ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

Sustainable Development Committee

 

Agenda

 

7 April 2015

 

 

Notice is hereby given, in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993 that a Sustainable Development Committee meeting of ORANGE CITY COUNCIL will be held in the Council Chamber, Civic Centre, Byng Street, Orange on Tuesday, 7 April 2015.

 

 

Garry Styles

General Manager

 

For apologies please contact David Waddell on 6393 8261.

    

 


Sustainable Development Committee                                                          7 April 2015

Agenda

  

1                Introduction.. 3

1.1            Apologies and Leave of Absence. 3

1.2            Declaration of pecuniary interests, significant non-pecuniary interests and less than significant non-pecuniary interests. 3

2                General Reports. 4

2.1            Items Approved Under the Delegated Authority of Council 4

2.2            Development Application DA 181/2014(1) - 454 The Escort Way. 10

2.3            Development Application DA 45/2015(1) - 45 Valencia Drive. 49

2.4            Development Application DA 42/2015(1) - 389 Molong Road. 91

2.5            Development Application DA 63/2015(1) - Camp Gallipoli - Wade Park - Lords Place  118

2.6            JRPP Planning Proposal for Rezoning to B2 Local Centre Telopea Way North Orange  133

 


Sustainable Development Committee                                                          7 April 2015

 

1       Introduction

1.1     Apologies and Leave of Absence

1.2     Declaration of pecuniary interests, significant non-pecuniary interests and less than significant non-pecuniary interests

The provisions of Chapter 14 of the Local Government Act, 1993 (the Act) regulate the way in which Councillors and designated staff of Council conduct themselves to ensure that there is no conflict between their private interests and their public role.

The Act prescribes that where a member of Council (or a Committee of Council) has a direct or indirect financial (pecuniary) interest in a matter to be considered at a meeting of the Council (or Committee), that interest must be disclosed as soon as practicable after the start of the meeting and the reasons given for declaring such interest.

As members are aware, the provisions of the Local Government Act restrict any member who has declared a pecuniary interest in any matter from participating in the discussion or voting on that matter, and requires that member to vacate the Chamber.

Council’s Code of Conduct provides that if members have a non-pecuniary conflict of interest, the nature of the conflict must be disclosed. The Code of Conduct also provides for a number of ways in which a member may manage non pecuniary conflicts of interest.

Recommendation

It is recommended that Committee Members now disclose any conflicts of interest in matters under consideration by the Sustainable Development Committee at this meeting.

 

 


Sustainable Development Committee                                                          7 April 2015

 

 

2       General Reports

2.1     Items Approved Under the Delegated Authority of Council

TRIM REFERENCE:        2015/478

AUTHOR:                       Allan Renike, Manager Development Assessments    

 

 

EXECUTIVE Summary

Following is a list of development applications approved by the General Manager under the delegated authority of Council.

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan strategy “13.4 Our Environment – Monitor and enforce regulations relating to City amenity”.

Financial Implications

Nil

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

 

Recommendation

That the information provided in the report by the Manager Development Assessments on Items Approved Under the Delegated Authority of Council be acknowledged.

 

further considerations

Consideration has been given to the recommendation’s impact on Council’s service delivery; image and reputation; political; environmental; health and safety; employees; stakeholders and project management; and no further implications or risks have been identified.

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

 

Reference:

DA 393/2013(2)

Determination Date

20 March 2015

PR Number

PRPR26181

Applicant/s:

Lot 112 DP 1188122 – 21 Glasson Drive, Orange

Owner/s:

Willowdene Constructions Pty Ltd

Location:

Mr GJ and Mrs KL Stevenson

Proposal:

Modification of development consent DA 393/2013(1) for dwelling house, subdivision (two lot residential) and dwelling house. The modification involves relocating the boundary fence for Dwelling 1, regularising the landing at the back door (which was constructed larger than originally approved) and a reducing the landscaping on the Hughes Street frontage.

Value:

$400,000 (which is the same value as the original development)

 


 

 

Reference:

DA 18/2014(2)

Determination Date

5 March 2015

PR Number

PR18085

Applicant/s:

Sentinel Orange Homemaker Pty Ltd

Owner/s:

Sentinel Orange Homemaker Pty Ltd

Location:

Lot 6 DP 270204 – Mitchell Highway, Orange

Proposal:

Modification of development consent DA 18/2014(1) for bulky goods premises, and take away food and drink premises. The modification involves reducing the overall height of the building and staging the construction of the development.

Value:

$5,000,000 (which is the same value as the original development)

 

 

Reference:

DA 152/2014(2)

Determination Date

9 March 2015

PR Number

PR26185

Applicant/s:

Ms S Bassett

Owner/s:

The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW)

Location:

Lot 100 DP 1185280 – 27 Summer Street, Orange

Proposal:

Residential care facility (alterations and additions), solar energy system, business identification signage and demolition. The modification involves:

·   minor amendments to gross floor area/footprint and reduction of total landscaped area

·   amendments to the covered walkway

·   minor addition to the “sacred space” room

·   changing to the roof of the porte cochere from flat to sloped

·   relocation of “highlight roofs” and a fire door, and minor shift in the location of some of the vertical windows in the western façade

·   increase to the extent of solar panels

Value:

$18,646,100 (which is the same value as the original development)

 

 

Reference:

DA 386/2014(2)

Determination Date

20 February 2015

PR Number

PR17472

Applicant/s:

Sentinel Orange Homemaker Pty Ltd

Owner/s:

Sentinel Orange Homemaker Pty Ltd

Location:

Lot 5 DP 270204 – Unit 7, Orange Grove Homemakers Centre – Mitchell Highway, Orange

Proposal:

Modification of DA 386/2014(1) for bulky goods premises. The modification involves the excision of a loading area, the installation of a loading door on the rear elevation of the building, and installation of sliding doors on the front elevation to replace manual doors

Value:

$100,000 (which is the same value as the original development)


 

 

Reference:

DA 122/2014(1)

Determination Date

24 February 2015

PR Number

PR23904

Applicant/s:

Mark Edwards of Landworks Funds Management Pty Ltd

Owner/s:

Landworks Funds Management Pty Ltd

Location:

Lot 101 DP 1147159 – 3 William Maker Drive, Orange

Proposal:

Subdivision (43 lot residential)

Value:

$0

 

 

Reference:

DA 162/2014(1)

Determination Date

18 February 2015

PR Number

PR1936

Applicant/s:

Mr JJ Norris

Owner/s:

Mr JJ Norris

Location:

Lot B DP 152339 – 47 Byng Street, Orange

Proposal:

Restaurant or café (alterations and additions to an existing garage)

Value:

$20,000

 

 

Reference:

DA 249/2014(1)

Determination Date

16 December 2014

PR Number

PR26333

Applicant/s:

Dr DE and Mrs TN Davies

Owner/s:

Mr DE and Mrs TN Davies

Location:

Lots 201 and 202 DP 1190831 – 5 and 7 McNamara Street, Orange

Proposal:

Medical centre (extension to Orange Dermatology), medical centre (pathology collection rooms and laboratory) and office premises

Value:

$600,000

 

 

Reference:

DA 396/2014(1)

Determination Date

24 February 2015

PR Number

PR26607

Applicant/s:

Beechwood Homes Constructions Pty Ltd

Owner/s:

Beechwood Homes Constructions Pty Ltd

Location:

Lot 30 DP 1200262 – 22 Grace Rise, Orange

Proposal:

Exhibition home and business identification sign

Value:

$242,000

 

 

Reference:

DA 397/2014(1)

Determination Date

24 February 2015

PR Number

PR26605

Applicant/s:

Beechwood Homes Constructions Pty Ltd

Owner/s:

Beechwood Homes Constructions Pty Ltd

Location:

Lot 28 DP 1200262 – 4 The Snowy Way, Orange

Proposal:

Exhibition home

Value:

$280,000

 


 

 

Reference:

DA 398/2014(1)

Determination Date

24 February 2015

PR Number

PR26606

Applicant/s:

Beechwood Homes Constructions Pty Ltd

Owner/s:

Beechwood Homes Constructions Pty Ltd

Location:

Lot 29 DP 1200262 – 6 The Snowy Way, Orange

Proposal:

Exhibition home

Value:

$240,000

 

 

Reference:

DA 404/2014(1)

Determination Date

20 March 2015

PR Number

PR4927

Applicant/s:

Mr RA Cummins

Owner/s:

Tipperary Investment Holdings Pty Ltd

Location:

Lot 1 DP 770447 – 1 Hampden Avenue, Orange

Proposal:

Office premises (new two storey building)

Value:

$500,000

 

 

Reference:

DA 412/2014(1)

Determination Date

6 March 2015

PR Number

PR6946

Applicant/s:

Ms J Milne

Owner/s:

Mrs JM Milne

Location:

Lot 11 DP 225883 – 237 Lords Place, Orange

Proposal:

Medical centre and signage

Value:

$200,000

 

 

Reference:

DA 12/2015(1)

Determination Date

20 February 2015

PR Number

PR18675

Applicant/s:

Mr D and Mrs SE Duffy

Owner/s:

Sturgeon & Flowers Pty Ltd

Location:

Lot 12 DP 1047837 – Unit 2, 185-191 Byng Street, Orange

Proposal:

Recreation facility (indoor) (dance studio)

Value:

$0

 

 

Reference:

DA 33/2015(1)

Determination Date

23 February 2015

PR Number

PR18973

Applicant/s:

Mr RD and Mrs CG Jordan

Owner/s:

Mr RD and Mrs CG Jordan

Location:

Lot 4 DP 1059681 – 4 Rutherford Place, Orange

Proposal:

Subdivision (two lot residential)

Value:

$0

 


 

 

Reference:

DA 36/2015(1)

Determination Date

26 February 2015

PR Number

PR26750

Applicant/s:

Mr M Mustac

Owner/s:

Eastern Developments (NSW) Pty Ltd

Location:

Lot 318 DP 1201019 – 17 Dimboola Way, Orange

Proposal:

Subdivision (two lot residential)

Value:

$0

 

 

Reference:

DA 56/2015(1)

Determination Date

2 March 2015

PR Number

PR16158

Applicant/s:

Mr PC Mueller

Owner/s:

Mr PC Mueller

Location:

Lot 1072 DP 850289 – 240 Peisley Street, Orange

Proposal:

Signage

Value:

$500

 

 

Reference:

DA 57/2015(1)

Determination Date

23 March 2015

PR Number

PR15347

Applicant/s:

Orange Theatre Company

Owner/s:

Orange City Council

Location:

Lot 182 DP 623231 – Margaret Street, Orange

Proposal:

Depot (storage shed)

Value:

$110,000

 

 

Reference:

DA 59/2015(1)

Determination Date

4 March 2015

PR Number

PR17472

Applicant/s:

Ms K Nicholl

Owner/s:

Sentinel Orange Homemaker Pty Ltd

Location:

Lot 5 DP 270204 – Unit 7, Orange Grove Homemakers Centre – Mitchell Highway, Orange

Proposal:

Business identification signage

Value:

$6,000

 

 

Reference:

DA 69/2015(1)

Determination Date

23 March 2015

PR Number

PR8204

Applicant/s:

Fast Track Property Investment

Owner/s:

Mr DA Sills

Location:

Lot 1 DP 111996 – 238 McLachlan Street, Orange

Proposal:

Subdivision (two lot residential)

Value:

$0

 


 

 

Reference:

DA 79/2015(1)

Determination Date

20 March 2015

PR Number

PR16717

Applicant/s:

Mr SG Jenner

Owner/s:

L A Wardrobes Pty Ltd

Location:

Lot 22 DP 876039 – Unit 4 – 7 Scott Place, Orange

Proposal:

Vehicle repair station

Value:

$0

 

 

Reference:

DA 84/2015(1)

Determination Date

19 March 2015

PR Number

PR11580

Applicant/s:

Checkpoint Building Surveyors

Owner/s:

Alceon Group Pty Ltd

Location:

Lot 564 DP 776383 – Tenancy 18A, Orange City Centre, 212-220 Summer Street, Orange

Proposal:

Shop (fitout of an internal shopping centre tenancy)

Value:

$65,000

 

 

TOTAL NET* VALUE OF ALL DEVELOPMENTS APPROVED IN THIS PERIOD:             $2,263,500

* Net value relates to the value of modifications. If modifications are the same value as the original DA, then nil is added. If there is a plus/minus difference, this difference is added or taken out.

