IP with Granny flat
- Thread starter stinadaze
- Start date
Hi again guys! i keep coming back and asking questions cause I've found your help to be great!
my question this time is this..... is it really easy to rent out a house and the granny flat on the same land separately? are there special "rules" i need to check about before I purchase a property like this to make sure the 2 dwellings can be rented out separately? is there really demand for such a thing.....I mean I don’t think id want to live in a granny flatwho can i check with re demand for such a thing?? Real estate agents?
thanks again!
Well I guess it depends on how do you manage your IP ?
if you are thinking to rent it out to Uni student then, you can manage it yourself, but if you rent it out to a mixed of family and uni student at the granny flat, that is a different matter so you should better off using RE agent or PM.
Hi All
I am new to this forum, however I have been reading for along time! I have been looking for a property on the central coast for nearly 6 months and have been stung twice with bad building and pest but still looking. I am ideally looking for a dual occ sort of set up so that I can rent house out in a few months and move to the city using the "granny flat" on weekends. Most of the houses with this set up are either on the verge of knock down or out of the price range.
Anyway I have found a 3bd place on 446sq meter block with rear lane access this place is very well priced however to put the granny flat on the block the SEPP states that it should be 450sq meters. My question is do you think they would look at the block more favourable due to the access although 4 sq meters to small? If the enterance to the granny flat is from the lane would the rear set back then be considered as the distance between the two structures?
Thanks for your assistance.
I am new to this forum, however I have been reading for along time! I have been looking for a property on the central coast for nearly 6 months and have been stung twice with bad building and pest but still looking. I am ideally looking for a dual occ sort of set up so that I can rent house out in a few months and move to the city using the "granny flat" on weekends. Most of the houses with this set up are either on the verge of knock down or out of the price range.
Anyway I have found a 3bd place on 446sq meter block with rear lane access this place is very well priced however to put the granny flat on the block the SEPP states that it should be 450sq meters. My question is do you think they would look at the block more favourable due to the access although 4 sq meters to small? If the enterance to the granny flat is from the lane would the rear set back then be considered as the distance between the two structures?
Thanks for your assistance.
Im afraid the answer is no. The SEPP prescriptions must be met in every categorey including block size (450 sq m),
Then there's:
- block width (12 m),
- building size (60 sq m measured externally),
- height (3.8 m - 4.8 m). Any height above 3.8 m measured from natural ground to the roof top must be tripled and added to the 3 m rear setback...
There are more rules regarding setbacks, aspect, landscaping, direct access to private open spaces, BASIX (energy efficiency certificate), drainage, location of doors/windows etc.
Your only other chance is to either:
(1) Look at the Councils Development Control Policy (DCP) and see if you can apply for a DA/CC; or call them and ask.
(2) Do a SEPP 'attached granny flat' separated by a fire-rated wall.
Serge.
Hi Serge
Re your quote above; does it mean if i have a lot size greater than 900sqm, and i want to build an attached granny flat to the side of my exisiting house, there is no 5m rear boundary setback requirements?
thanks
Does this include the front setback requirements?
Most definitely, yes.
You could try the Council (DA/CC) approach for a garage conversion (they may/may not relax the 3 m rear setback under their DCP)-but it's a difficult path.
With garage conversion, you will need to comply with residential slab/footing standards, insulation, waterproofing, fire-separation, termite protection, additional parking etc.. it's the reason I rarely agree to do them anymore- it costs a lot to do, it breaks hearts and can be very difficult to get approval for.
Your best bet is for someone (or DIY) to research these things first- check the S149 Certificate, check sewer mains' location, consider slope of the land for drainage against Council's Drainage Code, check for easements/pipelines, look at the Council's Tree Preservation Orders, see if it can happen.
It's what people pay me to do every day and it really is the best place to start. Granny flats are an awesome investment choice- you really can't lose. So it pays to do the research.
Cheers,
Serge.
P.S. I'm gonna go watch the Motogp Qualifying now and stop being a total geek on a Saturday night haha.
Last edited:
Sorry I may need to give more detail. I made an example in your other thread for detached GF's where the existing house has a 5m setback and the required setback for new detached GF would be 11m based on two adjoining houses having 10m and 12m setbacks. If the house had an extension to create an attached GF that remained within the existing 5m, would this be OK.
Yes, as long as the final setback to the rear boundary is min. 5 m (for a block 900 sq m or more) then it's all good.
Query was for front setback, not rear
Existing house front setback 5m, neighbours are 9 and 11m. Build an attached gf on the side of the house, can it be also the 5m, or must it match the detached rules and be 10m? Rear and site setbacks not an issue.
Thanks,
Last edited:
Good question m8.
Firstly, it would be considered an 'attached granny flat' under the SEPP.
Fire Separation (under the Building Code of Australia) can be reached quite easily if the 2 dwellings are separated by a carport as long as 1/3 of its perimeter is open.
