Two recent projects and one current project allowed us to experience the full brunt of the City of Subiaco's 'middle third rule'. The rule was set up to protect the subiaco streetscape and requires 2nd storey additions to be in the middle third of the lot. Ie not near the front (thus impacting streetscape) and not near the back (thus impacting rear adjoining landowner).
The policy causes confusion when one tries to push the second storey away from the street but then ends up in the rear third of the lot. The contradiction becomes apparent when one is asked to move proposed second storey additions toward the front of the lot and out of the rear third, whereby it becomes visible from the street and therefore contradicts its own intention of preserving the character of the existing streetscape.
Resolution in our case required the assistance of SAT, the state administrative tribunal. Our understanding is that there have been numerous problematic cases of interpretation of this rule and any similar experiences are welcome to be shared here. We are hopeful this policy will be modified or abolished based on the confusion inherent in its application.
Comments
Post has no comments.