Sign In
or Create a new account
What is your opinion of dual occupancy development?
This online discussion forum has concluded. You can still browse the site but the discussion area will no longer accept new comments or votes.
If the dual occupancy option is chosen, then this form of residential development would be dispersed within all residential zones throughout the Local Government Area.
Refer to Power point for 'Examples of Housing'.
A ‘dual occupancy’ is development which comprises two dwellings (either attached or detached) on the one lot of land, but does not include secondary dwellings (i.e. granny flats).
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 12 Mar 2010, 1:34 PM
If owners of a block want to cram another house onto it, let them...so long it is within the current LEP rules.
40% open space should still apply.
Setbacks and "space for 2 cars" should also still apply, as neighbours will now risk losing more sunlight and privacy as more open ground is taken up by double houses on the one block.
It will have to be a big block that will accommodate 2 such dwellings and still satisfy the LEP.
Comment 1.1 16 Mar 2010, 9:45 PM
Regardless of which option is accepted one overriding problem continues to become more prevalent as the density of dwellings increases. The majority of roads were never built to have vehicles parked on both sides and it is becoming more and more commenplace to have to dive into a gap betweem cars to let another vehicle pass. I think it is time to bite the bullet and allow two wheels on the footpath to overcome this problem.
Comment 1.2 16 Apr 2010, 7:44 PM
Unless each dwelling is smaller and attached. The 40% open space is a sacred cow that could perhaps be reduced
Comment 2 17 Mar 2010, 9:33 AM
The rich powerful and the aged boomers are letting everyone else down. Anyone under 40 is experiencing worse living conditions than their parents.
Theyre squeezing us like rats in cage, ugly cheap quality units. Theres couples with 2 kids moving into totally inappropriate housing due to cost.
All you bastards in your nice safe houses in the richer suburbs...go ahead and make 'informed decisions' about our lives. YOU don't have to live in it yourselves, after all!
Comment 2.1 8 Apr 2010, 7:41 PM
Boomers had to struggle, living in garages or with parents until they could buy land and build (often living in a caravan on site while building)They went without basics, no ipods, giant TV's,mobile phones, cars etc so they could put a roof over their family's heads whilst todays young want everything NOW! It just does not happen that way. Live in a country town, struggle, save, give up smokes and alcohol and then you can get ahead like the boomers.
Comment 2.2 16 Apr 2010, 10:20 PM
I am under 40 and orginate from a working class family in the south west suburbs. We have it easier than anyone ever had it. I so often hear my peers complain about housing affordability...that is after their first car was a brand new one, they spent 3 years overseas, eat out nearly every night, buy new clothes every week and own every gadget they can. Save from the day you start working and you won't have to spend time polishing the brass on the "housing affordability" bandwagon. I certainly think there is plenty of opportunity to own your own home in Warringah.
Comment 3 20 Mar 2010, 9:33 PM
This is a totally mad idea. The increased population would be thinly spread so that additional traffic would be easily absorbed. Rather than having to move to downsize, old people could split their large home into two - killing two birds with the one stone. Developers could even make one of the dwellings very minimal at the expense of the other and thereby creating a low cost dwelling.
Comment 4 22 Mar 2010, 7:03 PM
I think it is very controlling and restrictive to have ONLY the choice of one house per block, or the other extreme - many units and townhouses all on top of each other.
Why can't we have terrace style housing and semi's similar to the inner city housing style, as an option, as well as other seperate dwelling ideas on a block, rather than always only one house to 600sqm with a 60sqm attached Granny flat as the only option.
The granny flat at 60sqm is way too small to be liveable, and why does it HAVE to be attached! Anyone more…
Comment 4.1 22 May 2010, 10:27 PM
Totally agree sugarpop!
Comment 5 22 Mar 2010, 9:31 PM
I've checked the Éxamples of Housing'. The detached dual occupancy houses are appalling - there was a rush of these about 10 years ago? when backyards were suddenly carved up and a whole new house was built at the rear- with the original house still in front.
Examples shown of attached / terrace style housing are good- they are more compact - not everyone wants a large garden to care for.
The medium rise and high rise buildings are acceptable - they provide choice of dwelling types. Shop top housing over mixed use development - like at Narrabeen -are acceptable. They are close to the bus route, services and the beach.
In my area (Collaroy) we have single detached houses, small blocks of units, attached dual occupancies, townhouses(4 units), shop top over mixed use commercial, and medium rise near the beach/shops/main road. Looks like a good mix to me.
However I would like to be able to have a detached 'granny flat' in the backyard - even if it is 60sq m in size. Why do they have to be attached to the main dwelling? surely a development standard or performance specification for their location could apply?
