Page 1 of 1
Hi All,
We're looking at a KDR in the Hills District. Our lot has a width of 27m and 30m depth. Given the front setback needs to be 10m and rear needs to be 4m to the ground floor it leaves us with about 16m depth for the ground floor.
Given the setback requirements, we also noticed that there is also a requirement for the maximum width of a dwelling - a snip of the requirement is below (taken from Hills DCP for Residential building).
Given the above, I'd like to ask if anyone knows if this is the maximum width of the entire building itself? I've also noticed in the table that the heading is "Percentage of width at the building line" - key term being "building line".
If the requirement applies to the entire building, then it means we're stuck with a max width of the house allowed to be build will be approx. 20m (since the frontage is >18m the 75% rule applies), which leaves 7m side setbacks. That leaves a lot of 'empty' space to the side.
Then comes the heading of "Building Line". Does the above only apply to the part of the dwelling that is on the building line. ie. any other part of the dwelling beyond the building line can extend wider beyond the 75% rule? If this is the case, then it would make more sense to me as its more of consistent with the other houses around the area.
Hope the above makes sense.
Cheers!
Seems at odds with the photos in the same document showing new builds being quite close together. Maybe the document wasn’t quality controlled checked before release. Phone the council.
Seems at odds with the photos in the same document showing new builds being quite close together. Maybe the document wasn’t quality controlled checked before release. Phone the council.
Hi Nosliw,
That's what's confusing. I've left a message with the council. Awaiting a call back from them. Hopefully I'll hear back from them soon.
We built in Hills council last year, although we have small acreage, we were allowed 50% of the width, our frontage was 63m, so its 31.5m at the building line, we have pushed it out at the back of th house, approx 4m either side, we still had to comply with the side setbacks (which are 5m each side), the back area wasn’t part of our facade and our landscape plan, showed how we would disguise the area. It was passed without issue. You can always request an amendment as part of your statement of environmental effects, seems its done regularly, and generally approved due to being consistent with surrounding houses.
Thanks gogo65, good to know that it is possible somehow. Hopefully max width is what I think it is ie only applies to the building line and any other part after the building line you can widen as long as it still complies with the other requirements. Will post back here once I find out from council.
Cheers!
This is our basic outline, you can see to the right where it sticks out.
Hi All,
We're looking at a KDR in Glenhaven in the Hills District. Our lot has a width of 27m and 30m depth. Given the front setback needs to be 10m and rear needs to be 4m to the ground floor it leaves us with about 16m depth for the ground floor.
Given the setback requirements, we also noticed that there is also a requirement for the maximum width of a dwelling - a snip of the requirement is below (taken from Hills DCP for Residential building).
Given the above, I'd like to ask if anyone knows if this is the maximum width of the entire building itself? I've also noticed in the table that the heading is "Percentage of width at the building line" - key term being "building line".
If the requirement applies to the entire building, then it means we're stuck with a max width of the house allowed to be build will be approx. 20m (since the frontage is >18m the 75% rule applies), which leaves 7m side setbacks. That leaves a lot of 'empty' space to the side.
Then comes the heading of "Building Line". Does the above only apply to the part of the dwelling that is on the building line. ie. any other part of the dwelling beyond the building line can extend wider beyond the 75% rule? If this is the case, then it would make more sense to me as its more of consistent with the other houses around the area.
Hope the above makes sense.
Cheers!
Thanks Gogo65 and Simeon for the information. Good to know that its more an aesthetic requirement which I agree. The "solid wall 20 metres wide" example is a good way of explaining it Simeon. Thanks again!
We built in Hills council last year, although we have small acreage, we were allowed 50% of the width, our frontage was 63m, so its 31.5m at the building line, we have pushed it out at the back of th house, approx 4m either side, we still had to comply with the side setbacks (which are 5m each side), the back area wasn’t part of our facade and our landscape plan, showed how we would disguise the area. It was passed without issue. You can always request an amendment as part of your statement of environmental effects, seems its done regularly, and generally approved due to being consistent with surrounding houses.
Hi! Who did you build with in the Hills District? Would you recommend them?
I don't believe the articulation interpretation is correct. I've always assumed it was, but looking at a number of DA applications, I can see where they have calculated the requirement as the maximum width of the dwelling, regardless of any articulation. They have then often approved it, despite being against the rule, due to the fact that existing houses in the area are the same. Here's an example:
This house did have an articulation, but it was the "maximum width" that was used by council. I can provide other examples of this if anyones curious, but it didn't take long to find a number of them. Just check the DA tracker for recent KDRs.
Note that the examples I have looked at are for Parramatta Council interpreting the Hills DCP, because we're in an area that used to be Hills Council but is now Parramatta Council. They still apply the Hills DCP to our area. So it's possible that that the council themselves are interpreting it differently to the intended purpose. Either way, for my own purposes, the rule mentioned in the OP is about maximum building width, and the "at the building line" part is used to give a point to measure the percentage from.
I don't believe the articulation interpretation is correct. I've always assumed it was, but looking at a number of DA applications, I can see where they have calculated the requirement as the maximum width of the dwelling, regardless of any articulation. They have then often approved it, despite being against the rule, due to the fact that existing houses in the area are the same. Here's an example:
This house did have an articulation, but it was the "maximum width" that was used by council. I can provide other examples of this if anyones curious, but it didn't take long to find a number of them. Just check the DA tracker for recent KDRs.
Note that the examples I have looked at are for Parramatta Council interpreting the Hills DCP, because we're in an area that used to be Hills Council but is now Parramatta Council. They still apply the Hills DCP to our area. So it's possible that that the council themselves are interpreting it differently to the intended purpose. Either way, for my own purposes, the rule mentioned in the OP is about maximum building width, and the "at the building line" part is used to give a point to measure the percentage from.
Fredescu
Under CDC facade articulation is one million percent mandatory.
Via DA some councils may not require articulation to the facade.
In the council area that we do most of our work we are required to provide articulation to the sides of the homes as well.
We had a CDC application knocked back recently because the articulation wasn't enough.
Cheers
Simeon
Under CDC facade articulation is one million percent mandatory.
I believe that. I'm just saying, the 75-80% mentioned in the rule in the OP isn't referring to the width of the portion of the house that is closest to the building line. It is referring to the width of the whole house. Thus it's not a rule regarding articulation. It's a rule regarding the overall width of a house (albeit a rule that you're readily allowed to exceed). At least as interpreted by Parramatta council.
Hi,
Just an update on our build - we got DA approval via Hills Council.
The width of our house was at 80.49% width of allotment at the building line which exceeded the 75% (given the allotment had a width greater than 18m) max width specified in the DCP
As Fredesu mentioned, we think it is discretionary and as long as you have a good enough reason the council will allow. In our instance, our argument/reason was that our neighbouring houses are wider than the 75% rule specified in the DCP.
On another note, slab's down and frame's going up! Thanks everyone who's contributed to this thread.
Hope this helps!
Under CDC facade articulation is one million percent mandatory.
I believe that. I'm just saying, the 75-80% mentioned in the rule in the OP isn't referring to the width of the portion of the house that is closest to the building line. It is referring to the width of the whole house. Thus it's not a rule regarding articulation. It's a rule regarding the overall width of a house (albeit a rule that you're readily allowed to exceed). At least as interpreted by Parramatta council.
Fair call
I understand where you are coming from