Thread: Tiny House

Originally Posted by Beardy

One thing I can guarantee is that it won’t be as straight forward as you would like.

Ain't that the truth.

The approval side of things is probably a secondary issue to the original post (arguably the approval should be first ) as it was the style of dwelling that was being put forward for comment and we have all studiously ignored that. I imagine that Maupatree is now thoroughly dejected .

Just on the "Tiny House" it actually has to be on wheels as in trailer mounted to qualify, but that is in the US and it can be up to semi trailer size. There is a height limitation too, which I think is around 4 metres. However that is in the US or Canada, but I mention it as it is possible that, depending on your location and council regulations that there may be a classification of a non permanent dwelling: Not much different to having a caravan in your backyard really. Again, and I am sure there is a queue behind me waiting to emphasise the need to verify all this, you would need to check with the council.

On the design of the house itself, it looks fine. There is a limit to what you can do with a small rectangular space and include what we regard as essential. Much of the appeal comes from the internal innovations (although the tricky bits sometimes contribute hugely to the cost). Most small house builders use the area beneath a staircase for cupboard storage for example. Can you face the houses North, both to take advantage of solar passive aspects and also for solar power if you wish the buildings to be self sufficient?

As with all houses the external "look" will be very important too. Just recently I have been bombarded with small house designs from Pinterest. Google and Facebook are of course other avenues for ideas. There is an Aussie (Bryce)who presents a series of videos on these types of homes, although it is based in Canada.

YouTube

Regards
Paul

Get onto Fred’s tiny houses up Daylesford way, he has been building the mobile ones for years (he has a website). He also recommends people don’t buy land to put them on anywhere in the country as the local councils have the right to tell you to move on. Most councils will only allow one owner built dwelling per block of land. I think there will be many hoops you will be required to jump through to get this off the ground with stationary dwellings. There is another fellow down Bambara way (past Geelong) that has turned part of his milking farm into overnight accommodations with gypsy type vans. Essentially turning it into a caravan park.
I like the concept, I have thought about it myself, just a lot more difficult than one would hope.

Originally Posted by Cal

Get onto Fred’s tiny houses up Daylesford way, he has been building the mobile ones for years (he has a website). He also recommends people don’t buy land to put them on anywhere in the country as the local councils have the right to tell you to move on. Most councils will only allow one owner built dwelling per block of land. I think there will be many hoops you will be required to jump through to get this off the ground with stationary dwellings. There is another fellow down Bambara way (past Geelong) that has turned part of his milking farm into overnight accommodations with gypsy type vans. Essentially turning it into a caravan park.
I like the concept, I have thought about it myself, just a lot more difficult than one would hope.

Thanks Cal, I'll check those out. Does anyone know the reason why councils tend not to allow more than one permanent building on a plot? Seems it should be none of their business so long as you're not setting bushfires or polluting the place.

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

Ain't that the truth.

The approval side of things is probably a secondary issue to the original post (arguably the approval should be first ) as it was the style of dwelling that was being put forward for comment and we have all studiously ignored that. I imagine that Maupatree is now thoroughly dejected .

Just on the "Tiny House" it actually has to be on wheels as in trailer mounted to qualify, but that is in the US and it can be up to semi trailer size. There is a height limitation too, which I think is around 4 metres. However that is in the US or Canada, but I mention it as it is possible that, depending on your location and council regulations that there may be a classification of a non permanent dwelling: Not much different to having a caravan in your backyard really. Again, and I am sure there is a queue behind me waiting to emphasise the need to verify all this, you would need to check with the council.

On the design of the house itself, it looks fine. There is a limit to what you can do with a small rectangular space and include what we regard as essential. Much of the appeal comes from the internal innovations (although the tricky bits sometimes contribute hugely to the cost). Most small house builders use the area beneath a staircase for cupboard storage for example. Can you face the houses North, both to take advantage of solar passive aspects and also for solar power if you wish the buildings to be self sufficient?

As with all houses the external "look" will be very important too. Just recently I have been bombarded with small house designs from Pinterest. Google and Facebook are of course other avenues for ideas. There is an Aussie (Bryce)who presents a series of videos on these types of homes, although it is based in Canada.