 

  


Sustainable Development Committee                                                          7 April 2015

 

 

2.2     Development Application DA 181/2014(1) - 454 The Escort Way

TRIM REFERENCE:        2015/833

AUTHOR:                       Paul Johnston, Planning Team Leader    

 

 

EXECUTIVE Summary

 

Application lodged

30 June 2014

Applicant/s

Telstra

C/- Aurecon, Po Box 538, Neutral Bay NSW 2089

Owner/s

Mr JA and Mrs AM Spencer

454 The Escort Way, Orange NSW 2800

Land description

Lot 100 DP 1035863 – 454 The Escort Way, Orange

Proposed land use

Telecommunications Facility (mobile phone base station with 40m high monopole and equipment shelter)

Value of proposed development

$200,000

Council’s consent is sought to construct a telecommunications facility, described by the applicant as a new mobile phone base station, at 454 The Escort Way, Orange. This matter was initially considered by Council at the Sustainable Development Committee (SDC) meeting held on 3 February 2015. The committee at that meeting deferred consideration of the subject application to allow Councillors an opportunity to view the proposed site location.

A site visit to the proposed location was undertaken on 12 February 2015. This site visit was attended by the Mayor, a number of Councillors, local nearby and adjoining residents, Council Planning staff, and the consultant acting on behalf of Telstra. Following consideration of the issues raised at the onsite meeting, the applicant requested that the matter be deferred from consideration at the March meeting of the SDC to allow suitable time and opportunity to investigate alternative locations for the proposed development.

It is understood that a further meeting between the applicant, the land owner and adjoining residents was undertaken to investigate possible revised site locations. The applicant has advised that an alternative site location was subsequently agreed upon between the three directly adjoining neighbours and the existing land owners. The revised site location is within the area discussed during the onsite meeting, and is roughly 60m off the southern property boundary and 50m off the eastern property boundary.

The revised site location ensures that the proposed facility will not be in the direct line of sight to neighbouring residents, will not have a substantially altered visual impact from the surrounding area (when compared to the original proposed site location), and provides for a compromise location that is more in consideration with the local residents’ preferences, while ensuring Telstra’s radio frequency coverage objectives are met. A detailed analysis of the visual impact from the revised site location has been provided below under the heading “Likely Impacts of the Development”.

A section 79C assessment of the proposed development has been undertaken by Council staff. It is considered that the proposed development will have a significant visual impact upon the immediate surrounding residential locality.

The proposal is, however, considered acceptable in this case subject to the implementation of several recommended conditions of consent. Having said this, given the significance of the western ridgeline of the City it would be open for Council to form an alternative view should the visual impact of the development in this location be considered unacceptable.

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan strategy “13.4 Our Environment – Monitor and enforce regulations relating to City amenity”.

 

Financial Implications

Nil

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

 

Recommendation

That Council approves development application DA 181/2014(1) for Telecommunications Facility (mobile phone base station with 40m high monopole and equipment shelter) at Lot 100 DP 1035863 - 454 The Escort Way, Orange pursuant to the conditions of consent in the attached Notice of Approval.

 

further considerations

Consideration has been given to the recommendation’s impact on Council’s service delivery; image and reputation; political; environmental; health and safety; employees; stakeholders and project management; and no further implications or risks have been identified.

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

THE APPLICATION

Council’s consent is sought to construct a telecommunications facility (mobile phone base station) at 454 The Escort Way, Orange, being Lot 100 in DP 1035863. The initial proposal was tabled for consideration at the SDC meeting held on 3 February 2015. Council at that meeting deferred consideration of the subject application to allow Councillors an opportunity to view the proposed site location.

A site visit to the proposed location was undertaken on 12 February 2015. This site visit was attended by the Mayor, a number of Councillors, local nearby and adjoining residents, Council Planning staff, and the consultant acting on behalf of Telstra. Following consideration of the issues raised at the onsite meeting, the applicant requested that the matter be deferred from consideration at the March meeting of the SDC to allow suitable time and opportunity to investigate alternative locations for the proposed development.

Council is now in receipt of an amended proposal. The revised site location for the subject development remains on the same parcel of land and is proposed to be located approximately 60m off the southern property boundary and 50m off the eastern property boundary (see attached plans).

THE PROPOSAL

Telstra propose to install a new mobile phone base station at 454 The Escort Way, Orange. The applicant has summarised the proposal as follows:

·    installation of a new 40m high monopole with a triangular head frame mounted at a centreline elevation of 40m

·    six panel antennas (2.6m long) mounted on the headframe at the centreline elevation of 40m, giving a total elevation of 41.3m

·    six future panel antennas (2.6m long) mounted on the headframe at a centreline elevation 40m, giving a total elevation of 41.3m

·    installation of six remote radio units and nine tower mounted amplifiers in proximity to the antennas

·    one equipment shelter 2.28 (width) x 3.28m (length) x 2.95m (height) with associated piers located at the base of the monopole

·    ancillary cabling and cable ladder and

·    landscaping.

The proposal will be incorporated into the existing network via existing fibre optic cable.

Once operational, the facility will function on a continuously unstaffed basis and will typically only require maintenance works once a year.

The revised site for the proposed development is situated approximately 60m off the southern property boundary and 50m off the eastern property boundary (see attached plans).

TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT 1997

Telstra is a licenced telecommunications carrier and is required to operate under the provisions of the Telecommunications Act 1997 and the Telecommunications Code of Practice 1997.

The 1997 Act and Telecommunications (Low-impact Facilities) Determination 1997 (as amended) establish the criteria for ‘low impact’ telecommunications facilities. The proposed development is not defined as a ‘’low-impact facility” under the Telecommunications Act and is therefore subject to the provisions of the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and, accordingly, the provisions of Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011.

The Telecommunications Code of Practice 1997 sets out the design, planning and installation requirements for carriers to ensure that the installation of facilities is in accordance with industry “best practice”. The applicant advises that the design and siting of the proposed communications facility has been undertaken in accordance with Section 3 (Planning and Siting) of the Australian Standard , Siting of Radio Communications Facilities (AS3516.2).


 

MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION

Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 requires Council to consider various matters, of which those pertaining to the application are listed below.

Section 5A Assessment

In the administration of sections 78A, 79B, 79C, 111 and 112, the provisions of Section 5A must be taken into account for every development application in deciding whether there is likely to be a significant effect on threatened species, populations or ecological communities or their habitats. This section includes a requirement to consider any adopted assessment guidelines, which means assessment guidelines issued and in force under section 94A of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. Assessment guidelines are in force (see DECC-W “Threatened Species Assessment Guidelines - The Assessment of Significance”) which requires consent authority to adopt the precautionary principle in its assessment.

The subject property provides some habitat suitable for certain threatened or endangered species on a limited basis. However, with the exception of the Regent Honeyeater (for which this site is not suitable), there are no fauna species above the category of vulnerable that occur in this locality. The tests listed in the Assessment of Significance only apply to Threatened, Endangered or Critically Endangered Species as they appear in the NPWS Wildlife Atlas. Species listed as vulnerable or below have importance when assessing the value of vegetation communities, but are not individually protected themselves under the seven part test provisions.

In this case the vegetation on the subject land (but not the site of the proposed facility) is characterised by a number of over mature Eucalypts, but more significantly by planted vegetation around the site. There is a naturally occurring Box Gum Grassy Woodland (BGGW) on the western side of the site (see map below) that is noteworthy and of some significance, deserving of conservation. A number of vulnerable species are likely to utilise this vegetation for connectivity purposes to link to areas of greater, more significant biomass to the west and south of the subject site.

The conservation of that vegetation remnant is important for that reason, but the proposed development has no impact in that respect. The scattered over mature eucalypts on the site are significant for seed banking purposes and also as waypoints for migrating immature avian species.

The proposed development has no impact in terms of the supporting vegetation and therefore a detailed supporting assessment so as to complete the seven part assessment of significance as called up by the Act is not necessary.


 

 

The LEP also has provisions that are additional and separate to the Act that apply in areas mapped under the LEP as an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA). In this case the attached LEP map extract demonstrates that whist parts of the lot are considered an ESA, the part of the lot where the proposed development is to be sited is not a sensitive area and has only limited connectivity to those areas. The various dams and waterways on the site are not considered overly sensitive, and as explained above do not support species that in themselves are protected under the TSC or EP&A Act. Whilst it is acknowledged that rare species may frequent the site, it is unlikely that they have a critical dependence on the site, even applying the Department guidelines of local occurrence and local conservation. It is considered the threat posed by the proposed development is minor. It is further noted that the proposed development does not constitute a Key Threatening Process (KTP) under the abovementioned OEH guidelines.

There is no significant risk arising under either the Assessment of Significance prescribed by Section 5A, or under the local LEP controls.

PROVISIONS OF ANY ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENT s79C(1)(a)(i)

Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011

Part 1 - Preliminary

This part of the plan is largely administrative in nature and has minimal implications for the proposal.


 

Clause 1.2 - Aims of Plan

The broad aims of the LEP are set out under subclause 2. Those relevant to the application are as follows:

(a)     to encourage development which complements and enhances the unique character of Orange as a major regional centre boasting a diverse economy and offering an attractive regional lifestyle,

(b)     to provide for a range of development opportunities that contribute to the social, economic and environmental resources of Orange in a way that allows the needs of present and future generations to be met by implementing the principles of ecologically sustainable development,

(f)      to recognise and manage valued environmental heritage, landscape and scenic features of Orange.

