Community Property Planning & Local Community Property Development
I am aware of a house that was sold recently in a suburb close to my own. The front of the house was designed as a display for a neighbouring business and the front garden was a functional part of a project that required the sourcing of a serviceable farm shed roof. How un-improveable it was to me may not have been to anyone else, but for something like that to have been required by the neighboring property development company was beyond my comprehension.
A planning inspector reported on the circumstances and noted that the shed roof was of a deteriorating and unsafe material. The application did not comply with requirements on gardens containing garden buildings and retaining walls or retaining walls to roof gardens.
They (the Planning inspector) did like the fact that the side pockets of the side boundary wall and the boundary wall (which were wider than 1.2 metres) were retained and there were no car ports or anything of that nature sited in front of the boundary wall which were in any way within the footprint of the shed roof.
However, this was not acceptable to the owners of the property which at this point were planning to change the shed roof.
“The side boundary wall was 7.5m wide and the balustrades were solid thus making a great aid to the roof space however the smaller section of the roof which is from 2.0m to 2.4m showed considerable water leakage through the retention wall due to the fact that the wall had originally been at the same level as the drive bay and so there was not enough depth to locate the recess needed for the balustrade above the ridge.”
The Planning inspector then went on to note that the termination to the retention wall was not recessed sufficient and that it was wide and in the way leading into the drive bay thus bringing more water into the building. Request that the driveway leading into the house from the rear should have at a sufficient height or stepped clearance be verified.
“While the retaining wall wall significantly helped the roof space but it did have the opposite effect of by the way the retaining wall and roof were positioned across the drive bay resulting in the side boundary wall being extended beyond the actual height of the roof opening. This resulted in water being directed across the roof over the rear boundary wall end wall coming into the roof height where it flooded and ran up the side of the house passing by the front boundary end wall as will the toilet bowl in the guest bedroom”.
The planning inspector then went on to note that the roof of the shed extension would have to be recessed into the wall so as to allow for drop balconies. However, it would still have to have an acceptable decheat and corner joints.
Let’s assume that the roof slope is XY from the corner beyond the end wall at point of deferral due to the length of roof in the house. This would give you an additional 5.5mrds width of the roof tiles excluding the width of the width of the ramp.
This width in meters would then be reduced by 5.5mths to allow for the wall, pavements and window height. The 3.5mths of this width resulting from the roof slope would then be considered just the additional wall width so far as wall width for the extension roof was considered. This would change the resultant length of the extension roof to a length of approx 4.0mths.
The 3.5mths would then be the additional wall width of the extension roof once the existing Outside Wall. Wall height over the extension wall and drive bay was taken into account. If the longest wall on the site was not retained then the length of the extension roof would have to be reduced to perhaps 1.1 – 1.4mths as per point 4 above.
The Use of Existing Roof
The use of an existing roof was preferred as it was noted that this roof had been functional for many years and there were no problems. If a further extension is required to house additional tenants it is also possible that the same roof could be used for this additional set of tenants.
He then went on to analyse the Worst Case 3 scenario and Kino’s height measurement.
His conclusion was that with no additional extension and using the same roof materials and fittings as existing it is possible to add an additional superficial floor of approximately 3.0mths, rather than the 2.0mths added by the setback addition. The 3.0mths added is a very large proportion of the whole and would result in the building returning to the original plan or design value. However it is of note that the 4.0mths ‘free’ area would be deprived and that the total perimeter walls provided are likely to be reduced in size.
A couple of things worth noting is that if the extension does extend beyond the boundary then it is not necessarily part of the photo infringing DPC.