Sign In
or Create a new account
Dual Occupancy
This online discussion forum has concluded. You can still browse the site but the discussion area will no longer accept new comments or votes.
Allowing dual occupancy development was supported by 72% of the participants. We know from past experience that some dual occupancy developments are better than others.
What do you think makes a successful dual occupancy?
What are the critical factors that need to be taken into consideration?
Should the subdivision of dual occupancies be allowed?
This online discussion forum has concluded. You can still browse the site but the discussion area will no longer accept new comments or votes.
Comment 1 7 Jul 2010, 9:50 AM
Re successful dual occupancy; The existing parameters ensuring all utilities and services are correctly implemented are robust and organised. The inspection by neighbours to control impact of dwelling is also adequate. The submission and parrametres required by council is rigorous and adequate – all these things make dual occupancy and SD successful.
Re Critical Factors; all those abouve which are well in hand with existing approval systems.
Re Subdivision of dual occupancy; it makes it far more attractive to both parties as they then have ownership of the land - therefore better for all parties and financiers etc.
Comment 1.1 7 Jul 2010, 8:24 PM
I support dual occupancy if it's done thoughtfully. It's a good alternative to high & medium rise, though the footprint is bigger. Houses and smaller dwellings add character to a suburb.
Comment 2 10 Aug 2010, 11:04 PM
Dual occupancy could provide a great alternative to high rise as long as planning controls ensure that designs are tasteful, blend in and don't change the general character of the areas. Dual occupancy provides more character and community cohesion than the alternative of living in high rise.
Once constructed subdivision seems reasonable as long as each of the subdivided lots cant further subdivide because of the original lot size. The suburbs would end up looking like slums if that happened.
Comment 2.1 20 Sep 2010, 1:14 PM
The trouble is that dual occupancy does change the nature of suburbs. It reduces yard space, gardens and trees. It removes kids' play space. It crowds houses next to each other and reduces privacy. It increase paved surfaces. It doubles the number of cars in a street. It will totally change the nature of suburbs that are presently made up of detached houses.
Comment 3 14 Aug 2010, 9:30 AM
A successful dual occupancy would only be the results of thoughtful architectural design and careful assessment of each allotment. Dual occupancy has the potential to make Warringah look like a slum if council simply allows a second attached dwelling. Consent should only be given for redevelopment of a block when mirror image type structures are being developed.Successful dual occupancy may be entirely dependant on the residents involved at a particular time.
Council should absolutely not allow residents to simply construct second attached dwellings.
If this were assured I would support dual occupancy as a reasonable way of achieving meeting housing demands