The application is considered to be consistent with aims (a) and (b) as listed above. In relation to aim (f), it is considered that the proposal will have a significant impact upon the landscape and scenic features of the western ridgeline of Ploughmans Valley. A detailed assessment of the likely impacts of the development and in particular the impact that the development will have on the landscape and scenic features of the City has been provided below under the heading “Likely Impacts of the Development”.

Clause 1.6 - Consent Authority

This clause establishes that, subject to the Act, Council is the consent authority for applications made under the LEP.

Clause 1.9A - Suspension of Covenants, Agreements and Instruments

This clause provides that covenants, agreements and other instruments which seek to restrict the carrying out of development do not apply with the following exceptions.

·    covenants imposed or required by Council

·    prescribed instruments under Section 183A of the Crown Lands Act 1989

·    any conservation agreement under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974

·    any trust agreement under the Nature Conservation Trust Act 2001

·    any property vegetation plan under the Native Vegetation Act 2003

·    any biobanking agreement under Part 7A of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995

·    any planning agreement under Division 6 of Part 4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.


 

 

The subject site does not appear to be affected by any of the above. The subject allotment is, however, burdened by an electricity easement. The applicant has confirmed that the current electricity line and easement will remain in place at this time and will not be impacted upon by the proposed development. The applicant has advised that there is a separate proposal to reconstruct the subject electricity supply underground.

The revised tower location is located approximately 17m from the existing overhead power line, and will reside entirely outside the existing electrical easement. The proposed development will not have a detrimental effect on the easement.

Mapping

The subject site is identified on the LEP maps in the following manner:

Land Zoning Map:

Land zoned R5 Large Lot Residential

Lot Size Map:

Minimum Lot Size 2ha

Heritage Map:

Not a heritage item or conservation area.

Height of Buildings Map:

No building height limit

Floor Space Ratio Map:

No floor space limit

Terrestrial Biodiversity Map:

Biodiversity sensitivity on the site

Groundwater Vulnerability Map:

Ground water vulnerable

Drinking Water Catchment Map:

Not located within the drinking water catchment

Watercourse Map:

Not within or affecting a defined watercourse

Urban Release Area Map:

Not within an urban release area

Obstacle Limitation Surface Map:

No restriction on building siting or construction

Additional Permitted Uses Map:

No additional permitted use applies


 

Those matters that are considered to be of relevance to the development application are addressed in detail in the body of this report.

Part 2 - Permitted or Prohibited Development

Land Use Zones

The subject site is zoned R5 Large Lot Residential. The proposed development is defined as a Telecommunications Facility under OLEP 2011. Pursuant to OLEP 2011 a telecommunications facility means:

(a)     any part of the infrastructure of a telecommunications network, or

(b)     any line, cable, optical fibre, fibre access node, interconnect point equipment, apparatus, tower, mast, antenna, dish, tunnel, duct, hole, pit, pole or other structure in connection with a telecommunications network, or

(c)     any other thing used in or in connection with a telecommunications network.

Telecommunications Facilities are not specifically listed as permissible in the R5 Large Lot Residential zone under OLEP 2011 and are thus prohibited. However, State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) applies to the State and under Clause 116 development for the purposes of telecommunications facilities may be carried out by any person with consent on any land. The SEPP overrides the provisions of Orange LEP 2011 and therefore has the effect of rendering the proposed development permissible on any land with the consent of Council.

In accordance with Clause 115(3) of SEPP (Infrastructure), Council in determining this matter must take into consideration any guidelines concerning site selection, design, construction or operating principles for telecommunications facilities that are issued by the Director-General for the purposes of this clause and published in the Gazette.

This provision has the effect of imposing any assessment guidelines imposed by the Director General (Department Of Planning). The Department has a design guideline, entitled "NSW Telecommunications Facilities Guideline Including Broadband" which applies in this case.

A detailed assessment of how the development responds to these guidelines has been provided below under the heading of "State Environmental Planning Policies".

Clause 2.3 of OLEP 2011 references the Objectives for each zone in OLEP 2011. These objectives for land zoned R5 Large Lot Residential are as follows:

·    To provide residential housing in a rural setting while preserving, and minimising impacts on, environmentally sensitive locations and scenic quality.

·    To ensure that large residential lots do not hinder the proper and orderly development of urban areas in the future.

·    To ensure that development in the area does not unreasonably increase the demand for public services or public facilities.

·    To minimise conflict between land uses within this zone and land uses within adjoining zones.


 

·    To provide for student housing in close proximity to the Charles Sturt University.

·    To ensure development is ordered in such a way as to maximise public transport patronage, and encourage walking and cycling, in close proximity to settlement.

·    To ensure development along the Southern Link Road has an alternative access.

The objectives of the zone are not considered to be of relevance to the proposed development.

Part 3 - Exempt and Complying Development

Telstra is a licenced telecommunications carrier and is required to operate under the provisions of the Telecommunications Act 1997 and the telecommunications Code of Practice 1997. The 1997 Act and Telecommunications (Low-impact Facilities) Determination 1997 (as amended) establish the criteria for ‘low impact’ telecommunications facilities. The proposed development is not defined as a ‘’low-impact facility” under the Telecommunications Act and is therefore subject to the provisions of the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and, accordingly, the provisions of Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011.

The application is not exempt or complying development.

Part 4 - Principal Development Standards

Not relevant to the application.

Part 5 - Miscellaneous Provisions

5.9 - Preservation of Trees or Vegetation

This clause seeks to maintain and preserve the amenity of the area, including biodiversity values, through the preservation of trees and other vegetation.

(3)     A person must not ringbark, cut down, top, lop, remove, injure or wilfully destroy any tree or other vegetation to which any such development control plan applies without the authority conferred by:

(a)     development consent, or

(b)     a permit granted by the Council.

The construction of the telecommunications facility makes use of an existing cleared paddock and no clearing of any significant trees or vegetation is required to facilitate the proposed development.

Part 6 - Urban Release Area

Not relevant to the application. The subject site is not located in an Urban Release Area.


 

Part 7 - Additional Local Provisions

7.1 - Earthworks

This clause establishes a range of matters that must be considered prior to granting development consent for any application involving earthworks, such as:

(a)     the likely disruption of, or any detrimental effect on, existing drainage patterns and soil stability in the locality of the development

(b)     the effect of the development on the likely future use or redevelopment of the land

(c)     the quality of the fill or the soil to be excavated, or both

(d)     the effect of the development on the existing and likely amenity of adjoining properties

(e)     the source of any fill material and the destination of any excavated material

(f)     the likelihood of disturbing relics

(g)     the proximity to and potential for adverse impacts on any waterway, drinking water catchment or environmentally sensitive area

(h)     any measures proposed to minimise or mitigate the impacts referred to in paragraph (g).

The proposed earthworks will consist of site testing, excavation and construction of foundations. The proposed earthworks will not involve the removal of any trees with the subject land already highly disturbed from past farming practices. The proposed development is not expected to have a detrimental effect on the water catchment area.

7.6 - Groundwater Vulnerability

This clause seeks to protect hydrological functions of groundwater systems and protect resources from both depletion and contamination. Orange has a high water table and large areas of the LGA, including the subject site, are identified with “Groundwater Vulnerability” on the Groundwater Vulnerability Map. This requires that Council consider:

(a)     whether or not the development (including any onsite storage or disposal of solid or liquid waste and chemicals) is likely to cause any groundwater contamination or have any adverse effect on groundwater dependent ecosystems, and

(b)     the cumulative impact (including the impact on nearby groundwater extraction for potable water supply or stock water supply) of the development and any other existing development on groundwater.

Furthermore consent may not be granted unless Council is satisfied that:

(a)     the development is designed, sited and will be managed to avoid any significant adverse environmental impact, or

(b)     if that impact cannot be reasonably avoided - the development is designed, sited and will be managed to minimise that impact,

(c)     if that impact cannot be minimised - the development will be managed to mitigate that impact.


 

The proposal is not anticipated to involve the discharge of toxic or noxious substances and is therefore unlikely to contaminate the groundwater or related ecosystems. The proposal does not involve extraction of groundwater and will therefore not contribute to groundwater depletion.

DESIGNATED DEVELOPMENT

The proposed development is not designated development.

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICIES

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 ("the SEPP") applies to the subject development.

Clause 2 - Aim of Policy

The aim of this policy is to facilitate the effective delivery of infrastructure across the state by:

(a)    improving regulatory certainty and efficiency through a consistent planning regime for infrastructure and the provision of services, and

(b)    providing greater flexibility in the location of infrastructure and service facilities, and

(c)    allowing for efficient development, redevelopment or disposal of surplus government owned land, and

(d)    identifying the environmental assessment category into which different types of infrastructure and services development fall (including identifying certain development of minimal environmental impact as exempt development), and

(e)    identifying matters to be considered in the assessment of development adjacent to particular types of infrastructure development, and

(f)     providing for consultation with relevant public authorities about certain development during the assessment process or prior to development commencing.

The development is not inconsistent with the aims of the SEPP.

Clause 115 - Development Permitted with Consent

(1)    Development for the purposes of telecommunications facilities, other than development in clause 114 or development that is exempt development under clause 20 or 116, may be carried out by any person with consent on any land.

The SEPP has the effect of rendering the proposed development permissible on any land with the consent of Council.

(3)     Before determining a development application for development to which this clause applies, the consent authority must take into consideration any guidelines concerning site selection, design, construction or operating principles for telecommunications facilities that are issued by the Director-General for the purposes of this clause and published in the Gazette.


 

This provision has the effect of imposing any assessment guidelines imposed by the Director General (Department Of Planning). The relevant guideline applicable in NSW for the consideration of development of this type is entitled "NSW Telecommunications Facilities Guideline Including Broadband".

The guideline has the effect under clause 1.6 of applying as a design tool in all zones of an LEP.

Section 2.2 of the policy sets up the design principles that should be followed. The guidelines are organised under "Principles" headings. Many of the principles are not relevant because they relate to fully urbanised landscapes. In this case the landscape and setting are not fully urbanised. Detailed consideration of how the development fits into the landscape will however remain an important element for consideration under the guidelines. The ridge upon which the structure is proposed forms the skyline to large areas of the City.

Those principles that are called up in the policy and which are relevant to the assessment of visual impact are set out below:

Principle 1 - Design and Siting to Minimise Visual Impact

·    As far as practical, a telecommunications facility that is to be mounted on an existing building or structure should be integrated with the design and appearance of the building or structure.

The applicant has advised that the area was analysed using desktop and onsite investigations during the site selection process. The applicant has indicated that when investigating sites the preference for selection is firstly for colocation on existing infrastructure, secondly low impact facilities (as defined by the Telecommunications (Low impact Facilities Determination 1997) and lastly “greenfield sites”. Four candidate sites were investigated in the context of the above.

