Backyard sizes - granny flat

Builder has given me two options to choose from:

Option 1:
Main house backyard size: 87m2
Granny flat backyard size: 122m2

Option 2:
Main house backyard size: 101.5m2
Granny flat backyard size: 107.5m2

The difference between option 1 and option 2 is largely due to setback. There is an easement at the rear of the property 2m wide. Option 2 sets the GF back 0.3m from the easement (2.3m from the rear fenceline) which means we have to go through DA approvals. Option 1 however meets the CDC rules and sets the GF 3m from the rear fenceline, so it can be approved via private certifier.

From a rentability perspective, would the GF benefit from a bigger backyard. Would the main house's rentability decrease because of the smaller backyard?

Is it worth going through DA to achieve a bigger backyard for the main house?

Appreciate your opinions.

 

Is it possible to upload a plan? It really depends on what they layout is I think

 

Plans uploaded. Hopefully this helps

 

There doesn't seem to be to extreme of a difference between the two.

Will they both be rented?
Whats your stance on pets for both properties?
Will both areas be grassed or paved or?

I guess it will come down to the tennant demographic in the area but I don't think many would turn it down due to 10 odd sqm unless pets are involved.

 

@HD_ACE i assume you're referring to option 2 here? Option 1 has a 40m2 difference in backyard size.

Both will be rented and I'm open to pets. Yard will be turfed.

 

Go for the maximum distance between the House and the Granny Flat (option 2).

Separation and privacy will far outweight the backyard issue.

You might even consider moving the GF to the other side of the yard to give even more separation.

 

Option 2 is another vote from me

 

I mean the difference between each backyard being only 10-15sqm ie 87 sqm or 101sqm. 122 or 107sqm .Not alot of difference. If you want quicker/cheaper process go option 1 or as others have said option 2 creates more seperation and more even lots.

Im not sure on extra costs and timeframes but I would be looking at option 2 if feasible.

 

Oops - I only looked at the pictures and did not fully read your post.

Definitely go the automatic approval with a private certifier - avoid the DA at all costs.

The DA will get neighbours involved and neighbours dislike granny flats intensely.

 

@HD_ACE it costs about $1000 extra to go through DA.

Time is not too much of a concern for me but of course I'd want to weigh that up against making both dwellings just as rentable.

If you were in my position, would you pay the $1000 and go the DA route (including more time to approval), taking into account the greater distance between both the main house and the granny flat?

 

How painful is the DA process? Would approval fall over because of neighbours' disagreement?

I'm sort of leaning towards having more separation - i.e. going down Option 2 as you mentioned but I have no idea what sort of pain I'd be looking at if it has to go through DA for approval.

 

With a DA there would be less certainty and it would depend on a lot of things.

With SEPP you have certainty as long as you meet and build to the requirements.

We have always put the fence a lot closer to the GF then your 2.4 metres (like 1 metre) - it is a bit of wasted space for the GF but extra yard for the main house.

 

@Tonibell I was toying with the idea of moving the fence closer to the GF too. However in order to get more light into the house, the GF had to be moved back 2.4m from the fenceline.

 

While its easy to look at numbers, its not always about size, but rather perception.

For example, I would rather a backyard that is 6 x 6 (36sqm) over a 2 x 20 (40sqm) yard.

I would move the fence as close to the granny flat as possible. Anywhere between 750mm to 900mm.
Therefore maximising the "feel" of the back backyard.

Also stick with the 3m setback, you'll be able to get it through Complying Development and save yourself a whole lot of grief!

I also don't understand why your side setback is 1.2m. I thought it could be 0.9m (1.2m does not make for any useable space).

 

As for the lighting aspect, you'll be surprised how much light still goes in with the fence there.

 

Option 2 is similar to my plan, except I'm in canberra, where GF can be built upto 90 m2. If I reduce space between GF and its front fence from 2.4m to anywhere less, the space can be given to GF to add one more room. The concern is if the fence to GF is 900mm (as suggested above) the daylight might be blocked by the fence. This is North side. In canberra we need sun light desperately in cold winter. How do I know how much away the fence from the building is OK for the light but in its minimum? Thank you for inputs.

 

seeing as there is minimal difference between the two, try to avoid the DA. I'm sure the DA will probably be smooth sailing but who knows? Why take the risk when there's no reward.

 

I would take the risk, for the benefit of a larger space.

 

Umm this thread is over 2 years old.

 

Do you think the GF got built?