Granny flats on the rise but neighbours unable to complain

[tcocaro]

http://www.theherald.com.au/story/2617001/granny-flats-mushrooming/? cs=305

Technically if the granny flat complies with the codes under which it was approved then its considered approved works meaning the builder, owner did nothing wrong and neighbors have no immediate right to complain.

In relation to the right to complain during the process there are avenues enshrined within the approval process however unlike DA notification periods, council, certifiers or any other relevant authority won't listen to non-specific, non-code related objections when it comes to "compliant developments" which I presume this granny flat was approved as.

I am only assuming but I suspect that Mr Ryder never wrote an objection citing code violations, nor did he employ a town planner to express his concerns or seek any professional assistance. What he wanted was to write a gripe, himself, for people to listen and for "his" desires be adhered to. I am sorry but if this is of serious concern the onus (under compliant developments) is for neighbors to research and cite actually issues with the proposed development rather than simply having a random whinge.

If Mr Ryder is unhappy with the codes in which the granny flat was approved then why did he not complain when the legislation was gazetted? The reason is no one cares until it affects themselves directly and I am sorry I have little sympathy for such persons especially when coupled with refusing to invest even $1 towards getting their objections articulated by a town planner or relevant professional.

Again I am only assuming and apologise to Mr Ryder if this is not the case but from my years as a builder, developer and investor I have yet to receive a single objections coupled with any independent report paid for by the objector.

Under DA's Mr Ryder could have complained and council would have asked the "builder\developer\owner" to then provide evidence they complain at their cost. This approach quite frankly is BS, why must the applicant provide further detail at significant time/expense fighting an objections that typically reads "oh I hate this proposed work, it will end my life as I know it, my price will drop blah blah".

I would like to also point out some information in this article is factually incorrect. "determined by a private certifier and did not involve council". This is not true council is involved, the application even for CDC application. All CDCs are still submitted to council and they have the right to question the proposed works and have the right to half works BUT if they cite clear code violations.

Let's put the code requirements for privacy to one side for a moment and let's look at this pragmatically;

1. The land clearly shows a significant fall meaning the granny flat by nature of this slope will be seen as much higher as Mr Ryders property. Privacy concerns will always be an issue for such blocks.
   
2. The photo conveniently doesn't show the existing main dwelling. I strongly suspect that the exact same issues Mr Ryder has is also the case with the main house.
   
3. Mr Ryder can invest in screening trees.
   
4. Has Mr Ryder spoken with the owners and offered to go 50/50 on trees? Privacy screening to the windows or heaven forbid try to arrange a solutions rather than fight behind council apparatus and/or the media? This situation has arisen countless times on my projects and there has been an amicable solution but the real problem typically is the objector simply doesn't want the whole thing to proceed. Specific complaints about privacy etc mask the real issue which is their overall distain for the project meaning any solutions provided by the applicant will never address the objectors core issue i.e. "I don't want this granny flat next to me".

In summary, there ARE avenues to complain just no listeners to arbitrary whines. Council is involved albeit a limited role. It's also important to remember CDC (compliant developments) are not just for granny flat, extensions\additions and new builds can all be built under this code.

This article is about the typical NIMBY syndrome and I have little sympathy. This highlights the exact reason why CDC came about.

I have written about this many times and there has to be a shift on focus from those persons who already own property and have accommodation to those who don't. People are seeing so many granny flats because of affordability and granny flats specifically is finally a solution that actually works.

Anyways despite the length of this post I am sure my view will simply be seen as biased but my retort is the objectors view is also biased but at least my view is supported by a many years process and industry involvement that brought about the codes under which this granny flat was approved so... Tough, deal with it.

 

[miss green eyes]

Technically if the granny flat complies with the codes under which it was approved then its considered approved works meaning the builder, owner did nothing wrong and neighbors have no immediate right to complain.
[*]The photo conveniently doesn't show the existing main dwelling. I strongly suspect that the exact same issues Mr Ryder has is also the case with the main house.

That's what I said before. The law does not forbid anyone from barbecuing or cooking curry everyday in their backyard. Or a person walking around in their undies.

Can you explain what you mean about the main dwelling? Do you mean the main dwelling of the GF owner (which I assume is situated behind the GF in the photo) would also have windows facing the complaining neighbour's house?
If so, I think the complaining neighbour feels that this main dwelling, being further from the fence, does not intrude as much on his privacy.

 

[tcocaro]

Hi miss green eyes. By "main dwelling" i mean the "primary" house on the block as the granny flat would be the "secondary" dwelling.

In relation to the proximity to side setbacks these are dictated by the code which is the same as councils DCP i.e. 900 setback (subject to block size). The main/primary house on the block would also most likely be in line with these same setbacks i.e. exactly the same as the granny flat.

Also its hard to tell from the photo but it actually looks like the side setback is 1500 from the fence which maybe because its a large block as side setbacks are dependent on the size of the property.

But regardless, the further away from the fence the worse will be the privacy issue as the block slopes up, meaning the further away from the fence the higher the ground level which in turns means the windows are higher and higher above the fence affecting more and more the privacy.