Comment 6 24 Mar 2010, 7:11 PM
Dual Occupancy developments are OK but its usually developers or the wealthy that are able to afford to build a dual occupancy.
I suggest that the LEP be amended to allow land title of an allotment of 700 sq metres or more to be split for building a modest, and I emphasise MODEST, second dwelling, but retaining sufficient green space for a small garden. Not everyone wants to live in an "McMansion".
This would create affordable housing that would be attractive to young first home buyers, or to single parents or to older people who wish to downsize for economic and physical health reasons. This could allow older people to remain living in their home, independently, in their local community, instead of having to sell up and move into an aged home.
A good example of this can be seen at 115 Cook Street Forestville, where, around 1990, a well designed and aesthetically pleasing cottage was built at the rear of the existing 1950s cottage. This is also a good example of retaining the character of the Forestville cottage streetscape.
Comment 7 29 Mar 2010, 9:01 AM
Oops... the good example of a cottage built on a split title of land should read 111 Cook Street, not 115 Cook Street, Forestville, although the land title of 115 Cook Street was also split in the 1990s and had two town houses added.
Comment 8 29 Mar 2010, 11:35 AM
Detached dual occupancy was definately an ugly legacy of the council pre-administration.
I agree with side setbacks being wrong in the current DCP. It would be more aesthetically pleasing to have one common wall (semi style) with decent setbacks on the other side, than the current 900mm with no eaves ugliness.
Also medium/ high density with a yawning black hole of a carpark entrance being the dominant entrance feature should be discouraged. Warringah should follow the lead of City of Sydney and discourage the provision of parking spaces all together for units close to Pittwater Rd in Dee Why
Comment 8.1 3 Apr 2010, 1:09 PM
No offence but I think it is naive to suggest removing parking provisions for units (or any other property type for that matter). In fact I would be encouraging developers and home builders to provide more onsite parking so as to remove cars from our streets.
Comment 8.1.1 7 Apr 2010, 1:31 PM
If we need to accommodate more dwellings then why take up land for car parking when there is a major bus route on your door step? There is limited street parking within walking distance of the main bus stop at Dee Why so the cars are off the streets anyway.
People need to shift away from using cars to using more public transport otherwise an increasing population will deteriorate our lifestyles by causing us to spend less time away from our friends and families, and more time sitting in traffic or looking for parking.
A large proportion of innner sydney residents do not use private vehicles, and it is inevitable that this will become the norm further out from the CBD as well.
Comment 8.2 10 May 2010, 6:28 PM
I believe medium/high density dwellings require ample parking on site, in fact more than the current requirements. Parking access can be integrated in the front garden design and should not look ugly.
Comment 8.3 23 May 2010, 12:01 AM
The world has moved on since Warringah went hysterical about dual occupancy many years ago. Get over the past. Dual occupancies work very well in many council areas and there are many pleasing designs.
Comment 9 3 Apr 2010, 1:06 PM
It would seem to me that most of the comments being provided are from people who want to maintain the status quo (no offence intended). This may not be possible. Many of us already live in the large 4 bedroom/3 bathroom, pool type houses on large blocks of land and as we get a bit older and children leave home we are looking for something smaller with lower maintenance. We do not want to move away from friends and family to areas that seem to have allowed heavy density than Warringah but are frustrated by the lack of housing that more…
Comment 9.1 8 Apr 2010, 1:35 PM
I agree, but do think townhouses are still like units all linked together with body corporates, and not everyone wants to be controlled by a communal situation, with sinking fund and maintenence squabbles etc .... what is wrong with including the oportunity for some individual smaller homes, on a smaller piece of land like inner city housing of terraces and semis, which are still charming, but people can have pride in their own individual home and maintain them to suit their own timetable. I definitely think there are many people who this option would suit.
Comment 10 8 Apr 2010, 7:37 PM
Dual occupancy is a better way of housing more people on the same amount of already developed land. Yes open space and parking need to be adequate for the residents of these developments. Owners need to be able to subdivide these residences into torrens title ownership as strata is hard to apply. This is a better use of areas than building impersonal high rise where nobody knows or talks to their neighbours except to complain about noise etc. Dual occupancy is pet friendly as statistics say some 60-70% of people own a cat or dog. Warringah needs to preserve as much virgin bushland as possible for recreation and the city's lungs. No more Red Hill style developments that destroy our bushland heritage please.
Comment 11 16 Apr 2010, 6:38 PM
As a potential "empty nester" with a house sized to suit my former family size, I will soon be living in a far larger house than I need, while others struggle to find accommodation.
