Metamorphs

It seems I was partly wrong about not being any minimum dwelling sizes in South Australia. The planning code has performance outcomes (PO 22.1 / PO 31.1), which states:

"Dwellings are of a suitable size to accommodate a layout that is well organised and provides a high standard of amenity for occupants."

Then there are deemed-to-satisfy (DTS) criteria which indicates minimum dimensions for studio, one bedroom, two bedroom and three or more bedrooms. The dimensions being 35 sq.m, 50 sq.m, 65 sq.m, and 80 sq.m, with an additional 15 sq.m for every additional bedroom above 3.

From my previous post the minimum housing standards set minimum of 7.5 sqm for a room to be considered a bedroom. So it may seem unreasonable to be adding an extra 15 sq.m. However, basic functional rooms such as lounge, dining, bathroom, kitchen and laundry may require additional space for each person. So that 5 rooms, so an extra 7.5 sq.m to be distributed between the other rooms, is 1.5 sq.m per room. Assuming about 3m wide, then length of room increased by an extra 0.5m, so space for extra seating in lounge and dining room. Also at a certain point, need extra storage in kitchen, and laundry, and also may need extra bathrooms. So the whole 7.5 sq.m, or large portion of may be used for a ensuite to each additional bedroom.

These limits do mean that 25 sq.m sole occupancy dwelling is too small, as is a 36 sq.m dwelling. A shipping container at 2.4 x 6=14.4 sq.m would definitely be too small. Whilst a 16ft (4876mm) caravan, which can squeeze a bathroom and kitchen into and sleep 4, and assume 2m wide, would have area 9.75 sq.m, and also too small.

However, they are only too small concerning the deemed-to-satisfy criteria. The requirement of "high standard of amenity" is not explicitly defined. But minimum housing standards do set minimum facilities to be provided. Turning a dining area into a bedroom every day may be considered something of an inconvenience and a lack of amenity. As would be turning lounge into a bedroom. And whilst maybe tolerated and acceptable to one person, it may not be acceptable to others and therefore permanently connected to the land is not acceptable. The permanent dwelling needs to be acceptable to as many people as possible within its type.

I'd argue that 25 to 36 sq.m dwelling should be acceptable for a sole occupancy dwelling, if it has a bedroom, and a shared dining/lounge area. Rather than a shared lounge area with a sofa bed. I'd also argue that a dwelling suitable for one is also suitable for a couple.

Based on the 2.5m x 5m (12.5 sq.m) strip modules mentioned in earlier posts, then one additional strip module would improve lounge and dining area., pushing area up to 37.5 sq.m, would seem reasonable for a 1 to 2 person dwelling.

I previously indicated that an extra 2 bedrooms can be provided by adding one extra strip module. But 12.5/2=6.25 sq.m which doesn't meet the minimum size room to be counted as a bedroom. Increasing modules to 2.4x6=14.4 sq.m per module, and provides 7.2 sq.m per room. Whilst 3x6=18 sq.m modules, gives maximum of 9 sq.m per room thus extra for hallways. An increase to 2.7m wide modules, would increase area to 16.2 sq.m per module, and 8.1 sq.m per room.

So issue is to demonstrate that the additional area is waste space.

Rental Crisis in Australia and around the world. Shows comparison with Sydney, New York, London, Tokyo.

What broke the rental market (and can it be fixed)? | ABC News In-depth Rental costs are soaring, but not just in Australia. Our reporters are criss-crossing the globe to find out what’s going on. Armed with 30% of the median hou...