This being said, everyone has become so precious about their privacy to the point that we all should build 10m high fences are close ourselves from the outside world.

If you live in a second storey house or know someone that does I challenge you, go upstairs and look out the window and tell me honestly how many peoples backyards can you see? pools? peoples living areas etc. Does this mean the builder, architect or council was negligent? Is anyone complaining? no.. why?

The reason is because people dont care whats already there they only care whats coming in "new". Like I said there has to be a priority on those people looking to build, or live in accommodation versus those who already have\live there.

I am not saying some complaints, concerns are not valid but the OVERWHELMING are simply not, they are people who simply want to keep the status quo and that's just not on or fair particularly given how many people are being priced out from the market.

That's what I said before. The law does not forbid anyone from barbecuing or cooking curry everyday in their backyard. Or a person walking around in their undies.

Can you explain what you mean about the main dwelling? Do you mean the main dwelling of the GF owner (which I assume is situated behind the GF in the photo) would also have windows facing the complaining neighbour's house?
If so, I think the complaining neighbour feels that this main dwelling, being further from the fence, does not intrude as much on his privacy.

 

[miss green eyes]

I see, thanks.
But at least if the main dwelling is further away, it would be harder for the GF owner to see the neighbour

 

[westminster]

With respect, you're looking at it from a WA perspective. The granny flat legalisation is from the NSW State Government and basically trumps the councils powers. If the building size and offsets comply it must be approved in 10 days, and neighbours don't get a say.

The certifiers only have to run through a checklist.

Correct, I only know the WA GF and dwelling codes so that is all I can speak to. All I was questioning was does it comply - I couldn't say if it does comply or not because I don't know the NSW codes.

 

[nww]

They may comply but if people are just going to stick them in their backyard
without any thought for neighbour privacy these types of home owners below
will pressure the government for change and Investors will lose.


Taken from the Central Coast Advocate letters to the editor below.

THE new laws that allow granny flats to be built without community regulation or consultation have got to be stopped.
I know people who went away on holidays and came home to find a large granny flat on their back boundary with huge windows looking right into there backyard and home.
They were distraught as not only have they lost their privacy this has also knocked at least $50,000 off their home value and they had no notice or say in it.
What about the effects of street parking if a few of these are added to every street, there seems to be no allowance for the possible extra 2 (at least) cars. It is usually done by investors who don?t live in either dwelling and just want to capitalise on their investment..
Our young home buyers now not only have to compete with the selfmanaged superannuation funds and foreign investors but this type of parasitic investor also.
No wonder the anti-depressant industry is booming. This effects all of us. Write to your local council and member today. FRANCES D,
Wamberal

 

[tcocaro]

Look I am sorry but your views I reject completely and apologies upfront for this post if it offends its not my intent but my patience for such views has been exhausted many years ago. Your position is the very reason why the CDC regime has been introduced.

In one short post you basically touched on every type of rambly complaint dished out during council submission periods written, usually by hand, complaining about everything from traffic congestion, falling house prices, privacy etc. I had one complaining the development would block the sun to a neighbors lemon tree and may stunt its growth!

Although I suspect trying to point out the flaws in your argument might be a futile effort here goes;

1. Traffic: The people who move into these granny flats do you think they currently a) fly? or b) teleport from point to point?. If your answer is none of the above and in fact answered "car" then you will no doubt conclude that the traffic situation doesn't change one iota. Basically the young family living at home with mum and dad who cannot afford to buy a house and currently parks the car on the street or driveway will move into a granny flat and.... again park on the street and driveway.

2. House Prices Falling: How arrogantly selfish and wrong. Your continued growth in capital over-rides someones wish to find affordable accommodation? Who is the true "parasite"? Investors or self serving home owners? Also using, units or apartments as a comparable situation find me a house lot in the country that has dropped in value thanks to land around it being re-zoned for high/medium density - just one example will do in all the LGA's within Australia.

3. No right of objection? There is, 14 days in fact. However what I suspect you mean if the Granny Flat completely complies there is no free avenue to have a sook? In that case you are correct as CDC has a no sook policy.

If neighbors have such a vehement objection they can invest atleast some dollars, like the applicant did, in a town planner, certifier to articulate their objection or be actively involved in the formation of such policies over the many years public consultation. Grinding your teeth? No doubt, CDC basically stamps out incoherent whines about traffic, privacy and price falls so long as the development fully complies.

Your example about people going on holidays, what exactly is your suggestion? For developers to seek out every citizen and ask politely for their permission even if they are taking selfies at Machu Pichuu while on holidays?Or should someone leaving on holidays get someone to collect their mail or have it re-directed so nothing is missed? I am guessing if their phone service is cut, or their credit rating affected for bills posted and not paid should also be voided? Caaaaamoooon get real.

4. Investors Parasitic? - Despite all this you claim to be the young home buyers champion? Laying blame for their woes at the feet of foreign investors and self managed super funds! labeling them parasitic? Again, get real... remove the word foreign you are left with investor.. so if this isnt parasitic the word of most conjecture is "foreign" which in that case I wont dignify with a more detailed response beyond - I disagree.