These include:

·    Candidate A: 454 The Escort Way, Orange (proposed site)

·    Candidate B: 448 The Escort Way, Orange

·    Candidate C: Lot 1 DP 581736 Gorman Road, Orange

·    Candidate D: 7 Borrodell Drive, Orange


 

These candidate sites are shown in the attached aerial photo:

Candidate A: 454 The Escort Way, Orange (proposed site)

The applicant advises that this site provided the radio coverage required of a facility in this area. The revised site has no design or construction constraints. The property owner was willing to enter into a land tenure agreement with Telstra.

Candidate B: 448 The Escort Way, Orange

The applicant advises that this site provided the radio coverage required of a facility in this area. The site was discounted as the property owner was unwilling to enter into a land tenure agreement with Telstra.

Candidate C: Lot 1 DP 581736 Gorman Road, Orange

The site was discounted as the property owner was unwilling to enter into a land tenure agreement with Telstra. The applicant has advised that the proposed facility in this location was not able to meet the radio coverage objectives for this site without utilising a heightened tower structure.

Candidate D: 7 Borrodell Drive, Orange

The site was discounted as the property owner was unwilling to enter into a land tenure agreement with Telstra. The site would require extensive earthworks in order to construct a graded access track. The applicant has advised that the proposed facility in this location was not able to meet the radio coverage objectives for this site without utilising a heightened tower structure.

·    The visual impact of telecommunications facilities should be minimised, visual clutter is to be reduced

As a new structure designed to meet technical specifications, there appear to be few opportunities to modify or reduce the intrusive nature of the monopole and the array to be placed on top of the pole.

·    Where telecommunications facilities protrude from a building or structure and are predominantly backgrounded against the sky, the facility and their support mounts should be either the same as the prevailing colour of the host building or structure, or a neutral colour such as grey should be used.

The proposed telecommunications facility is a stand-alone structure. The proposed structure will protrude above the ridgeline when viewed from a large area of the City and from The Escort Way. A detailed assessment of the visual impacts of the development has been provided below under the heading “Likely impacts of the Development”. It is considered appropriate in this case to impose a condition requiring the structure to be painted a “shale grey” colour as suggested. A condition to that effect is included.

·    Ancillary facilities associated with the telecommunications facility should be screened or housed, using the same colour as the prevailing background to reduce its visibility, including the use of existing vegetation where available, or new landscaping where possible and practical.

In this case the ground based structures will be located immediately around the base of the structure. The applicant has submitted a landscape plan in support of the proposal. It is considered that the proposed landscaping at maturity will adequately screen the ancillary structures. Attached is a condition in relation to this matter.

·    A telecommunications facility should be located and designed to respond appropriately to its rural landscape setting.

In this case the setting behind (to the west) of the site dictates the character and setting of the structure. As discussed above the facility will project above the skyline, and whilst some landscaping exists along the ridge, the development is proposed to be located on a relatively exposed part of the ridge. Landscaping requirements are considered essential to this proposal, and are discussed in more detail elsewhere in this report.

·    A telecommunications facility located on, or adjacent to, a State or local heritage item or within a heritage conservation area, should be sited and designed with external colours, finishes and scale sympathetic to those of the heritage item or conservation area.

Council’s records indicate that subject site is not located within a heritage conservation area and is not located adjacent to listed State or Local heritage items.

·    A telecommunication facility should be located and designed so as to respond appropriately to its landscape setting.

A detailed assessment of the visual impact of the development and its impact on the landscape setting has been provided below under the heading “Likely Impacts of the Development’.

Principle 2 - Colocation

As indicated in the above discussion, colocation was not considered a practical option.

Principle 3 - Health Standards

The applicant has submitted technical specifications and discussion in their Statement of Environmental Effects, attesting that the proposed structure when in operation will comply with relevant health standards, particularly relating to electromagnetic emissions standards.

Whilst there are currently wide-ranging and contentious views on the health impacts associated with electromagnetic energy (EME), with large volumes of discourse related to the study, there is currently no definitive evidence or conclusive findings one way or another of the effects of EME on humans. Council is therefore largely reliant on the studies of recognised health organisations and the submitted report on the summary of Estimated RF (radiofrequency) EME (electromagnetic energy) in determining the likely health impacts associated with the development.

The Australian Government’s Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency cite the World Health Organisation’s advice stating:

None of the recent reviews have concluded that exposure to RF fields from mobile phones and their base stations cause any adverse health consequences” (ARPANSA).

Furthermore, the ARPANSA suggests:

the balance of evidence does not indicate a risk to the health of people, including children, living in the vicinity of base stations where exposure levels are only small fractions of the ARPANSA standard.

A report titled Summary of Estimated RF and EME Levels Around The Proposed Wireless Base Station…’ indicates:

RF EME levels have been estimated from the proposed antennas at 354 Cadia Road, Springside. The maximum cumulative EME level at 1.5m above ground level and 274.1m from the antennas is estimated to be 0.026% of the ARPANSA public exposure limits.

As mentioned above, Council is largely reliant on the reports submitted in the application and studies of recognised health agencies in determining the likely health impacts associated with the development.

In light of the above, it is considered that the development is not likely to result in adverse health impacts as a result of human exposure.

Principle 4 - Minimise Disturbance

This principle is mainly concerned with the impact that the development may have on other telecommunication facilities in the locality, particularly those relating to airport operations. It is considered unlikely that the proposed structure will have any significant impact in this regard.


 

PROVISIONS OF ANY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENT THAT HAS BEEN PLACED ON EXHIBITION s79C(1)(a)(ii)

Council is not aware of any draft Environmental Planning Instruments that have been placed on public exhibition that affect the proposed development.

PROVISIONS OF ANY DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN s79C(1)(a)(iii)

Development Control Plan 2004

Development Control Plan 2004 (“the DCP”) applies to the subject land (Part 0LEP 2011, Part 6 Rural Development). An assessment of the proposed development against the relevant Planning Outcomes will be undertaken below.

Pursuant to Planning Outcome 0.2-1 Interim Planning Outcomes - Conversion of Zones:

·    Throughout this Plan, any reference to a zone in Orange LEP 2000 is to be taken to be a reference to the corresponding zone(s) in the zone conversion table.

The corresponding zone to zone 1(c) Rural Residential (Orange LEP 2000) is zone R5 Large Lot Residential (Orange LEP 2011). As such, Orange DCP 2004 - Chapter 6 - Rural Development represents the corresponding set of controls for consideration. The proposed development is not inconsistent with any provisions under this section of the DCP.

Pursuant to Planning Outcome 0.4-1 Interim Planning Outcomes – Scenic Areas:

·    Development blends into the landscape through the use of appropriate siting, design, external materials and colours, retention of trees including remnant vegetation, establishing of new trees, and enhancing the skyline when viewed either from the urban area of Orange or from public places in the vicinity of the land.

While Telstra’s proposed facility will introduce a new vertical element in the skyline, it should be viewed in conjunction with other elements in the surrounding area and within the ‘Scenic Area’ itself. The applicant submits that these elements range from power and street lighting poles in the near and immediate vicinity, to existing telecommunications facilities in the distance. It can be suitably argued that these vertical elements, considered essential infrastructure, are commonplace within today’s landscapes, be it in the urban built environment, rural settings, or the growing outskirts of townships such as Orange.

Following the onsite inspection on 12 February 2015 the applicant lodged an amended proposal for Council’s consideration. The applicant has advised that an alternative site location was agreed upon between the three directly affected adjoining neighbours and the existing land owners. The revised site location is within the area discussed as being a possible alternative site during the onsite meeting, and is approximately 60m off the southern property boundary and 50m off the eastern property boundary.

Council is advised that while this location is near the crest of the land marked as ‘Scenic Area’, it allows the facility to be the smallest possible structure to achieve the required coverage objectives of a site in this area. The applicant argues that the proposed facility’s visual impact is further lessened by the existing vegetation that is found surrounding the site location.


 

The applicant’s submission is accompanied by a detailed landscape plan. Telstra’s proposal involves the establishment of a number of additional trees and shrubs that will assist to screen the lower portion of the proposed facility. The external colours and materials used to finish the proposed facility can also be suited to blend into the landscape. Attached to the draft Notice are conditions of consent that address these issues.

Whilst the assessment has highlighted that the proposed development will have a significant visual impact when viewed from surrounding residential properties and while travelling in both directions along The Escort Way, the proposal is considered acceptable in this case subject to the implementation of several recommended conditions of consent. Having said this, given the significance of the western ridgeline of the City and the fact that the proposed structure will be readily viewed from a number of residential properties and road corridors in the general locality, it would be open for Council to form an alternative view should the visual impact of the proposed development be considered unacceptable.

PROVISIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE REGULATIONS s79C(1)(a)(iv)

The proposed development is not inconsistent with the provisions prescribed by the regulations.

THE LIKELY IMPACTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT s79C(1)(b)

Context and Setting

Council is advised that Telstra is required by law to carefully consider many factors before deciding on the location and the design of a base station. It is understood that these factors include:

·    service objectives (radio coverage requirements)

·    physical characteristics of the site - such as height and terrain

·    ability to connect with the rest of the network

·    planning constraints such as zonings

·    colocation opportunities

·    minimising public exposure to EME

·    cost factors

·    the ability to obtain a suitable lease

·    proximity to community sensitive locations and

·    minimising the visual impact on the existing environment.

As demand grows on mobile telecommunications networks, the applicant advises that additional investment is required to match capacity to demand. In the case of the service provided by Telstra to Orange, Council is advised that investments have been made to increase the capacity of surrounding facilities and install additional facilities, including those at Beech Crescent, Calare, and at the Duntryleague Golf Club on Woodward Street. Telstra has also been able to utilise additional radio channels, sectorisation or cell splitting and spreading the load over all the different frequency bands that are available to Telstra under its Telecommunications Carrier Licence.


 

The applicant advises that the proposed development represents the next step to providing vital infrastructure that will facilitate enhanced services to customers, providing improved coverage to areas that are currently experiencing limited reception.

The facility is proposed to be sited on a privately owned large lot residential allotment approximately 60m off the southern property boundary and 50m off the eastern property boundary (see attached plans) of the lot at 454 The Escort Way. The subject land provides some screening utilising existing vegetation on the lot. A landscape plan has been submitted in support of the subject development. This additional landscaping will, over time, provide a level of screening for the lower section of the monopole and the equipment at ground level.

Design

Whilst it is not uncommon for telecommunications facilities to be sited in close proximity to residential development, Telstra has acknowledged that the facility needs to be sensitive to its environment.

The applicant advises that taking advantage of local topography has allowed the use of a 40m structure in this location, thereby avoiding the need to install a lattice type structure or taller monopole which would represent a significantly less desirable visual outcome. Council is advised that the 40m high monopole is the minimum height required for the facility to project over the trees to the surrounding area and provide the level of coverage necessary to make a sustainable contribution to coverage and service issues.

