Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
I was actually going to say that if you are having problems it is not a bad idea. But I don’t want to see the end result being that every prospective tenant has to do it and it becomes an industry norm. I reckon that would have pretty negative consequences, and simply reinforces the separation in worth between tenants and owners.
But I find just fluttering my eyelashes works. But then I always get charm and smarm mixed up.
Drew said: That advice is largely incorrect Jimmy. You can undertake that work as complying development except if it is a heritage item. This just in – council forces owner to remove additional internal walls HERE
That would be because they did not receive any approval for the works. A CDC is still an approval for works. It is not a DA.
JimmyT said:
I’ve decided long ago that what makes me unique in Strata is that I’m the only person who’s ever wrong. But which part of what I said is “largely incorrect”?
That it varies from place to place? There are differences between states but the NSW councils have to abide by the state law on this. That said, I’ve looked at the websites of several councils in NSW and they all have slightly different forms for you to fill in so, unfortunately, there’s no one-size-fits-all answer to this.
As far as what City of Sydney said about needing approval before you can alter the internal floor plan, I was just passing on what they told me.
However, Drew hjas raidsed an interesting point and the “complying development” situation is interesting (even though I could only find the briefest mention of strata in the Act). Have a look for yourselves HERE. Once again, it seems we are an afterthought – even bed and breakfast establishments get their own section.
Then there is this intriguing exclusion from complying development.
4.4 Development standardsThe standards specified for that development are that the development:
(b) must not result in a change to the floor area of the dwelling house
Does that mean a change to the size of the floor area or its configuration? I don’t know (although it sounds like the former).
Drew, you may well be correct and clearly there are even substantial changes to the internals of a unit that need not affect anyone else.
However, knocking down supporting walls would obviously not be “complying” and what about, for instance, moving a bathroom so that it’s over a bedroom?
Also, for any substantial change that doesn’t require a DA, it seems you do need a Complying Development Certificate – you can’t just decide you don’t need a DA and go ahead.
Maybe that’s when the alarm bells start ringing and someone tells you you might need a proper approval.
I’m in NSW. I’m also a town planner. So, yeah, I am pretty confident in saying the advice you received is wrong. Not that you are wrong, but that the advice you received from Council is incorrect. Or at least not telling the whole story and presenting all of your options.
There is a one sized fits all approach. It is covered under Part 4 of the Codes SEPP. It allows for the internal alterations of a dwelling. The definition of a dwelling includes a unit and a townhouse. The definition of a dwelling house excludes a unit/townhouses. This is a state government policy which you have linked to.
The forms on council websites are meaningless unless you decide to go down the council approval path (DA, which as I say, can take 3, 4, 5, 6 months), or use council building certifiers as your principal certifying authority. Under complying development you also have the ability to use private certifiers.
Floor area is generally measured from the internal face of external walls, or from the internal face of walls separating the building from any other building, measured at a height of 1.4 metres above the floor. That means that complying development can be used under Part 4 as you are not changing the floor area of the dwelling (remembering that the definition of a dwelling includes a unit).
All works carried out as complying development require that the works meet the requirements of the Building Code of Australia. This covers off the structural requirements regarding protection.
So, you can clearly remove walls from a unit, making changes to the layout, as complying development. This means you do not require a Development Approval. It means you can get a Complying Development Certificate. Two separate things.
You can do minor internal works to a dwelling without needing either a CDC or a DA as well. This basically covers minor internal renovations like painting, replacing internal doors, renovating a kitchen and things like that. What you can’t do as exempt development is change the configuration of a room i.e. remove a wall.
As the complying development controls are covered under an Environmental Planning Instrument, rather than an Act or Regulation, it is subordinate legislation. As such, there should be a note somewhere within the document that makes reference to requiring compliance with other Acts or Regulations. That would cover off the Strata requirements.
And I'm safe and secure in the knowledge that I have never had to do anything as ludicrous and pointless as that, and never demanded anything as demeaning as that from one of my tenants.
Jimmyt wrote:
That’s really interesting. It must be one of those things that varies from State to State and perhaps council to council.I just called City of Sydney planning department and they said, among other things (like heritage issues), you can’t change the configuration of rooms without council planning approval. I’m not questioning Austman’s information but it does seem strange to me that you could make structural changes to a building without any competent oversight authority’s approval. My advice would be, check with your local council’s planning department (or risk an order to reinstate if everything goes pear-shaped).
That advice is largely incorrect Jimmy.
You can undertake that work as complying development except if it is a heritage item.
Means you don’t have to go down the DA path and wait for 3+ months for Council to assess it – 10 day approval timeframe and then start work which is a pretty major cost saving.
The complying development process should taken into account BCA and structural issues.
JimmyT said:
You might laugh, Drew, but would you reject an application solely because the applicants had made an extra effort?
I’d still say, if it’s not likely to do the applicant any harm and it might do them considerable good, why not do it.
No – but I wouldn't give them favour over a person that had filled out the required info, provided all required documents and handed over a 1 week holding deposit.
First in first served.
I own and rent. I move around a bit in my rentals. Even in this supposed tight market I have never paid extra and I have never provided a bio. I just fill out the form and make sure I am there first. First to the estate agents is the most important thing.
struggler said:
Totally agree with Jimmy. It is a tight rental market out there. I am not currently renting but have friends who do (and those who have rental properties) and alot of people offer more than the going rate to get a rental property.
I did rent in the early 80's when the rental market was very tight and 40 people would show up to apply for every property for rent. I can say that myself and my partner dressed as if we were meeting the queen, had all the details and had no problem getting a property (infact, were successful at two at once and got to pick from them).
It really is like a job application!
I disagree.
I currently rent my place of residence (long story) and have good tenants in my other place.
For the tenants I have they were a young couple in their mid 20s, one self employed, one in a professional job. I never saw them, but they hadn’t trashed their last place, got their full deposit back. Their application was a simple fill out the form, copy of payslips (which made me a bit jealous of what the guy was earning) and 1 week rent as a holding deposit. No bio or anything like that. They had good references and got in first so it was theirs.
For me I did it the same way. Fill out the application form and then submit it with a one week deposit.
I would laugh if I ever received a bio with a rental application.
As a non-smoker and non-bbq-er it really doesn’t affect me.
My neighbour smokes. My other neighbour bbqs. The BBQ-ing neighbour complains about the smoking neighbour.
As far as I am concerned either they both are allowed to do what they want (my preferred option) or they both aren’t allowed to do what they want. That said, the smoker is a lot more considerate than the bbq-er – when an upstairs neighbour had his sick mother to stay he posted a note saying she had emphysema, so be considerate. The smoker didn’t smoke on his balcony. The bbq-er was out there bbq-ing.
But, that is my own ramble and not really relevant. There are a whole lot of other things that can be considered offensive. A diesel vehicle can release a lot of particles into the atmosphere. Are we to ban them as well? What about mobile phone towers? My understanding of the impact of smoke drift is that is not going to harm anyone. Secondhand smoke is only an issue for long term exposure in an enclosed space. And that is why the places above ban smoking.
Anyway, as others have said, smoking and non-smoking buildings is a good outcome. I’ll chose based on the building as I don’t have an issue with it. Others do one way or the other. Let the market sort it out.
I found this out recently as was looking at doing similar work to an investment unit.
Something called the Exempt Development Code, which is a state government policy, allows you to do replacement windows without any approval as long as you aren’t a heritage item or in a heritage zone and don’t increase the size of the window.