YouTube

Regards
Paul

Great post Paul, thanks. Again, I don't understand the need for all these regulations, seems like just bureaucrats justifying their existence. Yes, the intention is to face them north with the north-sloping roofs covered in solar panels (supplemented by stand-alone panels on a couple of acres which could generate power to sell back to the grid). Power storage is of course still a hot issue. The idea behind that design was that it would be relatively cheap and simple to build, given that apart from a couple the people I have interested aren't professional builders. This makes them all look rather uniform and samey but ideally I'd have people adding creative touches to lend their own character to their homes. That'll perhaps come with time and experience.

Originally Posted by Fumbler

Put them all on wheels, even if they're not going on the open road, that way you get around council and the fixed dwelling rule. Just say "i'm collecting little houses"

I'd love to join your commune, not so sure about the wife and kids though.

Maybe you can start a wood-lovers Religion and claim to be the supreme leader and skirt a lot of rules claiming religious freedom..... hahaha, I'd definitely be in, forget the wife and kids....... nah, cant do that.

A cult, hey? Well Jesus was a carpenter and cult-leader but it didn't end so well for him.

Wife and kids fine, Fumbler. There's an optional annex to the mezzanine for a small child and mini pods placed a distance from the main one for you or your wife to retreat to, as a bedroom, office, workshop, art studio or whatever. All about flexibility.

In our area it used to be legal to build a managers residence as a second dwelling. This was abolished after a court battle with a local who was in a partnership business conducting a Thorough Bred stud. They owned the property jointly and had built two houses, one as main residence other as managers residence. Upon falling out, they managed to divide the property in half despite the fact it was undersized and not eligible for subdivision. This was on a technicality due to there being two residences. Council fought it and lost. They then quickly changed the rules and even though both adjoining council areas allow second detached dwellings our council does not, unless they are attached. This law is now under review by the council but to date there have been no changes made.

Originally Posted by Manupatree

Thanks Cal, I'll check those out. Does anyone know the reason why councils tend not to allow more than one permanent building on a plot? Seems it should be none of their business so long as you're not setting bushfires or polluting the place.

Due to grey water and sewage, they need to allow for the maximum people residing in the dwelling, I think most councils limit that to 5 or 6 people as standard. I don’t pretend to know why this is, I am only aware that communal living is frowned upon. Like I said it will be an uphill battle with any council to get approval for multiple dwellings on a single plot of land, no matter how big it is unless you proposed a type of caravan park. It’s madness but that is the way the top end of town is!

Originally Posted by Cal

Due to grey water and sewage, they need to allow for the maximum people residing in the dwelling, I think most councils limit that to 5 or 6 people as standard. I don’t pretend to know why this is, I am only aware that communal living is frowned upon. Like I said it will be an uphill battle with any council to get approval for multiple dwellings on a single plot of land, no matter how big it is unless you proposed a type of caravan park. It’s madness but that is the way the top end of town is!

Yeah, sod that, responsible adults can decide what sort of water they and their families use. It’s nanny statism but it’s also about control. 30 likeminded citizens acting in unison are more dangerous to the incumbent elites than 30 atomised 800m2 plots spread throughout the suburbs.

Originally Posted by Manupatree

Yeah, sod that, responsible adults can decide what sort of water they and their families use. It’s nanny statism but it’s also about control. 30 likeminded citizens acting in unison are more dangerous to the incumbent elites than 30 atomised 800m2 plots spread throughout the suburbs.

Yes but you forget that this higher density on the property can impact on the neighbors increase traffic on a local road, what about household rubbish removal and sewerage issues?
If you are left to your own devices you often end up with a shantytown type arrangement as there is insufficient funds allocated to do the job properly
The incumbent elites on the 800m2 blocks have gone through the correct procedure to ensure these aspects are dealt this correctly

Originally Posted by Beardy

Yes but you forget that this higher density on the property can impact on the neighbors increase traffic on a local road, what about household rubbish removal and sewerage issues?
If you are left to your own devices you often end up with a shantytown type arrangement as there is insufficient funds allocated to do the job properly
The incumbent elites on the 800m2 blocks have gone through the correct procedure to ensure these aspects are dealt this correctly

Beardy, we’re cashed up and all live in nice houses with lifestyles we won’t want to compromise to live in squalor. It’ll be more like a resort than a shanty town. I’m no hippy.