In order to reduce the long term visual impact of the proposed development it is recommended in the event that Council is of the view to support the proposed development, that the structure be painted in a “shale grey” colour and the applicant be required to implement the landscape plan submitted in support of the proposed development. Council’s Urban Design Advisor has also recommended that this colour be utilised. The equipment shelter will not be visible externally due to existing private and public vegetation in the surrounding area. The landscape concept plan submitted incorporates eleven Populus Canadensis evergreen trees and ten Pittosporum James Stirling located around the proposed structure, which will at maturity screen the lower section of the tower. The proposed trees will have a mature height of approximately 20m. The attached Notice of Approval contains conditions in relation to these matters.

The applicant submits that the development will have an acceptable visual impact and that the facility will provide vital infrastructure that will provide enhanced services to customers, providing improved coverage to areas that are currently experiencing limited reception.

Visual Impacts

The proposed structure is located on the western ridgeline of Ploughmans Valley within the scenic protection area as defined by Council’s Development Control Plan. The subject land comprises large lot residential and is located adjacent to residential areas within the Ploughmans Valley. The ridgeline that forms just to the west of the subject land comprises the backdrop to large parts of the City including Westlea, Belair and parts to the north of those areas. Landscape elements are concentrated to the south but further north are mostly devoid of landscape elements.


 

The proposed development is likely to result in various levels of visual impact given its location in relation to residential areas to the north, east and south and the height of the proposed monopole (41.3m). Visual impact is often a significant issue with respect to the installation of mobile phone base stations. In order to provide adequate clearance above buildings, trees and the topography of the land it is virtually impossible for these facilities to be completely hidden.

The subject land provides some low level screening utilising existing vegetation on the lot. A landscape plan has been submitted in support of the subject development. The proposed landscaping will, over time, provide a level of screening of the lower section of the monopole and the equipment at ground level.

The applicant submits that the proposed location of the telecommunications tower provides for maximum separation distance between the facility and the majority of residential development nearby.

The revised site location ensures that the proposed facility will not be in the direct line of sight to neighbouring residents, will not have a substantially altered visual impact from the surrounding area (when compared to the original proposed site location), and provides for a compromised location that is more in consideration with the local residents’ preferences, while ensuring Telstra’s radio frequency coverage objectives are met.

The applicant advises that the siting of the proposed structure any further west would not meet the radio coverage objectives for the site. It is understood that the height of the proposed monopole is the minimum required height to adequately meet the objectives of a site in this location.

Council staff in initial deliberations on this matter requested the applicant to consider what opportunity there was for establishing the development on alternative sites and whether or not it was possible to reduce the overall height of the structure. The applicant advised Council that they were unable to secure legal tenure over the alternative sites identified during the site selection process and that a lower facility would not provide the ‘relief’ to surrounding sites.

A detailed assessment of the likely impacts of the structure in the amended location has been undertaken by staff to determine whether or not the development is acceptable in this location. To this end some commentary on the likely visual impact of the development from certain vantage points around the City is provided below.

Adjoining rural residential lots to the east and west both contain dwellings with some screening opportunities from existing vegetation onsite. An evaluation of the site indicates that dwellings in the immediate vicinity of the subject site are oriented generally away from the proposed facility. However, as Council would be aware the surrounding area is currently within a transitional phase of development and opportunity for additional dwellings to be established within proximity to the facility in the near future.


 

The following extract from the applicant's Statement of Environmental Effects depicts the context of the existing surrounding area:

Untitled

Surrounding area (source - applicant’s Statement of Environmental Effects)

Due to existing public and private vegetation, as well as the additional landscaping proposed (a row of eleven Evergreen Poplars, and a row of ten James Stirling surrounding the facility) the applicant submits that the upper portion of the facility only will be exposed intermittently in all directions surrounding the facility.

Council staff met with representatives from Aurecon and Telstra to discuss matters in relation to the likely visual impact of the proposal. A tower platform was initially raised and lifted to a height of 40m to roughly depict the proposed telecommunications facility, and provide an indication of the height required. A number of vantage points were visited by both Council staff and the applicant, with photomontages being created to assist in this assessment. This exercise was undertaken to accurately determine height and location of the proposed development, to overcome difficulties in relying on photomontages and to avoid criticism that questions the legitimacy of the photomontages.

Since that initial assessment the applicant has amended the proposal such that the proposed structure is now located approximately 60m off the southern property boundary and 50m off the eastern property boundary. The applicant has provided an amended analysis of the visual impact of the development from various vantage points and provided additional photomontages of the proposed development for Council’s consideration. Additional photomontages have been taken with a 50mm focal length lens. However it is understood that with the sensor size of the cameras used by the applicant and Council staff that the correct focal length that represents the human field of view and focal length is actually 32mm. Notwithstanding this these photomontages are considered to present a greater sense of impact than what would have been presented with a focal length of 32mm.


 

Land to the north of the facility is currently vacant land. Given the undulating nature of the land the proposed facility is likely to be seen from along Silverdown Way some 550m from site. Due to distance and separation the facility is not likely to be a bulky structure when viewed from this vantage point. The applicant submits that the facility will be further mitigated by existing vertical structures in the area including electricity poles, existing telecommunications lattice towers in the distance and mature vegetation.

View towards the proposed site location from Silverdown Way

(north of proposed site location)

(source - applicant's Statement of Environmental Effects)

When viewed from further north over 1km from the proposed site location, it is considered that the facility will have limited visual impact. The applicant argues that whilst the top half of the facility will be visible it will not be a dominant feature of the landscape on the basis that it will appear as only a thin protrusion into the skyline. The applicant further argues that views from the north would also encompass existing telecommunications facilities at Nashdale and Mount Canobolas, as well as existing vertical protrusions such as lighting and electricity poles.


 

When viewed from the northeast and east in the predominately residential areas of Calare, the proposed facility is considered to be more visible. The applicant submits that the visual impacts of the development from this area will be mitigated through the existing mature vegetation in the area surrounding the proposed site location and the implementation of the proposed landscaping. Views of the facility from the immediate south will be limited due to the elevation of the road reserve along the northern boundary of The Escort Way. The applicant submits that vegetation along this reserve will also aid to a degree in partly obscuring the facility from view.

When viewed from the east and west at distances beyond 1km, the facility will be visible to the greatest degree due to the topography of the surrounding land. The proposed structure will be located on the western ridgeline of Ploughmans Valley, which forms the natural backdrop to parts of the City mentioned above. Whilst there are some landscape elements located on the ridge to the south of the subject site there are very few landscape features north of the site. The proposed tower will protrude well above the skyline when viewed from various vantage points along The Escort Way when travelling east and west of the subject site, the residential areas to the north, east and south and from the rural areas to the north, south and west.

The western ridgeline has been identified as a significant visual backdrop to the City and any element that protrudes above the ridgeline has the potential to affect the visual amenity of this locality. The applicant has consistently argued that the visual impact of the development will be mitigated by existing and proposed landscaping and the fact that there are other vertical elements such as electricity and lighting poles in this locality.

Whilst this may be the case, it is obvious that by the nature of this facility being a precisely defined 41.3m high vertical element located on the western ridgeline to a large area of the City that the tower structure will create a significant visual impact from parts of the City. As would be expected the significance of the visual impact would diminish the further the viewer is away from the tower. However, it needs to be acknowledged that the visual impact of the tower structure will be significant from the areas in close proximity to the tower, particularly from the adjoining rural residential properties (see submissions below).


 

 

 

View towards proposed site location from Forbes Road

(approximately 1.1km east of proposed site location)

(source - applicant's Statement of Environmental Effects)

The applicant submits that a photomontage of the proposed facility as seen from Riawena Oval on Kooronga Avenue demonstrates that while the upper portion of the monopole will be visible, the lower sections are completely shrouded. This argument is acknowledged and it is agreed that the visual impact of the development from this vantage point is reduced given the separation distance that exists between the oval and the subject site. The facility will not be visually significant from these distant areas.


 

 

View towards proposed site location from across Riawena Oval on Kooronga Avenue

(approximately 1.1km south-east of proposed site location)

(source – Council staff)

Whilst the facility will have a visual presence within the surrounding area when viewed from the west at varying degrees, it is considered that the impact will be less given the semi-rural nature of the land. The topography is undulating further west of the proposal, and with the presence of mature vegetation in the landscape along The Escort Way it is expected that the visual impact of the proposed facility from that vantage point will be minimal.


 

 

View towards proposed site location from service road off Escort Way

(approximately 300m west of proposed site location)

(source - applicants Statement of Environmental Effects)

The predominant land use directly east of the proposed site is residential development. The development when viewed from Lisbon Circuit as shown below (approximately 400m east of the proposed site location) will have the greatest impact. The immediate adjoining neighbours will experience the greatest visual impact. There is no hiding a structure of this type in the location proposed. The implementation of landscaping and controls over the colour of the proposed structure are the only practical measures that can be implemented which will, over time, lessen the visual impact of the facility to a degree. The proposed development when viewed from these vantage points will nonetheless have a significant visual impact.

Again, the applicant submits that the degree of visual impact will be mitigated by existing vegetation and the topography of the land. Further, the applicant argues that this view corridor towards the facility from these areas is not the predominant view direction from nearby properties. Whilst this may be the case, it is reasonable to also argue that the western ridgeline of Ploughmans Valley forms an important landscape feature for the City as evidenced by the scenic protection provisions contained within Council’s DCP, and is therefore worthy of protection from development that may impact upon the scenic qualities of the locality.


 

There is no doubting that the facility will be readily viewed from those properties to the immediate east of the subject site. Development of this type, however, is fast becoming a typical element within urban environments as the demand for better and more efficient mobile phone coverage grows. Council therefore, in its consideration of this matter balance the visual impact of the proposed development against the demand and need for such infrastructure within the City in this location. Whilst other sites were initially investigated, Council has been advised by the applicant that Telstra was unsuccessful in obtaining the required legal tenure from those property owners whose land was of initial interest.

View towards proposed site location from Lisbon Circuit

(approximately 500m east of proposed site location)

(source - applicant's Statement of Environmental Effects)

In summary, the development is proposed to be located on what is considered to be a significant ridgeline forming a backdrop to parts of the City. Having said this, the site is considered to be acceptable in this case subject to the implementation of several recommended conditions of consent. However, as discussed previously within this report, given the significance of the western ridgeline of the City and the fact that the development will be highly visible from many areas in the surrounding locality, it would be open for Council to form an alternative view should the visual impact of the development in this location be considered unacceptable. Should Council form the view that the development will have an unacceptable impact, particularly in relation to the impact that will be experienced by those property owners in the immediate vicinity of the development, it would be necessary to refuse the subject development.


 

Noise Impacts

The majority of noise and vibration emissions associated with the proposed facility will be limited to the construction phase. There will be some low level noise from the ongoing operation of the air conditioning equipment associated with the equipment units. As outlined within the applicant's SoEE, the noise emanating from the outdoor cabinet air conditioning system is at a comparable level to a domestic air conditioning installation, and will generally accord with the background noise levels prescribed by Australian Standard AS1055.