If they're separated by a garage, only one side of the garage would need a fire-rated wall. This can be achieved via either brick veneer or a Boral/James Hardie product all the way up to the roof- as discussed above.
There must be no door to the fire-rated dwelling (no direct door entry from inside the garage to the one dwelling with the fire rated wall).
Cheers,
Serge.
EDIT: hmm seems I double posted this one. Sorry.
Query was for front setback, not rear
Existing house front setback 5m, neighbours are 9 and 11m. Build an attached gf on the side of the house, can it be also the 5m, or must it match the detached rules and be 10m? Rear and site setbacks not an issue.
Thanks,
O ok..front setback.
The SEPP says you cant be closer than those 2 averages, so if you want to extend the existing house to the side, you cant go to 5m Im afraid- has to be 10 m. Sux I know.
Corner blocks can be a blessing and a curse, thanks Brazen. I thought about getting the address changed to the other street... but probably a council DA anyhow
Hey twodogs,
Ive been thinking about your question today and it strikes me that since you're NOT encroaching on the existing front setback it just may just be possible that you're allowed to match the existing dwelling's front setback...I haven't had one like that yet so I might be wrong on my previous thinking..it's been niggling at me all day...I don't see why it shouldn't be allowed.
It might pay to ask the NSW Dept. of Planning about this; you may be pleasantly surprised? Tel: (02) 9228 6333
Hi Brazen,
I'll look at trying to call soon when I get my questions and references sorted out.
Changing tack back to original problem, which is the primary frontage, after a night cruising the NSW planning website I found this in a document called:
"NSW Housing Code - A Guide to Complying Development"
http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=hTsTfBwPEjM=&tabid=402&language=en-US
The primary road is defined under the Codes
SEPP as ‘the road to which the front of a dwelling
house, or a main building, on a lot faces or is
proposed to face’. The remaining street frontage
becomes the secondary frontage. The rear
boundary will become the opposite of the primary
road boundary and the side boundary will be the
remaining boundary.
Note: The postal address of the property is not relevant
as the primary and secondary road frontages relate to the
orientation of the dwelling, relative to the roads.
This differs from your description of the "named street" being the primary frontage. Of course what does "face" mean, but this clearly states house orientation, not street address defines the primary frontage. In my example the house is at an angle to both streets. 36deg to the current addressed street (long boundary) and 50deg to other street (short boundary). There is a path leading from the front door to the letterbox on the long boundary.
Then there is this from NSW planning FAQ:
How does the code apply to a corner block?
The code establishes front setbacks for corner allotments depending on the lot size, with smaller
setbacks to the secondary street frontage. Otherwise, the same development standards apply as for a
single frontage lot. It is up to the applicant to identify which is the primary street frontage.
Perhaps moving the path and letterbox and adding driveway/carport to that frontage would make the house "face" the smaller boundary then the secondary setback of 3m would magically apply to the long boundary and common sense could prevail...
twodogs,
wow!
Firstly, I haven't seen that guide before. I have just read the entire document as well.
Secondly, the reference in his guide is to the Codes SEPP. The Codes SEPP doesn't in itself cover secondary dwellings.
They are different documents BUT the definitions of the Codes SEPP do, however, apply to the Affordable Housing SEPP where none is given....so it seems you have something here...One could present this guide to a Certifier as evidence that a non-named street is the Primary Road. The Certifier has the final say as to whether he/she considers the 'face' of a dwelling to be the one with door(s) windows, a letterbox or walkway in front of it etc.
In my experience, the Certifying authority has viewed the named street as the primary frontage. Im dealing not with the Codes SEPP but the Affordable Housing SEPP, as you know.
Your original question was (and still is) a difficult one, though, since your house faces BOTH frontage, at an angle of 30 degrees and 60 degrees. The Codes SEPP doesn't directly address this, but it does re-open the door doesn't it?
I would say there is some allowance for the reader to interpret it's meaning, as you also stated.
The Codes SEPP actually states this:
"primary road means the road to which the front of a dwelling house, or a main building, on a lot faces or is proposed to face."
It also defines the secondary boundary as:
"secondary road means, in the case of a corner lot that has boundaries with adjacent roads, the road that is not the primary road."
The latter definition can also be interpreted as the non-named road. I know it's how my Certifier defines it; and hence he defines the named road as the Primary Road. I'd say he hasn't seen this guide...and I havent either!
If a job like this comes to me soon, and it no doubt will, I intend to use the Minister's Guide as further evidence that we can calculate setbacks based on this definition.
Ive had other areas (articulation zone, private open space) definitions conflict and sometimes just downright confuse everyone...with 2 different answers coming from 2 separate phone calls to the Dept of Planning. Jobs get complicated and hearts get broken
Im not in the business of saying no to someone- it doesn't pay very well.
