Confusion about Building Setback Requirements

Hi all,

I've been entertaining the idea of building a granny flat at the rear of my property. I don't intend to rent it out to strangers but rather for my parents to live in or use as a guest house/entertainment room/gym etc.

According to the Botany Bay Council DCP, a minimum of 4m is required for the rear setback (for lots with <12.5m frontage as mine is). However, I want to build the granny flat as close to the rear boundary as possible to maximise the yard space between the 2 dwellings.

I've never done a development application before so I was wondering is it possible to get Council to relax on the rear setback requirement, or is everything in the DCP set in stone?

I stumbled across the floorplan for one of my neighbouring properties (whos lot frontage and length is even less than mine) and it seems they were able to build a secondary dwelling pretty much right on their rear boundary. The plan can be found here: https://i2.au.reastatic.net/3126x16...b0568c12cff6a2fd11a62964b6968ff0450/image.gif

Now the council DCP also states that "Outbuildings (not including secondary dwellings) must be set back 900mm from the site’s boundaries."

So I'm wondering, is their structure considered an 'outbuilding' instead of a secondary dwelling? (It doesnt seem to have a shower/laundry/kitchen etc)

I've looked at historic satellite photos, and it appears that their construction started in late 2014 (after the inception of the 2013 DCP).

They did have a small shed in the same location at that time, however it seems like it was completely demolished in place of the studio and was not just an alteration.

 

Hi, you can request a variation to the 4m development control, make sure the objectives of the control are addressed. There's no guarantee that Council will approve it but a properly written statement of environmental effects by a town planner will help your chances.

If you can demonstrate there's minimal solar access, visual impact, privacy impacts on adjoining properties or explain why the control can't be met (i.e to increase private open space or separation between the principal dwelling) you might get it over the line.

Also don't forget to address Part 4A.5.2 - 'Secondary dwellings' of the DCP as well.

Good luck!

 

Engage a planner. It's your best chance.

 

What??? Are you mad??? Pay for a consultant who'll use their skill & knowledge to maximize the concessions available???

 

Could always pay me to project manage the consultant if it makes you feel better.

 

There is a big difference between a habitable dwelling and the one shown on the link with no kitchen, no bathroom.

 

If you want to cause yourself costs of hiring a TP and submitting DA's and answering the neighbour's objections with no guaranteed outcome - then go the DA route.
If you want to come 4m off the back boundary, at the same time happening to comply with the open space requirements of the legislation, then I'd suggest, all other things being equal (not flood or bushfire affected etc) that a Private Certifier complying development is the fastest, lowest cost route to take.

 

The one on the link does have a bathroom.

 

As @Propertunity says, I would definitely give complying development some consideration, just for the lack of stress/time/cost associated with the approval. PM me if you'd like contact details for a draftsman I've worked with in Sydney as a starting point.

 

Hi! Is the DA still on your council's website for the Maloney St property? It might have useful info.

 

Going through DA and risk the neighbour's rejection, 6-8 weeks of assessment time and possible council conditions/requesting for more info, all for a trial luck to varying a rear setback requirement to the DCP seem to be a big compromise.

I would also consider submitting through CDC which can be as little as 3m rear setback provided your lot permits. As Mel Morgan mentioned, its a much quicker process, less stress and may cost you less too in terms of reports required.