I understand something doesn’t add up here or makes sense. But I have been told separately over the call that the path from street to the front of the lot is going to be so gradual that no one would notice. And that the lot is flat entirely flat on all sides. Since the work is currently under civils won’t be able to see the final product. I am told that there are some titled blocks similar to mine that I need to check. Planning onto visiting the site next weekend to confirm that.

But I guess regardless of the visit i am certain now that there’s no requirement of retaining wall around trees or drive way etc. so I will proceed with the plans for a 4/2 of 5/3 design on this block. Currently many good ideas. Just need to make one final. I liked the idea of both front and back yard. Though the backyard would only end up being 6-7m deep. Would have loved to have atleast 10m depth there if I could have reduced the set back. I can reduce it 10% though that will end up being at 9.5m and with 13m deep house 8m at the back is not too bad.

@dreamer. Good to see that you are from Perth too. Good to see you and other people on Houzz helping people with design and all. So really appreciate you all for taking the time and helping us. 😊

@oklouise any chance you would be able to send me that layout in a higher resolution? That one is definitely. Got something similar as an inspiration from the internet.

So far I have sort of liked those shared here above and these ones that I have found. For example the mirror version of this. Will take them to builders at the display see what they think. Pretty sure the project builders would be like we can’t do these - will be more expensive because of the non standard not cooky cutter designs hahah

your first plan as shown loses too much northern aspect and the second plan loses direct access to northern light but i'll attempt some variations to see what needs to be sacrificed to fit your block eg to squeeze your last plan into the available space this variation is only 1m setback from your rear fence and loses the study, 5th bedroom, full size laundry with external access and all bedrooms are smaller but it's abour 30 sqm smaller than my original suggestion so saves a significant amount of building costs but doesn't make best use of the block

I feel like I am gonna have to end up doing a shallow house fully stretched towards left and right boundary to the maximum i can to fit in rooms. As long as the total build is around 50-54.9% of the block (600sqm) the Council should be okay with it. I know it is a bit expensive to build to the boundary because you need double bricks with neighbours boundary but should be doable. I have seen people doing it for Garages (No gap) should be doable for other side as well if councils requirements are met. Not sure if any rules/law prevent that but if that was possible then we can utilise full 20m boundary to boundary to fit more. That will hopefully leave some decent backyard. And if not then we will have approximately 1.5m gap leaving behind 18.5m horizontal width for house to be fit in.

building to both boundaries may not be possible for more than the garage and alfresco as neighbours may also want to do the same....you also need to make sure about where the setback starts and finishes to minimise the surplus garden in the front to allow for more garden in the rear..my first suggestion has a central rear garden area (about 7.6 x 6.3) big enough for a modest pool as well (plus the alfresco, utility area and master courtyard) as well as a generous front porch and a good sized area for garden and parking in the front with a total total floor area of 285sqm

@okl the set bacck is marked as 10.5m and 10% encroachment is possible subject to arborist.

I had see quite a few where I felt like some careful modifications might lead to something for example this one

https://hallmarkhomes.com.au/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php?action=download_info_pack&homeID=34248&homeVersion=

the Hallmark design is a very nice plan for a wider block but i can't see how any modification would allow the same arrangements to fit within your block as the size of master suite and kitchen is already determined by the minimum width of a double garage, the bedrooms are already small, the laundry and bathroom are already as small as possible so the only rooms with any flexibility are the family and media rooms that would not be very comfortable reduced by about three metres in width....i suggest that you need to look at plans that are straight across the front and L or U shaped to allow for necessary comfortable room sizes with the generous front garden already created by the extra deep setback and a reasonable back yard plus alfresco in the back yard

Thanks @oklouise. The design you drew is a very good one don’t get me wrong and some of the big boutique builders have got similar to yours. My only concern at the moment is what’s a decent backyard look like or gonna be to a family of 5?

Most of these designs leave me with roughly 5m depth at the back. And I am thinking how to maximise that. May be not across the whole back but a good portion of it say 10-12m of the 20m wide back with good depth would be nice for a family of 5. Also, I have been thinking if I pushed the house completely to the back leaving behind some set backs per the rules, then I can have bigger front yard (all yard at one place) with some sim permeable 1.2m high front fence it will allow me a good size 5/3. But the downside is not Northern backyard.

alternatively i can do a 4/2 or 4/2.5with study/lounge style design with bigger rooms. Still not sure what’s best overall for this block of land.

my suggested floor plan is just a quick response to the site and i'm sure there'll be many other options but you're forgetting that there's already a fixed generous front yard of 20m x 10.5m including trees and hard surfaces (with or without my suggested reversing bay) regardless of what floorplan you finally choose....plenty of space for kids running around the front yard with suitable fencing and the rear garden with alfresco, utility area and optional pool can be a quieter space and another variation with bigger garden, back verandah and guest bathroom

Cheers okl could you send me this one as full picture? And I am assuming that 4.7m depth at the back is just the garden it is + 1.5 varanda = total 6.2m?

