Metamorphs

I'd say the SA planning code is currently flawed and not compliant with the NCC/BCA.

Has I mentioned previously, we have a required to be on the boundary or 600mm away from the boundary, as a basic requirement. As a consequence of energy efficiency drive in the 1970's, 600mm eaves overhangs became popular to block the midday sun and solar gain through windows in summer. Poor designers and checkers resulted in gutters overhanging neighbouring properties. Council devlopment plans later typically had 1m side boundary offset, rear and front boundary offsets (setbacks) are typpically several metres. Now 1m is reasonable it fits with the NCC/BCA requirement of the first 1m of ground adjacent to the building having a fall away from the building.

The SA planning code typically sets at 900mm. Now whilst this would avoid the need for fire rated construction, it is not compliant with the storm water drainage requirements of the NCC/BCA.

The NCC/BCA does not say that the gound adjacent to the building has to have a 2.5% or 5% fall, it states the first metre has to have a 25mm or 50mm fall. If the remaining 100mm of ground is on the neighbours property and falling the opposite direction, it is defective. Not only is the water not draining far enough away, but forming a channel in which water can rise and get closer to the building.

The envelope of the building should be kept well clear off boundaries, to ensure proper access/egress and circulation around the building, as well as ventilation, and proper access to roof gutter and the building for maintenace without need to access neighbours property or lean down from the roof.

The water directed away from the house should also be directed to a proper retention/detention sump/pit/tank, not left ponding on the surface.

When look at aerial photo's of Adelaide something doesn't look right. We have a planning code and previously development plans, with a fundamental requirement that a building is either on the boundary or 600mm from the boundary. The development plans typically set side boundary offset of 1m, whilst front and rear boundary offsets were much greater. The planning code typically sets 900mm set back, the NCC/BCA sets 900mm setback to avoid fore rated construction.

The problem is that these set backs tend to relate to walls, not the building. The purpose of the 600mm requirement is access to keep the space clean and free from litter, vermin and pests. But should really apply to the building not the wall. House gutters need to be cleaned, and preferably without working from the roof top and with out going into neighbours property. If both neighbours have walls at the minimum then neither can access the gutters, nor the fascia boards.

When both on the boundary there is always a narrow gap between the two walls, which is not capped, If away from boundary, still get a near continuous roof scape and no gap between the roof and the boundary.

The other issue is that there is meant to be minimum open space requirements and soft landscaping (eg. gardens).

Something seems at odds between the actual built environment and the planning requirements (both past and present). As blocks of land have been getting smaller whilst houses have been getting bigger, and open space in neighbourhoods getting less.

🏠 2025 is going to be a big year for housing in South Australia with many major projects underway or nearing completion.

We recently completed 12 new homes north of the city which were able to be occupied in time for Christmas. They’ve been allocated as public housing for those most in need. We also built a park across the street to give families a great outdoor space to get out and play!

Just down the road, dozens more homes are also nearing completion and will be a combination of public housing and affordable homes for purchase. We look forward to sharing more about them soon.

It’s all part of our Urban Renewal program to build new communities and get South Australians housed faster.

EDIT: Thanks everyone for the lively discussion. Comments on this post are now closed as a moderator is no longer available.