Traffic Impacts

Access to the telecommunications facility will be via the existing access serving the subject site. After the construction period the only traffic generated by the base station will be that associated with maintenance vehicles. Accordingly, the facility will only generate one visit per year for the maintenance, with the facility being vacant for the rest of the year. The traffic generation will therefore be minimal and not sufficient to create any adverse impacts.

Social and Economic Impacts

The applicant has advised that the proposed development will facilitate the provision of vital infrastructure so as to improve mobile phone coverage to areas that are currently experiencing limited reception within Orange. The wider social and economic benefits of the proposal will result in a positive impact for the City.

THE SUITABILITY OF THE SITE s79C(1)(c)

The subject site is located within the scenic protection area as defined under the provisions of DCP 2004. Such provisions previously were included in Orange LEP 2000 but because Council were unable to incorporate them into Orange LEP 2011 because of the Standard Instrument provisions it was decided by Council to include them into the DCP. The inclusion of these provisions in the DCP does reflect the importance that Council gives to planning within the scenic protection areas. This particular ridgeline forms a visual backdrop from parts of the urban environment of Orange. The surrounding locality comprises predominantly residential development to the immediate east and mostly undeveloped large lot residential land to the west. This proposal therefore has the ability to influence the visual amenity of many parts of the City well beyond the immediate area.

A section 79C assessment of the amended proposal has been undertaken by Council staff. It is considered that the proposed development will have a significant visual impact upon the immediate surrounding residential locality. The proposal is, however, considered acceptable in this case subject to the implementation of several recommended conditions of consent. Having said this, given the significance of the western ridgeline of the City it would be open for Council to form an alternative view should the visual impact of the development in this location be considered unacceptable.


 

The assessment of the proposal has highlighted the fact that the proposed development will have a visual impact upon the immediate surrounding residential locality. Council in determining the suitability of the subject site will need to balance the visual impact of the proposed development against the demand and need for such infrastructure within the City. Infrastructure of this type is fast becoming a common element within urban environments. Whilst other sites were initially investigated, Council has been advised by the applicant that Telstra was unsuccessful in obtaining the required tenure from those property owners whose land was of initial interest. As discussed in the body of this report the location of the proposed facility has been adjusted internally within the site to address initial concerns raised by adjoining residents.

ANY SUBMISSIONS MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACT s79C(1)(d)

The proposed development is not defined as advertised development under the provisions of the LEP, however given the nature of and locality of the development the application was initially advertised for a period of 14 days. At the end of the initial exhibition period two submissions had been received objecting to the proposed development. Following receipt of the amended proposal, Council staff arranged for the application to be re‑notified to those persons who were initially given notice of the subject development for an additional period of seven days.

Comment from the Initial Exhibition Period

In summary, the objections expressed opposition to the visual impact that the proposed telecommunications facility will have on the surrounding amenity. The specific issues raised by Submissions 1 and 2 (being the owners of the same property located at 448 The Escort Way which immediately adjoins the subject site) are summarised and commented upon as follows:

·    The visual impact on the surrounding rural amenity.

The submissions raise strong objection to the establishment of a 40m high monopole on the western ridgeline of Ploughmans Valley. The submissions indicate that the proposed development will have a significant visual impact upon large areas of western Orange and, in particular, their property at 448 The Escort Way. The submitters question why a structure of this type can be located within this area given that the area is subject to planning controls that seek to protect the western ridgeline of the City.

Under the former planning provisions contained within Orange LEP 2000 the subject land was subject to scenic protection planning controls. At the Direction of the Department of Planning such controls were not allowed to be carried through with the adoption of Orange LEP 2011. Rather, the Department insisted that such controls be included within a DCP. Given that a DCP is not defined as a formal Environmental Planning Instrument, the determinative weight given to matters within a DCP is less than if such provisions remained within the LEP.


 

The immediate adjoining neighbours will experience the greatest visual impact. There is no hiding a structure of this type in the location proposed. The implementation of landscaping and controls over the colour of the proposed structure may serve to reduce the impact of the development to a degree from distant locations but will do little to reduce the visual impact when viewed from those properties immediately adjoining and adjacent to the subject site. The proposed development when viewed from the adjoining property will have a significant visual impact.

The issue of visual impact of the proposed development has been further addressed under the “Visual Impacts” section under “Likely Impacts of the Development s79C(1)(b)”.

·    Devaluation of property.

The submission received in relation to this issue included no evidence to suggest that the proposed development would have a negative impact upon the resale value of property. In any event, the resale value of adjoining and adjacent properties as a result of this development proceeding is not a relevant planning consideration under the provisions of Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

·    Traffic impacts.

The issue of traffic impact of the proposed development has been outlined under the “Traffic Impacts” section under “Likely Impacts of the Development s79C(1)(b)”.

·    The tower would impact upon the flight path of flying foxes and the migration of Black Duck, Ibis Snipe and other migratory birds.

The submission received in relation to this issue has included no evidence to suggest that the proposed development would have a negative impact upon endangered animals. An assessment of whether there is likely to be a significant effect on threatened species, populations or ecological communities or their habitats has been undertaken above under the heading “Part 5A Assessment”.

Comment from the Second Exhibition Period

Following completion of the re-notification of the application Council received no written submissions.  The revised site location ensures that the proposed facility will not be in the direct line of sight to neighbouring residents, will not have a substantially altered visual impact from the surrounding area (when compared to the original proposed site location), and provides for a compromised location that is more in consideration with the local residents’ preferences, while ensuring Telstra’s radio frequency coverage objectives are met. A detailed analysis of the visual impact from the revised site location has been provided above under the heading “Likely Impacts of the Development”.

Notwithstanding this it is considered that the proposed development will have a significant visual impact upon the immediate surrounding residential locality. The proposal is, however, considered acceptable in this case subject to the implementation of several recommended conditions of consent. Having said this, given the significance of the western ridgeline of the City it would be open for Council to form an alternative view should the visual impact of the development in this location be considered unacceptable.


 

PUBLIC INTEREST s79C(1)(e)

The proposed development is considered to be of some public interest. In a localised sense there are significant adverse visual impacts, which have been discussed in some detail in this report. Conversely there are public benefits to the wider community (which should be considered a public interest) relating to improved telecommunications coverage.

The public interest in this case is considered a central issue. On the one hand there are serious but localised adverse visual impacts. On the other hand there are benefits to the wider community in terms of enhanced communications.

The proposal is not inconsistent with any relevant policy statements, planning studies, guidelines, etc that have not been considered in this assessment.

SUMMARY

The proposed development is permissible with the consent of Council. The applicant and owner of the land have liaised with the three immediately affected adjoining neighbours to gain a consensus on a suitable site within the development site for this facility. Whilst Council staff have not been directly involved in such deliberations with adjoining residents, Council’s records indicate that no objections have been lodged with respect to the revised location of the development.

The proposed development complies with the relevant aims, objectives and provisions of both the Orange LEP and SEPP (Infrastructure). A section 79C assessment of the development indicates that the development will have a significant visual impact. The implementation of landscaping and controls over the colour of the proposed structure may serve to reduce the impact of the development to a degree from distant locations, but will do little to reduce the visual impact when viewed from those properties adjoining and near the subject site as well as large areas of the City and the travelling public along the Escort Way.

Infrastructure of this type is fast becoming a common element within urban environments. Council will therefore need to determine the application having regard to the overall visual impact that the structure will have on surrounding land against the overall public benefit that may result from facilitating improved mobile phone coverage in this locality.

Attached is a draft Notice of Approval outlining a range of conditions considered appropriate to ensure that the development proceeds in an acceptable manner.

It is recommended that Council supports the development.

COMMENTS

The requirements of the Environmental Health and Building Surveyor and the Engineering Development Manager are included in the attached Notice of Approval.

 

Attachments

1          Notice of Approval, D15/7893

2          Plans, D15/8245

3          Submissions, D15/8247

  


Sustainable Development Committee                                                                   7 April 2015

2.2                       Development Application DA 181/2014(1) - 454 The Escort Way

Attachment 1      Notice of Approval

 

leaflogo

ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

 

Development Application No DA 181/2014(1)

 

D15/7893                                                                                        Container PR18313

 

NOTICE OF DETERMINATION

OF A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

issued under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Section 81(1)

 

Development Application

 

  Applicant Name:

Telstra

  Applicant Address:

C/- Aurecon

PO Box 538

NEUTRAL BAY  NSW  2089

  Owner’s Name:

Mr JA and Mrs AM Spencer

  Land to Be Developed:

Lot 100 DP 1035863 - 454 The Escort Way, Orange

  Proposed Development:

Telecommunications Facility (mobile phone base station with 40m high monopole and equipment shelter)

 

 

Building Code of Australia

  building classification:

 

As determined by Certifier

 

 

Determination

 

  Made On:

7 April 2015

  Determination:

CONSENT GRANTED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS DESCRIBED BELOW:

 

 

Consent to Operate From:

8 April 2015

Consent to Lapse On:

8 April 2020

 

Terms of Approval

 

The reasons for the imposition of conditions are:

 

(1)      To ensure a quality urban design for the development which complements the surrounding environment.

(2)      To maintain neighbourhood amenity and character.

(3)      To ensure compliance with relevant statutory requirements.

(4)      To provide adequate public health and safety measures.

(5)      To prevent the proposed development having a detrimental effect on adjoining land uses.

(6)      To minimise the impact of development on the environment.

 

 

 

Conditions

 

(1)      The development must be carried out in accordance with:

 

(a)      Plan/s numbered N109786 V2 Sheet No 01; N109786 V2 Sheet No 02

 

(b)      statements of environmental effects or other similar associated documents that form part of the approval

 

as amended in accordance with any conditions of this consent.


 

PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS

 

(2)      All building work must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia.

 

 

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

 

(3)      The Council must, prior to the release of the Construction Certificate, be given a report:

 

(1)      Showing compliance with any relevant site and height requirements specified by the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 and the Airports (Protection of Airspace) Regulations 1996 of the Commonwealth, and

(2)      Showing that it does not penetrate any obstacle limitation Surface Plan that has been prepared by the operator of an aerodrome or airport operating within 30km of the proposed development and reported to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority Australia.

 

(4)      A Construction Certificate application is required to be submitted to, and issued by, Council/Accredited Certifier prior to any excavation or building works being carried out on site.

 

 

DURING CONSTRUCTION/SITEWORKS

 

(5)      Any adjustments to existing utility services that are made necessary by this development proceeding are to be at the full cost of the developer.

 

 

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF AN OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE

 

(6)      Landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans and shall be permanently maintained to the satisfaction of Council's Manager Development Assessments.

 

(7)      No person is to use or occupy the building or alteration that is the subject of this approval without the prior issuing of an Occupation Certificate.