Originally Posted by Manupatree

Beardy, we’re cashed up and all live in nice houses with lifestyles we won’t want to compromise to live in squalor. It’ll be more like a resort than a shanty town. I’m no hippy.

Shouldnt be a problem to meet compliance then .

Originally Posted by Beardy

Shouldnt be a problem to meet compliance then .

No, we’d like to be a model community that locals believe add something to the area.

Manupatree

There are a few reasons why councils frown upon such developments. You have to appreciate that they are by nature a conservative group of bureaucrats, who really don't want to be put out of their comfort zone. I am not being hypercritical here, just commenting on human nature. For them it is initially easier just to say no rather than approve something that could bite them in the proverbial backside at a later date.

So you really do have to look into your council regulations to see if they have any guidelines on such developments and indeed whether they have anything at all. Remember that normal procedure is to make the application public before approval. Neighbours could still object.

To give some idea of difficulties, back in the mid eighties we bought a small property 25Kms out of town that was in three titles. The council, as part of the approval to place a dwelling on the property, made it a condition that the three titles were amalgamated into a single title. This was expressly so only a single dwelling could be legally erected. At times I had considered doing something similar to your concept. The block is 127 acres and the topography such that a dozen cabins could be built completely out of sight of each other. The first hurdle was that, although I built our own house on this block, I was an owner builder and would not be allowed to construct further habitable dwellings. So that pretty much ruled it out from day one from a cost point of view.

One of the reasons for denying extra buildings would have been that once more people became involved, they would have had more clout. Who knows, they may have demanded that the 8Km gravel road be sealed. Today that road has only six house that are inhabited. As it is even today there are no services provided: No water or sewage and no garbage collection. In fact they recently introduced a yearly charge to come and check (once every five years) the septic we installed more than thirty years ago.

Other objections might be around the style of buildings. For example, some new estates may dictate that only brick buildings be constructed, which is rather ironic as typically it is the veneer style and to my mind the bricks to be of value should be on the inside, but that is another story.

I could go on, but really you need to know what your council allows. Your best bet is that they have nothing in place, which effectively means they can't knock you back, but today that is unlikely.

By all means give it a go.

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

Manupatree

There are a few reasons why councils frown upon such developments. You have to appreciate that they are by nature a conservative group of bureaucrats, who really don't want to be put out of their comfort zone. I am not being hypercritical here, just commenting on human nature. For them it is initially easier just to say no rather than approve something that could bite them in the proverbial backside at a later date.

So you really do have to look into your council regulations to see if they have any guidelines on such developments and indeed whether they have anything at all. Remember that normal procedure is to make the application public before approval. Neighbours could still object.

To give some idea of difficulties, back in the mid eighties we bought a small property 25Kms out of town that was in three titles. The council, as part of the approval to place a dwelling on the property, made it a condition that the three titles were amalgamated into a single title. This was expressly so only a single dwelling could be legally erected. At times I had considered doing something similar to your concept. The block is 127 acres and the topography such that a dozen cabins could be built completely out of sight of each other. The first hurdle was that, although I built our own house on this block, I was an owner builder and would not be allowed to construct further habitable dwellings. So that pretty much ruled it out from day one from a cost point of view.

One of the reasons for denying extra buildings would have been that once more people became involved, they would have had more clout. Who knows, they may have demanded that the 8Km gravel road be sealed. Today that road has only six house that are inhabited. As it is even today there are no services provided: No water or sewage and no garbage collection. In fact they recently introduced a yearly charge to come and check (once every five years) the septic we installed more than thirty years ago.

Other objections might be around the style of buildings. For example, some new estates may dictate that only brick buildings be constructed, which is rather ironic as typically it is the veneer style and to my mind the bricks to be of value should be on the inside, but that is another story.

I could go on, but really you need to know what your council allows. Your best bet is that they have nothing in place, which effectively means they can't knock you back, but today that is unlikely.

By all means give it a go.

Regards
Paul

Thanks Paul. Your 80s idea sounds great — shame it didn’t work out. Any idea what similar acreage would cost these days?

I’ll put a nice glossy proposal together for the relevant council to show our project in the best possible light. Thinking with garbage we could just drive it to the local dump.