How do you read the driveway does that mean its 3m minimum and If I want I can go upto 6m or does that mean that’s the ‘maximum I can do?

I know that I am allowed to build garage to the boundary however that will be subjected to LDP approval just like how others are doing.

Thanks @dreamer from what I understand people in Perth - aren’t we more worried about protection of hot summer sun and how to avoid that in design compared to bringing winters sun. I always thought the solar passive designs in Perth were more inclined towards how to keep the summer hot afternoon sun. But I got your point. I think one thing that’s a bit of a concern for us it to find that good balance with the number and size of rooms as well as decent backyard as kong it is not feeling tight. The front yard is definitely big enough and hopefully that elevation and 3 Gum trees and approximately 18m set back from street would allow us to use the front yard like a private type rather than just a regular front yard.

I don’t think I will have to as TPZ ie outside of the driveway/garage front. If I went 0m gap to boundary on the left then I am already at 4.5 and image O shared above seems that I will be able to steal another 1.5m from the other side. that 3m is inficattivu.

I have seen many houses doing 0m gap garages and I have seen in the estate as well so hopefully there will be some allowance for it in the LDP rules, but I guess I will find out after talking to a builder. There’s couple that I m meeting this weekend. Also, okl’s design would be a good first point of reference. Will see how they react to a custom design as the builders I am appraising aren’t really known for cutom designs especially those wider blocks. But will find out. I am told they are usually more expensive when design is not from their own designs

Matter of fact that’s one of them I spoke to. The guy at one of their displays told me the same thing. So will give them a chance.

@okl would you be able to share your last design (cropped) one in full. I would be interested to see how it looks overall. Might as well show them that for the backyard/alfresco.

this one has a total floor area of 305 sqm including alfresco, rear verandah, front porch and extra bathroom

@oklouise cheers mate, your layout and discussion above was super helpful

I think i may have mentioned this before but my post showed up as a “Pro” because I accidentally created a pro profile sometime ago (total newbie mistake, I’m definitely not a pro, just a regular homeowner haha).
Totally fine with me using your concept as a guide for my builder? Happy to credit you or add any disclaimer you’d like. Thanks again! 🙌

my green plans are entirely my own designs and free to anyone to use as a basic guideline but will need converting by a professional draftsperson to suit Aust building standards and local development guidelines

OKL! Just wanted to say a massive thanks again for sharing, your green layout is good and you’ve been ridiculously generous sharing it like that. Legend

Quick random thing: some of these pics in the thread come out a bit fuzzy on my end (not sure if it’s Houzz thing). I can read most of the dims but a couple are a tiny bit blurry. No stress at all if it’s a pain, but if you’ve got a clearer version lying around and feel like chucking it over, that’d be the absolute best. Totally cool either way though!
Cheers again man, seriously appreciate you helping a random bloke out! 🍻

might be easier to read without furniture..

Hey everyone,

I have an update directly from the developer regarding the lot levels. It turns out the original engineering plan was drawn incorrectly, which is why my findings seemed conflicting but correct!

Here is the official word on the revised levels:

"The building envelope space (after the 10.5m setback) is perfectly flat. However from the road, through your front lot boundary and to your setback line, there is a 1:6 grade (1m rise over 6m across)."
They confirmed the previous plan was wrong because the surveyors "didn’t pick up that the lot had a larger setback and placed the '11.51' levels in all lot corners, rather than in the building area corners as it should have been."

Now that this is confirmed, I have some urgent questions for those who have built on lots with steep front sections or have some knowledge of what this really mean:

1. Retaining Walls: I am unsure if the 1:6 grade applies only to the section from the road to the front boundary to the setback line on drive way side, or if it includes the other front as well the non-driveway side. In either case, does this steep slope mean I would need some sort of retaining wall later between the driveway and the front garden/yard to manage the height difference across the front section?

2. House Aesthetic: Has this new slope now possibly impacted my house already on the front? Given that the land has been elevated to retain the tree, will the house look much higher from the street than originally intended?

Here is the updated plans. They also have now mentioned 1.5m set back from the left boundary. Not sure if that can still be zero gap with neighbouring walll if the garage will be flat anyway

Have you sought professional advice other than from the developer? You need it. We told you at the start of the thread that the slope and plans were an issue. I pointed out that you wouldn’t get a double driveway, and that it’s likely that additional retaining walls will be needed within your property. The good news is that the driveway slope will be fine but where the driveway abuts the TPZ and where the TPZ abuts the non driveway side needs to be investigated.

