All Topics / Help Needed! / questions about council's investigation of downstair rumpus room, shed, carport
a highset house in brisbane, neighbour report that house to council for shed too close to fence.
Actually, one officer asked owner to install storm water pipe, and kept a record, so case is supposed to be over.
But next officer came and start all over. And this guy found too many things (not just shed, but also car port, downstairs rumpus room, even front and back veranda which were built before 2009) without building permit. And ask owner to rectify blah blah.
Actually that house was bought in 2015, typical highset house with rumpus rooms downstairs already. So council even said the roof of both front and back veranda (built before 2009) were illegal without permit blah blah, also saying people may live in downstairs rumpus room blah blah.front and back veranda looks like built same time as house, it is supposed to be part of house, otherwise, how to (where) enter into house? How come that is illegal?
But that house never advertise 5 bedroom, only 3 bedroom and 2 rumpus room, so it looks like landlord did nothing wrong.
Next door house has rumpus rooms downstairs as well, also shed next to fence as well!
A house cross street even has extension within 1m to side fence and car port within 1m to side fence as well!! Much bigger issue than this house!
Of course, almost every house around has front and back veranda with roof above, so all illegal according to council, extremely ridiculous! and almost 50% of houses around has such carport or shed near fence, of course, they are all illegal as within 1.5m setback. So this is quite common, but council can go such a length to ask that house to rectify so many so-called issues.Have you heard something similar? And can you shed some light?
Even rumpus room downstairs, garage gate get replaced with sliding door, and downstairs garage converted to big rumpus room, is also quite common, but council find fault on it. Considering housing crisis, government can NOT provide more house, Aussie have to live in cars and tents, but council still says people can NOT live in rumpus room, sounds stupid.
BTW, rumpus room is still more than 2.1m high.
Pls share your thoughts.
thanks a lot
- This topic was modified 4 months ago by ilikefishing.
Hi ILF,
I must say I can only agree with the thought expressed here:-
Considering housing crisis, government can NOT provide more house, Aussies have to live in cars and tents, but council still says people can NOT live in rumpus room…
I guess “back in the day” there may be really good reasons for making 8foot (or 2.4metres) the minimum height of a livable room (e.g. bedroom, living, etc.) Could it be to prevent folks from skinning their knuckles on the ceiling when changing their jumper? I don’t know, but in times when folks are having to live in tents, surely a 2.1 metre high room that is warm and safe is a far better option than a tent or a car……
Why not? I think it passes the pub test. What of others though? Are there other reasons WHY this is NOT a good idea? I’m all ears….
Benny
Some general observations:
1/ Sometimes council officers talk about what they’d like, which is different to what the regulations specifically require;
2/ A chat with an independent town planner about issues, and how to overcome them, is usually money well spent on deals worthy of closer due diligence;
Bye,
– Steve
Steve McKnight | PropertyInvesting.com Pty Ltd | CEO
https://www.propertyinvesting.comSuccess comes from doing things differently
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. If you don't have an account, you can register here.