The legislation is still in it's infancy, with many areas being re-worded on-the-fly as well.
I'm glad you found this but it's a bit embarassing, too.
A few months ago we had a similar situation with Articulation Zone.Look at the following quote below for example, from the Affordable Housing SEPP,which also relates to the primary road:
13 Articulation zone
(1) Development for the purposes of a secondary dwelling (other than development on a battle-axe lot) must not result in neither the principal dwelling nor the secondary dwelling having a front door and a window to a habitable room in the building wall that faces a primary road.
Ive had one Certifier consider this to mean you must have a window AND a door facing the primary road whilst another sees it as meaning NEITHER must have a windor OR a door (not both?) facing the primary road. It's nuts, and consistant answers weren't easy to find.
In your situation, I would say you have a case. As to which street your existing house 'faces'? The simplest way it's been described to me, is that the Named Street is the primary road. It seems after reading the guide you linked, that this is not necessarily the case.
towdogs, your research will definitely lead me to call the Minister's office today to get further clarification. I personally attend the workshops that the Department of Planning run, so I'll also be taking this up with them.
sheesh! Ive honestly had jobs cancelled as Complying Development based on a different interpretation of what is 'The Primary Road'.
Thanks for bringing this to me and I must apologise, since I could have effectively closed what is a still an open door for you. I'm very sorry.
If I were you, I'd keep that Guide and use it to my advantage.
I know I will be.
I'm showing all of this to my Certifier today as well.
I'll let you know how I go.
Thanks m8.
Serge.
wow!
Firstly, I haven't seen that guide before. I have just read the entire document as well.
Secondly, the reference in his guide is to the Codes SEPP. The Codes SEPP doesn't in itself cover secondary dwellings.
They are different documents BUT the definitions of the Codes SEPP do, however, apply to the Affordable Housing SEPP where none is given....so it seems you have something here...One could present this guide to a Certifier as evidence that a non-named street is the Primary Road. The Certifier has the final say as to whether he/she considers the 'face' of a dwelling to be the one with door(s) windows, a letterbox or walkway in front of it etc.
In my experience, the Certifying authority has viewed the named street as the primary frontage. Im dealing not with the Codes SEPP but the Affordable Housing SEPP, as you know.
Your original question was (and still is) a difficult one, though, since your house faces BOTH frontage, at an angle of 30 degrees and 60 degrees. The Codes SEPP doesn't directly address this, but it does re-open the door doesn't it?
I would say there is some allowance for the reader to interpret it's meaning, as you also stated.
The Codes SEPP actually states this:
"primary road means the road to which the front of a dwelling house, or a main building, on a lot faces or is proposed to face."
It also defines the secondary boundary as:
"secondary road means, in the case of a corner lot that has boundaries with adjacent roads, the road that is not the primary road."
The latter definition can also be interpreted as the non-named road. I know it's how my Certifier defines it; and hence he defines the named road as the Primary Road. I'd say he hasn't seen this guide...and I havent either!
If a job like this comes to me soon, and it no doubt will, I intend to use the Minister's Guide as further evidence that we can calculate setbacks based on this definition.
Ive had other areas (articulation zone, private open space) definitions conflict and sometimes just downright confuse everyone...with 2 different answers coming from 2 separate phone calls to the Dept of Planning. Jobs get complicated and hearts get broken
Im not in the business of saying no to someone- it doesn't pay very well.
The legislation is still in it's infancy, with many areas being re-worded on-the-fly as well.
I'm glad you found this but it's a bit embarassing, too.
A few months ago we had a similar situation with Articulation Zone.Look at the following quote below for example, from the Affordable Housing SEPP,which also relates to the primary road:
13 Articulation zone
(1) Development for the purposes of a secondary dwelling (other than development on a battle-axe lot) must not result in neither the principal dwelling nor the secondary dwelling having a front door and a window to a habitable room in the building wall that faces a primary road.
Ive had one Certifier consider this to mean you must have a window AND a door facing the primary road whilst another sees it as meaning NEITHER must have a windor OR a door (not both?) facing the primary road. It's nuts, and consistant answers weren't easy to find.
In your situation, I would say you have a case. As to which street your existing house 'faces'? The simplest way it's been described to me, is that the Named Street is the primary road. It seems after reading the guide you linked, that this is not necessarily the case.
towdogs, your research will definitely lead me to call the Minister's office today to get further clarification. I personally attend the workshops that the Department of Planning run, so I'll also be taking this up with them.
sheesh! Ive honestly had jobs cancelled as Complying Development based on a different interpretation of what is 'The Primary Road'.
Thanks for bringing this to me and I must apologise, since I could have effectively closed what is a still an open door for you. I'm very sorry.
If I were you, I'd keep that Guide and use it to my advantage.
I know I will be.
I'm showing all of this to my Certifier today as well.
I'll let you know how I go.
Thanks m8.
Serge.