Investors serve a purpose be it foreign or local without them there wouldn't be properties for rent. The fact investors make money doesnt make them parasitic, nor if the proceeds flow overseas anymore than you buying a product on-line and the fact such views are conveyed on a "property investment" forum titled "adding value" is more puzzling.

I am sorry I don't share or agree with your points even in the slightest but instead feel they should be vehemently stamped out making way for a more efficient planning process and hopefully a start to solving the housing shortage...

They may comply but if people are just going to stick them in their backyard
without any thought for neighbour privacy these types of home owners below
will pressure the government for change and Investors will lose.


Taken from the Central Coast Advocate letters to the editor below.

THE new laws that allow granny flats to be built without community regulation or consultation have got to be stopped.
I know people who went away on holidays and came home to find a large granny flat on their back boundary with huge windows looking right into there backyard and home.
They were distraught as not only have they lost their privacy this has also knocked at least $50,000 off their home value and they had no notice or say in it.
What about the effects of street parking if a few of these are added to every street, there seems to be no allowance for the possible extra 2 (at least) cars. It is usually done by investors who don?t live in either dwelling and just want to capitalise on their investment..
Our young home buyers now not only have to compete with the selfmanaged superannuation funds and foreign investors but this type of parasitic investor also.
No wonder the anti-depressant industry is booming. This effects all of us. Write to your local council and member today. FRANCES D,
Wamberal

 

[vaughan]

Wow, great post.

Not sure whether I most like your discussion of the facts, or the comments about "no sook policy" and "selfies at Machu Pichuu".

I'm still LOL-ing.

 

[fokas]

Good post tcocaro.
But I'm fairly sure nww was quoting something they read.

Taken from the Central Coast Advocate letters to the editor below.

T

I don't agree with your rebuttal for cars though... if there's 10 houses and 10 cars on a street, and now there are 10 houses + 1 granny flat on the street, then there very well may be 11 cars on the street. I don't understand your logic?

 

[tcocaro]

Your alternate logic suggests a new granny flat means someone buys a new car. New dwellings don't necessarily mean new car's, more people or changed car buying pasterns mean more cars. New homes\structures is instead a redistribution of vehicles rather than an increase of the total number of.

i.e. the car was parked at "mums" house and now its parked in the suburb in which their new granny flat is.

Its a 0 sum game i.e. there is now 1 less car somewhere else.

The real issue is the neighbor to the granny flat may say "specifically for me" there is 1 more car on the street but on the flip-side where-ever the car left from (i.e. mums house) those neighbors will say we now have 1 less car near us.

For traffic conditions to alter there will need to be more than 1 car, realistically a standard house will contribute more to traffic congestion than say a granny flat. The issue is never about 1 granny flat its more to do with the concentration, higher density living whereby traffic conditions alter. I.e. if an entire street all built granny flats then yes there is a problem because a redistribution of cars from, say across Sydney, has now localised.

I have not seen this issue occur and nor do I think its a realistic risk for people to get riled up about.

Hope this better explains my logic\thinking.

Good post tcocaro.
But I'm fairly sure nww was quoting something they read.
I don't agree with your rebuttal for cars though... if there's 10 houses and 10 cars on a street, and now there are 10 houses + 1 granny flat on the street, then there very well may be 11 cars on the street. I don't understand your logic?

 

[nww]

Good post tcocaro.
But I'm fairly sure nww was quoting something they read.
I don't agree with your rebuttal for cars though... if there's 10 houses and 10 cars on a street, and now there are 10 houses + 1 granny flat on the street, then there very well may be 11 cars on the street. I don't understand your logic?

I suspect tcocaro did not read correctly as I was quoting the Express advocate reader.

My point of the thread was to show people are complaining and anyone looking
at a build should put some thought into their neighbours before they start the
campaign to either stop or change the complying requirments to make it much harder.

Im all for granny flats , I have one and now in the process of another I also
have encouraged a friend in Bass Hill to go down this road and he is using the
services of a member on this site.

 

[brazen]

I totally empathise with that guy. That granny flat looks (to me) like may not be SEPP compliant. The SEPP is quite clear and here's the rules:

1. The SEPP requires Privacy Screens for any window higher than 1.5m off the ground, even fro bedroom windows if up to 2 sq m.

2. The SEPP requires Privacy Screens for any Patio which is greater than 3 sq. m in area. This looks like its definitely greater than 3 square meters.

3. That rear setbacks looks non-compliant from that photo. The SEPP quite clearly states that the granny flat's overall height (to the tip of the roof), measured from natural ground can't be over 3.8 metres. if it is, the side and rear setbacks must be increased to compensate. The rear, for example must be 3m + an additional 3 meter for every 1 meter above 3.8.
That structure looks over 3.8 m to me.

There are a lot of Certifiers out ignoring these basic rules and when the Department of Planning audits them, all hell breaks lose.

Brazen.