The house could be readily reconfigured to suit two families, but under present circumstances it is problematic. Even though I may wish to downsize, I would not contemplate living in anything as small and constrained as a granny flat as currently defined.
Hence I am in favour of allowing subdivision of existing housing (with or without extensions) to accommodate two families.
Yes the overall density of the suburb may rise, but not visibly so, and the overall appearance and environment need not be adversely affected.
Comment 11.1 6 May 2010, 10:52 AM
I am in the same position with a large house that has the possibility of being split into a 3 and 2 bedroom attached homes, each with their own garden and off street parking.
It makes use of existing transport and community facilities at a much lower cost than rebuilding from scratch.
Comment 11.2 10 May 2010, 6:41 PM
I agree in principal. Just a word of warning though: with dual occupancy the legal disputes over title, driveways, maintenance, future renovations and extensions are not to be underestimated. I can only reflect on the current enormous strata disputes that were never anticipated some 50 years ago, when strata title was created. We could be creating another nightmare.
Comment 11.3 23 May 2010, 12:06 AM
I am in the same position too. Don't need such a big house in the future. Could reconfigure it into two which could give one of my children an opportunity to stay in the area. The 60sqm granny flat is outdated. If the total site area of the house complies why couldn't the internal dwellings we equal in size? Doesn't make sense. Useless red tape.
Comment 11.4 8 Jun 2010, 10:12 AM
I agree. Im not an emty nester, but have a house that is too large for my small family. With only minor internal reconfiguration I could easily accomodate another family upstairs.The streetscape would remain as is.
Surely this beats the hell out of building hundres of ugly shoebox apartments!
Comment 12 11 May 2010, 11:50 PM
Dual occupancy developments are a very easy way to increase density and to a marginal extent affordability. Warringah has a large extent of very low density housing. This could potentially 'double' the density and increase it to low density housing. The examples offered in the PowerPoint presentation show that this can be pushed further. The strongest examples include:
- Attached Town House Type Housing, Narrabeen - Suitable for suburban areas currently with detached housing,
- Shop Top Housing, Dee Why (esp. those located at The Strand and Pittwater Road) - Suitable for low-medium / medium density areas.
What make these examples stand out is there 'street address' (at least what I can tell from the photos). They make a for a better defined street-scape, and provide good passive surveillance which improves personal safety.
Theoretically, an increase in density should also lead to an improved public amenity with the increase of rate and tax dollars, even with the minimal impact of dual occupancy.
Comment 12.1 24 May 2010, 7:03 PM
Damien, have a look at the established 'shop-top' units in Avalon/ Dee Why/ Harbord, they end up as commercial offices because theres too much noise for comfortable living. Sure they are classed as units but they end up as offices/ commercial space.
Whats a "better defined streetscape", if you mean the canyon- effect, where the shops tower over the roads then Yes, adding another level onto shops does that well.
Dual occupancy adds density and rateable properties for the council but a lot of replyers here see that sub diviing existing houses or granny flats will satisfy the real needs of the community, and that is to provide somewhere for young and older relatives to stay where they grew up. It keeps families and communities together. The only thing it doesnt do is provide the council with opportunities to grab more rates. If council can figure out that Ive got a dog then they can deduce from aerial photos that Ive got a granny flat and tax people accordingly.
Comment 13 27 May 2010, 11:04 AM
Dual Occupancies should be allowed & encouraged on corner blocks where 2 or more properties can both have front doors and parking directly off the street. 2 x Semi-detached or detached town homes with courtyard gardens can work on small corner blocks <400m2 with a min 200m2 or 2:1 lot to site area ratio & greater densities can be accomodated on larger blocks >900m2 where 150m2 lots may be appropriate as setbacks can be distributed accross all the lots. It would be important to provide daylight between pairs of dwellings to avoid the "row" housing model within the suburbs characteristed by detached housing.
Dual Occs on narrow fronted lots are not preferred where a driveway is required to pass by another property & the 2nd property is hidden "down the back".
Restricting dual occs to corner blocks can be a subtle way to retain the character of suburbs whilst adding development incentives for smaller investors & greatly increasing densities over all areas of warringah.
Cheers Rob
Comment 14 22 Jun 2010, 1:00 PM
Dual Occupancy and granny flats are detrimental to a already stressed out neighbourhood. There could be seven or eight cars per house,and maybe two boats and trailers.A house on a large block is a natural buffer against noise or imposing neighbours.Even the sunlight is precious and the need for clean fresh air. GO and live in europe if you don't like what has been lovingly passed by the previous generation, and at a sacrifice that will never be matched.
