

{"id":15,"date":"2011-09-27T13:17:51","date_gmt":"2011-09-27T03:17:51","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/peteharrison.id.au\/blog\/?p=15"},"modified":"2012-02-27T15:04:11","modified_gmt":"2012-02-27T04:04:11","slug":"dual-occupancy-developments","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/peteharrison.id.au\/blog\/2011\/09\/dual-occupancy-developments\/","title":{"rendered":"Dual Occupancy Developments"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Council&#8217;s LEP meetings are now largely devoted to tidying up inconsistencies that have been identified by the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure, prior to the public display period and final adoption of the document.<\/p>\n<p>One change that may be of interest to local residents was the requirement to remove Dual Occupancy dwellings from the list of allowable land uses in rural and environmental zones, including the E4 zone that will be applicable to rural residential areas.<!--more--> This requirement arose because the planning instruments that will underpin the new PLEP assume that a Dual Occupancy development will be accompanied by the subdivision of the property in question. Subdivision, however, is generally not permitted in current rural residential areas. The regulations applicable to a Secondary Dwelling development, which is still allowed, have, however, been refined to embrace what would previously have been identified as a Dual Occupancy development.<\/p>\n<p>It may be of interest to some property owners to know that, whereas the current Dual Occupancy development rules restrict the size of the second dwelling on a property to just 150 m&sup2;, there will be no such restriction on the size of a Secondary Dwelling development under the new PLEP.<\/p>\n<p>There is no provision for more than two dwelling houses on a property in the E4 zone.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Council&#8217;s LEP meetings are now largely devoted to tidying up inconsistencies that have been identified by the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure, prior to the public display period and final adoption of the document. One change that may be of interest to local residents was the requirement to remove Dual Occupancy dwellings from the [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/peteharrison.id.au\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/peteharrison.id.au\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/peteharrison.id.au\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/peteharrison.id.au\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/peteharrison.id.au\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=15"}],"version-history":[{"count":13,"href":"https:\/\/peteharrison.id.au\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":392,"href":"https:\/\/peteharrison.id.au\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15\/revisions\/392"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/peteharrison.id.au\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/peteharrison.id.au\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/peteharrison.id.au\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}