 

(8)      All of the foregoing conditions are to be at the full cost of the developer and to the requirements and standards of the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code, unless specifically stated otherwise. All work required by the foregoing conditions is to be completed prior to the issuing of an Occupation Certificate, unless stated otherwise.

 

 

MATTERS FOR THE ONGOING PERFORMANCE AND OPERATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT

 

(9)      The monopole and associated headframe shall be finished in a “shale grey” colour and be maintained in perpetuity.

 

 

 

 

Other Approvals

 

(1)      Local Government Act 1993 approvals granted under section 68.

 

          Nil

 

(2)      General terms of other approvals integrated as part of this consent.

 

          Nil


 

 

 

Right of Appeal

 

If you are dissatisfied with this decision, section 97 of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 gives you the right to appeal to the Land and Environment Court within 6 months after the date on which you receive this notice.

* Section 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 does not apply to the determination of a development application for State significant development or local designated development that has been the subject of a Commission of Inquiry.

 

 

  Disability Discrimination Act 1992:

This application has been assessed in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. No guarantee is given that the proposal complies with the Disability Discrimination Act 1992.

 

The applicant/owner is responsible to ensure compliance with this and other anti-discrimination legislation.

 

The Disability Discrimination Act covers disabilities not catered for in the minimum standards called up in the Building Code of Australia which references AS1428.1 - "Design for Access and Mobility". AS1428 Parts 2, 3 and 4 provides the most comprehensive technical guidance under the Disability Discrimination Act currently available in Australia.

 

 

  Disclaimer - S88B Restrictions on the Use of Land:

The applicant should note that there could be covenants in favour of persons other than Council restricting what may be built or done upon the subject land. The applicant is advised to check the position before commencing any work.

 

 

Signed:

On behalf of the consent authority ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

 

 

Signature:

 

 

Name:

 

ALLAN RENIKE - MANAGER DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENTS

 

Date:

 

8 April 2015

 

 


Sustainable Development Committee                                                                                    7 April 2015

2.2                       Development Application DA 181/2014(1) - 454 The Escort Way

Attachment 2      Plans



Sustainable Development Committee                                                              7 April 2015

2.2                       Development Application DA 181/2014(1) - 454 The Escort Way

Attachment 3      Submissions


 


Sustainable Development Committee                                                          7 April 2015

 

 

2.3     Development Application DA 45/2015(1) - 45 Valencia Drive

TRIM REFERENCE:        2015/788

AUTHOR:                       Kelly Walker, Town Planner    

 

 

EXECUTIVE Summary

 

Application lodged

18 February 2015

Applicant/s

Mr D Purvis

C/- GHD Pty Ltd, PO Box 950, ORANGE  NSW  2800

Owner/s

Mr SJ and Mrs AA Atkinson

PO Box 8063, ORANGE EAST  NSW  2800

Land description

Lot 4 DP 1202010 - 45 Valencia Drive, Orange

Proposed land use

Dual Occupancy and Subdivision (two lot residential)

Value of proposed development

$420,000

 

Council's consent is sought for a dual occupancy and two lot residential subdivision at Lot 4 DP 1202010, known as 45 Valencia Drive, Orange. Stage one involves the construction of two single storey dwellings on the existing vacant lot as a dual occupancy. One dwelling will contain four bedrooms, and the other will contain three bedrooms. Both dwellings contain two bathrooms, laundry, open plan living and kitchen, separate lounge, and attached double garage.

The second stage of the proposal involves a two lot Torrens subdivision, where both proposed lots will have frontage and access off Valencia Drive. Lot 4A is proposed at 650m2, and Lot 4B is proposed at 600m2.

As the proposal involves the subdivision of a dual occupancy, it must meet the requirements of Clause 4.1C of Orange LEP 2011, which allows exceptions to minimum lot sizes in this area and zone provided the site is identified on the LEP Minimum Lot Size Map as having a minimum lot size of 850m2. This site is unusual in that it is identified as having both 2,000m2 and 850m2 minimum lot size standards, with the boundary between the two minimum lot size standards running approximately half way through the lot. As such, the applicant has submitted justification to overcome this development standard irregularity under Clause 4.6 of the LEP.

Council staff consider this contravention to be acceptable as the intention of the two different lot size standards in this area was to ensure larger lots backing onto the Northern Distributor Road (NDR), and smaller lots on the western side of Valencia Drive. The LEP mapping has an anomaly where the boundary between the different lot size minimums does not follow the exact course of Valencia Drive. Most of the existing lots on the western side of Valencia Drive are less than 2,000m2, including the subject site. The development is consistent with the objectives for development within the R2 zone, and with the residential development and subdivision guidelines as set out in the DCP.

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan strategy “13.4 Our Environment – Monitor and enforce regulations relating to City amenity”.

Financial Implications

Nil

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

 

 

Recommendation

1        That Council grants consent to development application DA 45/2015(1) for Dual Occupancy and Subdivision (two lot residential) at Lot 4 DP 1202010 - 45 Valencia Drive, Orange pursuant to the conditions of consent in the attached Notice of Approval.

2        That Council grant such consent under the provisions of Clause 4.6 - Exceptions to Development Standards of Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 relating to a variation of development standards of Clause 4.1.

 

further considerations

Consideration has been given to the recommendation’s impact on Council’s service delivery; image and reputation; political; environmental; health and safety; employees; stakeholders and project management; and no further implications or risks have been identified.

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

THE APPLICATION

Council's consent is sought for the construction of two dwellings as a dual occupancy and a two lot subdivision, one on each resulting lot, at Lot 4 DP 1202010, known as 45 Valencia Drive, Orange as described in the proposal below.

THE PROPOSAL

The proposal can be summarised in the following table:

Stage 1

Stage 2

Dual Occupancy

Subdivision

Dwelling

Gross Floor Area

Description

Lot

Area

1

220.5m²

four bedroom dwelling

4A

650m²

2

198.0m²

three bedroom dwelling

4B

600m²

Dual Occupancy - Dwellings

The two single storey dwellings will each contain three or four bedrooms, two bathrooms, open plan living, kitchen and dining areas, a laundry and an attached double garage. External finishes include brick walls with some rendering of the front elevation, Colorbond roofing and fascia, aluminium windows and panel lift garage doors. Landscaping will be provided to the street frontages, panel lift garage doors, and Colorbond fencing on the side and rear elevations.

Torrens Subdivision

The applicant is proposing a two lot Torrens subdivision. Proposed Lot 4A will be 650m², and proposed Lot 4B will be 600m², and both will have direct frontage to, and access off Valencia Drive.

MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION

Section 5A Assessment

In the administration of sections 78A, 79B, 79C, 111 and 112, the provisions of Section 5A must be taken into account for every development application, in deciding whether there is likely to be a significant effect on threatened species, populations or ecological communities or their habitats. This section includes a requirement to consider any adopted assessment guidelines, which means assessment guidelines issued and in force under section 94A of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. Assessment guidelines are in force (see DECC-W “Threatened Species Assessment Guidelines - The Assessment of Significance”) which requires consent authority to adopt the precautionary principle in its assessment.

In this instance, site inspection reveals that the subject property has no biodiversity or habitat value.

Section 79C

Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 requires Council to consider various matters, of which those pertaining to the application are listed below.

PROVISIONS OF ANY ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENT s79C(1)(a)(i)

Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011

Part 1 - Preliminary

Clause 1.2 - Aims of Plan

The broad aims of the LEP are set out under subclause 2. Those relevant to the application are as follows:

(a)     to encourage development which complements and enhances the unique character of Orange as a major regional centre boasting a diverse economy and offering an attractive regional lifestyle,

(b)     to provide for a range of development opportunities that contribute to the social, economic and environmental resources of Orange in a way that allows present and future generations to meet their needs by implementing the principles for ecologically sustainable development,

(e)     to provide a range of housing choices in planned urban and rural locations to meet population growth.

The application is considered to be reasonably consistent with the relevant aims of LEP 2011.

Clause 1.6 - Consent Authority

This clause establishes that, subject to the Act, Council is the consent authority for applications made under the LEP.

Clause 1.9A - Suspension of Covenants, Agreements and Instruments

This clause provides that covenants, agreements and other instruments which seek to restrict the carrying out of development do not apply with the following exceptions.

·    covenants imposed or required by Council

·    prescribed instruments under Section 183A of the Crown Lands Act 1989

·    any conservation agreement under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974

·    any trust agreement under the Nature Conservation Trust Act 2001

·    any property vegetation plan under the Native Vegetation Act 2003

·    any biobanking agreement under Part 7A of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995

·    any planning agreement under Division 6 of Part 4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

The subject land contains a drainage easement in the north-western corner of the site, however the proposed development will not affect the continued operation of that easement. There is also an old covenant on the southern boundary of the site, which refers to the transferrers not having to contribute to dividing fencing. This will not be affected as the proposal includes provision of a new boundary fence. Council staff are not aware of the title of the subject property being affected by any of the above.

Mapping

The subject site is identified on the LEP maps in the following manner:

Land Zoning Map:

Land zoned R2 Low Density Residential

Lot Size Map:

Minimum Lot Size 2000m2 at front of site, 850m2 at rear of the site

Heritage Map:

Not a heritage item or conservation area

Height of Buildings Map:

No building height limit

Floor Space Ratio Map:

No floor space limit

Terrestrial Biodiversity Map:

No biodiversity sensitivity on the site

Groundwater Vulnerability Map:

Ground water vulnerable

Drinking Water Catchment Map:

Not within the drinking water catchment

Watercourse Map:

Not within or affecting a defined watercourse

Urban Release Area Map:

Not within an urban release area

Obstacle Limitation Surface Map:

No restriction on building siting or construction

Additional Permitted Uses Map:

No additional permitted use applies

Those matters that are of relevance are addressed in detail in the body of this report.


 

Part 2 - Permitted or Prohibited Development

Land Use Zones

The subject site is located within the R2 Low Density Residential zone. The proposed development is defined as a dual occupancy and subdivision under OLEP 2011. Pursuant to the dictionary contain within OLEP 2011 a dual occupancy (detached) means:

two detached dwellings on one lot of land, but does not include a secondary dwelling.

Pursuant to section 4B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act subdivision of land means:

the division of land into two or more parts that, after the division, would be obviously adapted for separate occupation, use or disposition.

Dual occupancies and subdivision are permissible in the R2 General Residential zone with the consent of Council.

Clause 2.3 of LEP 2011 references the Objectives for each zone in LEP 2011. These objectives for land zoned R2 – Low Density Residential are as follows:

•    To provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment.

•    To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.

•    To ensure development is ordered in such a way as to maximise public transport patronage and encourage walking and cycling in close proximity to settlement.

•    To ensure that development along the Southern Link Road has an alternative access.

The proposed development would act to provide additional housing stock and will provide a variation of housing type and density for the City. The subject site is within close proximity to routes used by public transport. The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the zone.

