Browse Forums Building A New House 1 Jul 03, 2021 2:17 pm 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). Like ⋅ Add a comment ⋅ Pin to Ideaboard ⋅ 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! Re: Hills District Dwelling Width 3Jul 03, 2021 9:23 pm nosliw 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. Re: Hills District Dwelling Width 4Jul 03, 2021 10:21 pm 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. Re: Hills District Dwelling Width 5Jul 04, 2021 2:58 pm 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! Re: Hills District Dwelling Width 7Jul 05, 2021 6:09 am Kibukiri 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). Like ⋅ Add a comment ⋅ Pin to Ideaboard ⋅ 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! Kibukiri Gogo is correct. What they are looking for is articulation in the building rather than a solid wall 20 plus metres wide. Most councils and the CDC require articulation in the facade such as the garage not being on the same plane as the balance of the facade to create some aesthetic interest. Best thing to do is talk to a good designer who can give you the advice and sketch something up for you. Sounds like an exciting project All the best Simeon Architectural Homes & Duplexes - specialising in custom designing homes to your budget Get a Free Onsite Consultation Today or send a PM for information, questions or advice. Re: Hills District Dwelling Width 8Jul 05, 2021 11:21 am 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! Re: Hills District Dwelling Width 9Nov 15, 2022 4:24 pm gogo65 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? Re: Hills District Dwelling Width 10Nov 16, 2022 12:47 pm 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: Like ⋅ Add a comment ⋅ Pin to Ideaboard ⋅ 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. Re: Hills District Dwelling Width 11Nov 16, 2022 4:56 pm Fredescu 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: Like ⋅ Add a comment ⋅ Pin to Ideaboard ⋅ 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 Architectural Homes & Duplexes - specialising in custom designing homes to your budget Get a Free Onsite Consultation Today or send a PM for information, questions or advice. Re: Hills District Dwelling Width 12Nov 16, 2022 5:01 pm Ashington Homes 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. Re: Hills District Dwelling Width 13Nov 16, 2022 5:15 pm 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! Re: Hills District Dwelling Width 14Nov 16, 2022 5:32 pm Fredescu Ashington Homes 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 Architectural Homes & Duplexes - specialising in custom designing homes to your budget Get a Free Onsite Consultation Today or send a PM for information, questions or advice. Thanks again for this information. If you do hear anything different, would be great to know 4 8242 Any structural alteration to your home requires building permit. Before you get it you will have to supply plans with structural assessment, you will also be removing… 2 4120 Even if it's not being sub-divided and you want to keep it as Torrens title, you will still need to talk to a town planner or Council themselves, to see if they will allow… 1 11035 |