Granny flat for owner in BCC

I'm considering buying a house in BCC area on a block > 600 sqm with side access. This will be principal place residence.
A granny flat will be built and the owner will move there. The primary house will then be rented out.
Granny flat can be up to 80sqm GFA which is pretty good. The rent income would be paying off a mortgage.
Has anyone had similar experience?

 

Has BCC relaxed its policy on letting gf to non-family members in the main dwelling?

 

That would be a large NO.

 

Although for the next little while until changes come in, it may be possible to convert the whole thing to a class 1B dwelling and self assess as rooming accommodation. The new GF will need to be an accessible dwelling (wheelie friendly) and there will need to be interconnected smoke alarms, emergency lighting, fire extinguishers etc.

 

If PC gets a dollar every time this question asked, I think site will be very rich

 

Probably needs to be a PSA: "Granny Flats in BCC are not a thing" Especially for you Sydney types

 

The question was not about renting GF, the question was about renting the primary dwelling and living in GF on permanent basis.

 

And the answer has been consistent - unless all parties are related, it is non-compliant.

 

The answer is still NO

 

Can you get around it by stating that the related party are cousins or inlaws when they don't have the same surname?

 

First cab off the rank would be a simple call too the insurance company you intend to use,then next too the BCC ..

 

And the answer does not change. They must be one household group, sharing something - laundry, food etc. Also both parties must have access to each dwelling.

See the other thread for more detailed answer on another possibility.

 

Does it include wife/husband swapping or cutting the neighbour's grass? (If there's a formal arrangement).

 

I haven't seen bodily fluids said explicitly in a court judgement but sharing the common provisions of life is a more general term, on the basis of standard legal interpretation
- hard to live without bodily fluids
- sometimes other people's bodily fluids needed to survive
-sharing bodily fluids with someone else has potential to create life
- sharing bodily fluids is usually enjoyable and the benefits outweigh the risk (unless neighbour's husband has excavator and therefore excuse to be digging deep holes)

On above basis I would guess that
- 2 judges would come down in the negative
- 3 judges would come down in the affirmative
but by that stage the clients had spent so much money on legal fees that the previous bodily fluid swapee had mysteriously lost said attraction to them. If the client could recover from the vast financial leeching that this vitally important case had imposed on all and sundry then they could use it as a precedent for a future bodily fluid swapee.

 

Heaps of people now advertise in BCC area "dual income" places.......crooks IMO.