From time to time, I am approached by residents in rural residential areas who would like to subdivide their property. They are usually older residents who see this as an opportunity to raise a bit of extra capital, and at the same time reduce the size of the property they have to maintain. The properties in question are usually around 4-12 ha (10-30 acres) in size.
The residents are often a bit upset when they discover that, while lots may be as small as 2 ha (5 acres) in the 1(d) rural residential zone, [often prohibitive] conditions apply. For starters, it will not generally be possible to subdivide a block of less than 12 ha (30 acres). In rural areas (the current 1(a) zone), lots must be at least 160 ha before they can be subdivided (with dwelling entitlements). Even these minima may not be relevant if the lot in question was part of a previous subdivision that took advantage of averaging provisions. In such cases, a lot may simply not be able to be further subdivided, regardless of its size.
There are a couple of other conditions that must also be met. A lot of less than 16 ha must have a frontage on a road other than a main or arterial road, and lots must have a depth to width ratio not exceeding 4:1.
While there are changes to the way in which these regulations are specified in the new PLEP, in practice they remain largely unchanged.
So why the restrictions? Most people who raise this issue feel that there’s plenty of land, and that their subdivision would have very little impact, especially when the issue of dual occupancy developments is brought into the picture.
In the case of the 1(a) rural zone, where one of the primary objectives is “to protect the agricultural potential of rural land and to prevent the fragmentation of viable rural holdings”, the 80 ha limit was deemed an appropriate threshhold to discourage subdivision for pusposes other than genuine agricultural pursuits.
While there is more flexibility in the 1(d) rural residential zone, the initial rural residential subdivisions have generally been planned and designed as integrated developments, to provide a specific character and some level of guarantee that this character will not be compromised by subsequent subdivision. The existing lots are the size they were designed to be to create the character and amenity of the area in question and, generally as a condition of consent for the original subdivision, must remain that size in order to preserve this character and amenity.
Even if there’s no problem with lot sizes, there are other conditions that must be met before a subdivision can be approved, so that there is not a great deal of profit to be derived from a simple two lot subdivision. In fact, I am told that, for small developments, the cost of the subdivision will be roughly equal to the profit that can be derived from the sale of one of the lots—i.e. you need at least a three lot subdivision to make any money on the exercise.