The house will still be the same height from the street. How you get to the front door requires some thought?

Ok 1:6 is steep and will be inside your lot. It is like a steep ramp and you will need transition grades (1:8). at each end to stop car bottoming out. So you may need to make it steeper and could need to set garage back if you want it less steep. Grade will need to be: 2.m@1:8, 2.m @ 1:4, 2m@1:8 = 6.0m. So that will be your minimum setback of garage. To get an idea, public car park ramps are limited to 1;5. Good news is you slope up so don’t need drainage at end of ramp. Bad news is I wouldn’t park a car on that slope and walking will be hard. May want some steps. Ideally you want a longer drive,

Thanks all and appreciate your responses on this.

I would like to respond to all of you using a combined response

I totally agree about needing professional advice, and I think I was also with you guys on that, which is exactly why I had been raising these questions with the sales rep! She was probably the most least informed and capable individual, and continuously argued with me over emails and calls, saying I was not able to understand and that my lot was flat at the 11.51m level. It just did not add up.

The confusion I had was on the retaining between the driveway and the non-driveway area, and you were agreeing on that point. But before getting professional advice, I first need to ask the developer about some more detail because even now they are not quite clear on whether this means the whole front 20m width will be on a 1:6 slope?
Here is my logic against the 1:6:

• The developer is saying the lot level was raised due to the tree roots. Technically, the non-driving front yard should also be flat at 11.51m because the tree roots (TPZ) are already near the front, just 1–2m inside the boundary. If the tree is the reason for the elevation, then the whole front yard should be up.

• If they are saying it is 1m every 6m, and I have about 10.4m (left) and 11.30m (right) at the front of the block, my required rise to 11.51m is only about 1.1m to 1.2m (11.51m - 10.3m/10.4m).

• Why the steep 1:6 gradient? I am covering 1.1m to 1.2m over 10.5m. This means I can simply have a much gentler 1:8 or 1:10 slope. The 1:6 seems unnecessarily steep for the actual rise required.

I am quite confident that it will most likely end up being the non-drive side also at 11.51m, except for the driveway path itself.

Also, looking at the TPZ, it seems like the roots are far enough away from the driveway even if I extended it to 6m, assuming a zero-gap garage is allowed, which I was separately told is allowed and builders usually do. I am not worried about that part.

But my only one worry is: Why would they not just keep the whole front lot flat (at 11.51m) except for the required driveway ramp? Has this slope now probably impacted my house appearance from the front already?
I am following up with them now to pin down the exact geometry. I will let you know what they say!

I gather from the levels there may be retaining walls at front of lot as street will be built at the lower level. Driveway needs to be cut through the level change down to street level. There should be crossectio s showing this. Ask your developer for the engineering plans including crosssextions at your lot.

Sorry I thought they want 6 m to get to lot level. If you can keep to 1;10 then can park on drive

There’s like 2m footpath then approximately 6m verge. Then start the lot.

Hi everyone,
I am sorry for the silence—I have been away overseas for a family emergency and am just catching up.
I shared my preliminary plans with the developer after our site visit, and the feedback was a bit of a reality check. The estate manager confirmed that the 10.5m setback is absolutely firm. Because of this, my current single-story design actually doesn't fit the lot. I am also dealing with specific restrictions around the garage and western boundary wall to protect the tree roots.
To be honest, it is starting to feel a bit overwhelming. Between the builder, the developer, and the LDP, the rules on these setbacks have been quite complicated to wrap my head around. I am now seriously wondering if a double-story design would be a better alternative to get the space I need without fighting the building envelope so much.
I would love to get your friendly opinions. Do you think switching to a double-story is the right move here, or am I overcomplicating an already tricky block?
Appreciate your patience and all the advice so far

Just to provide some additional context, the developer’s comments on the house plans were quite specific. They advised that:
• The house does not fit: The current design violates several requirements, including the garage setback, side boundary setbacks, and the western parapet wall.
• Retaining wall solution: They cannot build a standard limestone wall because it would damage the tree roots. Instead, they are looking into installing a "twinside" wall system to manage the levels in that area.
• The 10.5m setback: This is at its absolute maximum distance. The 10% encroachment mentioned in the LDP has already been factored in to reach this line, so there is no further flexibility.
It seems like the developer is willing to help with the "twinside" wall to make the levels work, but the footprint is much tighter than I first thought. I am eager to hear if you think these constraints are manageable with a double-storey, or if this is starting to look like too much of a compromise

Important that you know all the setback requirements. What length of wall can be on boundary. There is a little bit that can be scaled back. Like 3x3.6 me bedrooms and l move laundry to pantry and pantry to mud room. Or you can go double storey. Depends on your budget too. Going up will cost more for the same usable space

another variation with wider setbacks

another variation