Any form of "safe withdrawal rate" can't really apply to directly owned property (or any asset class where fractional ownership isn't an option).
If you think about it you can't realistically sell 4% (or whatever) each year of your ownership. Setting borrowings aside for a second, you either own it or you don't.
That leaves you with four options.
1) Keep the asset(s) and live off the passive income they throw off. In theory this is a perpetual passive income generating machine, little risk you'll outlive your assets.
2) Sell the asset(s) entirely, invest the proceeds in another asset class that you can realistically apply a "safe withdrawal rate" approach to... shares, bonds, term deposits, peer-to-peer lending, whatever. Now you've got some risk (possibly a significant one) of out living your assets, but for what it is worth FIRE community dogma says you'll likely die before you run out of money.
3) Borrow against the asset, for example setting up a line of credit secured by the property. Draw down the "safe withdrawal rate" amount each year, use the passive income it generates to (hopefully) cover the borrowing costs. This one is a game of chicken with mortality, you hope you die before your borrowings exceed the maximum LTV on the property.
4) Look at setting up the equivalent of a French viager arrangement, essentially an equity release annuity. Not so common in Australia, the buyer is essentially betting the property owner will die sooner rather than later. They lose out big style if this proves not to be the case!