Residential Code of Development

[PropertyozSA]

Guys, just thought I would bring you all up to date with happenings on the Residential Code of Development. Although it has only been in place for a very short time, the State Government is undertaking a technical review of the Rescode to ensure that it delivers the intended outcomes.

The Property Council has put to Government a detailed submission (http://www.propertyoz.com.au/sa/Article ... ission=540) that proposes some changes to the Rescode to improve its usability ie remove subjective and introduce objective criteria.

But the biggest concern is that the Rescode only applies to about 20 per cent of the metro area (for new dwellings). How can this be you may ask?? Well it all comes down to Councils opposing its application to their areas under the 'Character Areas' criteria (have a look at the map on the last page of our submission - most of Port Adelaide Enfield is apparently a 'Character Area'!).

So much for the aim of the Rescode applying to 50-70% of the metro area. We are still fighting the good fight with Government on the next round of areas to be incorporated for Rescode application (which should happen in late September).

As always, appreciate your feedback.

Cheers Nathan
http://twitter.com/PropertyozSA
http://www.propertyoz.com.au

[Howie]

Great work Nathan. I'm building at the moment, and have been very confused by the changes in the new residential code. My builder is none the wiser either. Of particular interest to me are the two points highlighted in your submission :

1. Outbuildings, carports, verandahs, swimming pools will not require
development consent only if a dwelling is existing on site –
irrespective of whether a dwelling would be a complying
development on the site.

7. Complying Development for alterations and additions now includes
an onerous and complex setback provision to replace the 5 metre
setback previously envisaged.

Am I right in saying that the setbacks vary for single storeys, double storeys, adjacent properties, whether a garage is built into the house, etc. It's all rather confusing at the moment.

[agfinglis]

Howie, your question strikes to the heart of the issues we are raising. We have always been of the view that codification should create simplicity and certainty for certain types of residential development, and in the circumstances you outline the opposite is true.

Point 1 for example raises the issue that the code allows the ‘as of right’ development of pools and ancillary structures etc – as long as there is an existing dwelling on site. Our members have raised the concern that a dwelling may be a complying form of development (ie approval granted in 2 weeks etc) - but you would not be able to actually develop the ‘as of right’ ancillary structures until the dwelling is developed on site. Accordingly, you could not use the code in this instance to develop the ancillary structures concurrent with the construction of your new dwelling.

In relation to setback criteria, the wording of the code has created complexity and confusion, contrary to the code's original intent.

The nature of our submission is to clarify these grey areas to ensure the code can operate as intended. As soon as we have received a response to our submission we will let you know of the outcome.

In the meantime, we'll keep blogging and tweeting with progress updates. Thanks for following.


Nathan
http://twitter.com/PropertyOzSA

[Howie]

Here's an example... it's about as clear as mud.

20090615_part2_Page_11.jpg (143.86 KiB) Viewed 1335 times

20090615_part2_Page_12.jpg (130.2 KiB) Viewed 1335 times

20090615_part2_Page_13.jpg (103.24 KiB) Viewed 1334 times

20090615_part2_Page_14.jpg (102.07 KiB) Viewed 1334 times

After about a dozen phone calls between myself, the builder, the estate developers, we finally decided to make the setback at 5.5m. That was much harder than it should've been.

[quote]Point 1 for example raises the issue that the code allows the ‘as of right’ development of pools and ancillary structures etc – as long as there is an existing dwelling on site. Our members have raised the concern that a dwelling may be a complying form of development (ie approval granted in 2 weeks etc) - but you would not be able to actually develop the ‘as of right’ ancillary structures until the dwelling is developed on site. Accordingly, you could not use the code in this instance to develop the ancillary structures concurrent with the construction of your new dwelling.[/quote

So what you're saying is you can't put a pool in your backyard until the house is finished? That makes no sense whatsoever.

[fabricator]

Different setbacks for single storey and double storey houses is confusing. What happens years down the track when someone tries to add a second story to the roof ?
Is it allowed if the second story is 1.5m from the boundary, even though the ground floor is only 1m ?

[Prince George]

So what you're saying is you can't put a pool in your backyard until the house is finished? That makes no sense whatsoever.

The code says when someone can make an addition to a property without having to seek approval ("as of right"). In the new construction case, of course you may put in a pool, you just have to ask. Whereas if Joe Homeowner looks out at his backyard and thinks it'd be nice to have a pool or deck or shed there, the code grants him the right to make reasonable changes without having to seek permission.

Howie, what was it that you were doing that made the code difficult to navigate?

[Howie]

There was a bit of confusion and one of my side setbacks is about 100mm short of 1.5m, that was because the block was angled. The other issue was the fact that our garage was flush with the house, but we wanted 5m to the house and the garage together as it would look better aesthetically. We ended up just pushing the whole building back 0.5m more than I would've liked. There was the issue of the two existing properties which were built several decades before ours and is therefore set back further than ours.. apparently you cannot impede their view by something like 30 degrees to the street or something along those lines, so we had to refer to the developer for advice as the builder wasn't sure what exactly the council would or would not accept. It wasn't all that straight forward, and like I said it was alot harder than it should've been as effectively these changes 100mm here and there make bugger all difference but all the hoops you've got to jump through probably had my plans delayed by about a fortnight. Anyhow all water under the bridge it's going to council so hopefully they'll approve it as it is.

I'm with Nathan and the PCA with the whole idea of making it 5m .. and that's it.. it's can't get more black and white than that.