Clause 2.6 - Subdivision - Consent Requirements

Application has been made for the subdivision of the subject land. Clause 2.6 of OLEP 2011 permits the subdivision of the subject land only with development consent.

Part 3 - Exempt and Complying Development

The application is not exempt or complying development.

Part 4 - Principal Development Standards

Clause 4.1 - Minimum Subdivision Lot Size

This clause requires the size of any lot resulting from a subdivision of land to be equal to or greater than the size nominated for the land under the Minimum Lot Size Map.


 

In relation to this site, the map nominates two minimum lot sizes. The eastern half of the site is within the 2,000m² minimum lot size area, and the western half is within the 850m² minimum lot size area. The smallest lot proposed by the application is 600m², which is below these minimum lot sizes and therefore inconsistent with this clause. However, the application is seeking consent under Clause 4.1.C which has exceptions to minimum lot sizes for certain residential development, which is addressed below.

Clause 4.1C - Exceptions to Minimum Lot Sizes for Certain Residential Development

This clause applies to land in Ploughmans Valley that is both:

(a)     within zone R2 Low Density Residential, and

(b)     identified on the Lot Size Map as having a minimum lot size of 850m2.

Development consent may be granted for the subdivision of land to which this clause applies if a dual occupancy is lawfully erected on the land, and the area of each resulting lot will not be less than 600m2 for a dual occupancy (detached).

As noted above, the Minimum Lot Size Map nominates two different minimum sizes for the subject site, being both 2,000m² and 850m², therefore the proposal development does not strictly meet the requirements to that part of the land that is subject to the 2000m2 lot size requirement. The application seeks an exception to this development standard under Clause 4.6 of the LEP, which is addressed below.

Clause 4.6 - Exceptions to Development Standards

This clause allows development consent to be granted for development which contravenes a development standard imposed by the LEP. It requires a written request from the applicant that seeks to justify the contravention by demonstrating:

(a)     that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and

(b)     that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

The applicant justifies that compliance with the standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances because:

·    sites fronting major roads generally have larger lot sizes (2,000m²) to provide visual and acoustic separation from the road, and there are examples of smaller lots (600m² or less) on the opposite side of the road as in this case;

·    there is land identified on the LEP maps fronting the Northern Distributor Road (NDR) which has the ability to be subdivided as low as 600m²;

·    the site is elevated from the NDR, so noise and visual impacts are negligible, and the site is buffered by the larger lots adjacent to the NDR; and

·    the existing streetscape is made up of lots smaller than 2,000m² on the western side of Valencia Drive.

The applicant also states that there are sufficient planning grounds to justify the contravention with the development standard, where the proposal is consistent with the zone’s objectives.

Relevantly, the applicable objectives of clause 4.1A – Minimum Subdivision lot size are:

(a)     to ensure that new subdivisions reflect existing lot sizes and patterns in the surrounding locality,

(b)     to ensure that lot sizes have a practical and efficient layout to meet intended use.

It is considered that the contravention is acceptable in this case as the proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the minimum lot size standard as intended in the LEP and in the DCP, despite the anomaly in the Minimum Lot Size Map. The intention of the two different lot sizes in this area was to ensure larger lots backing onto the NDR and smaller lots on the western side of Valencia Drive. The LEP mapping has an anomaly, where the boundary between the different lot size minimums does not follow the exact course of Valencia Drive. The site is sufficiently separated from the NDR to be acceptable for a dual occupancy as allowed by Clause 4.1C of the LEP. Furthermore the development is consistent with the objectives for development within the R2 zone.

On this basis Council can be satisfied that the development is not antipathetic to the relevant objections of clause 4.1 to the extent that approval of the application will not undermine the minimum lot size provisions relating to Ploughmans Valley, nor will it create a situation where the lots are impractical or inefficient for the intended residential purposes. Therefore, compliance with the applicable development standard would be unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstance and the variation of the development standard should be supported.

Clause 4.6 of the LEP requires Council to obtain concurrence from the Director General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure, unless the subject variation is within the scope of delegations issued to Council by the Director General. Council is in receipt of an email from the Regional Department of Planning with regards to a similar proposal (DA 346/2012(1) - 1 Elberta Street) advising that Council has delegation to determine applications of this type and that the concurrence of the Director General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure is not required.

Part 7 - Additional Local Provisions

7.1 - Earthworks

This clause establishes a range of matters that must be considered prior to granting development consent for any application involving earthworks, such as:

(a)     the likely disruption of, or any detrimental effect on, existing drainage patterns and soil stability in the locality of the development

(b)     the effect of the development on the likely future use or redevelopment of the land

(c)     the quality of the fill or the soil to be excavated, or both

(d)     the effect of the development on the existing and likely amenity of adjoining properties

(e)     the source of any fill material and the destination of any excavated material

(f)     the likelihood of disturbing relics

(g)     the proximity to and potential for adverse impacts on any waterway, drinking water catchment or environmentally sensitive area

(h)     any measures proposed to minimise or mitigate the impacts referred to in paragraph (g).

The earthworks proposed in the application are limited to the extent of cutting and filling required for the dwellings. The extent of disruption to the drainage of the site is considered to be relatively minor and will not detrimentally affect adjoining properties or receiving waterways.

The extent of the earthworks will not materially affect the potential future use or redevelopment of the site that may occur at the end of the proposed development's lifespan.

The site is not known to be contaminated, nor is the site known to contain any Aboriginal, European or archaeological relics. Previous known uses of the site do not suggest that any relics are likely to be uncovered. However, conditions are imposed to ensure that should site works uncover a potential relic or artefact, works will be halted to enable proper investigation by relevant authorities and the proponent required to seek relevant permits to either destroy or relocate the findings.

The earthworks will be appropriately supported onsite and the change in ground level is not substantial. Therefore the effect on the amenity of adjoining properties is considered to be minor.

The site is not in proximity to any waterway, drinking water catchment or sensitive area. Conditions are imposed to require a sediment control plan, including silt traps and other protective measures, to ensure that loose dirt and sediment does not escape the site boundaries.

7.3 - Stormwater Management

This clause applies to all industrial, commercial and residential zones and requires that Council be satisfied that the proposal:

(a)     is designed to maximise the use of water permeable surfaces on the land having regard to the soil characteristics affecting onsite infiltration of water

(b)     includes, where practical, onsite stormwater retention for use as an alternative supply to mains water, groundwater or river water; and

(c)     avoids any significant impacts of stormwater runoff on adjoining downstream properties, native bushland and receiving waters, or if that impact cannot be reasonably avoided, minimises and mitigates the impact.

The proposal has been designed to include permeable surfaces and will be connected to the existing stormwater mains. It is therefore considered that the post development runoff levels will be acceptable.

7.6 - Groundwater Vulnerability

This clause seeks to protect hydrological functions of groundwater systems and protect resources from both depletion and contamination. Orange has a high water table and large areas of the LGA, including the subject site, are identified with “Groundwater Vulnerability” on the Groundwater Vulnerability Map. This requires that Council consider:


 

(a)     whether or not the development (including any onsite storage or disposal of solid or liquid waste and chemicals) is likely to cause any groundwater contamination or have any adverse effect on groundwater dependent ecosystems, and

(b)     the cumulative impact (including the impact on nearby groundwater extraction for potable water supply or stock water supply) of the development and any other existing development on groundwater.

Furthermore consent may not be granted unless Council is satisfied that:

(a)     the development is designed, sited and will be managed to avoid any significant adverse environmental impact, or

(b)     if that impact cannot be reasonably avoided - the development is designed, sited and will be managed to minimise that impact,

(c)     if that impact cannot be minimised - the development will be managed to mitigate that impact.

The proposal is not anticipated to involve the discharge of toxic or noxious substances and is therefore unlikely to contaminate the groundwater or related ecosystems. The proposal does not involve extraction of groundwater and will therefore not contribute to groundwater depletion. The design and siting of the proposal avoids impacts on groundwater and is therefore considered acceptable.

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICIES

State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index BASIX) applies to the subject development. The applicant has submitted a BASIX certificate in support of the development which demonstrates compliance with the State Government Water and Thermal efficiency targets. The application is consistent with the SEPP.

PROVISIONS OF ANY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENT THAT HAS BEEN PLACED ON EXHIBITION s79C(1)(a)(ii)

There are no draft environmental planning instruments that apply to the subject land or proposed development.

PROVISIONS OF ANY DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN s79C(1)(a)(iii)

Development Control Plan 2004

Development Control Plan 2004 (“the DCP”) applies to the subject land (Part 0 – LEP 2011 and Part - 7 Development in Residential Areas). An assessment of the proposed development against the relevant Planning Outcomes will be undertaken below.

Pursuant to Planning Outcome 0.2-1 Interim Planning Outcomes - Conversion of Zones:

·    Throughout this Plan, any reference to a zone in Orange LEP 2000 is to be taken to be a reference to the corresponding zone(s) in the zone conversion table.

The corresponding zone to zone 2(a) Urban Residential (Orange LEP 2000) is zone R2 Low Density Residential (Orange LEP 2011). As such, Orange DCP 2004-07 - Development in Residential Areas is relevant to this proposal. The provisions of Part 7 are considered below.


 

Part 7 - Design Elements for Residential Development

The DCP sets the following Planning Outcomes in regard to Urban Residential Development for the dual occupancy.

Neighbourhood Character

The DCP sets the following Planning Outcomes in regard to Neighbourhood Character:

·      Site layout and building design enables the:

-    creation of attractive residential environments with clear character and identity

-    use of site features such as views, aspect, existing vegetation and landmarks

·      Buildings are designed to complement the relevant features and built form that are identified as part of the desired neighbourhood character.

·      The streetscape is designed to encourage pedestrian access and use.

The character and identity of the development are influenced by building design that maintains a common theme and consistent use of materials. It is considered that the proposal will complement the pattern of development that characterises the “Ploughmans Valley” residential neighbourhood, that being contemporary, single storey detached dwellings at the site frontage. The proposal will provide for a continuation of residential land use, albeit in a more compact form. Whilst the scale of the proposed dwellings is slightly smaller than typical residential development in this area, the building design and detailing will appropriately relate to the finishes of recently established dwellings in nearby streets. The proposed landscaping will provide integration of the dwellings in the developing streetscape and improve the visual impact of hardstand vehicle areas.

Building Appearance

The DCP sets the following Planning Outcomes in regard to Building Appearance:

·    The building design, detailing and finishes relate to the desired neighbourhood character, complement the residential scale of the area, and add visual interest to the street.

·    The frontages of buildings and their entries face the street.

·    Garages and car parks are sited and designed so that they do not dominate the street frontage.

The external finishes are considered appropriate in this neighbourhood. The building design and detailing will complement recent dwellings constructed in this locality. Both dwellings will address the street, with a stepped façade, vertical windows and a front porch. The attached double garages will be set back slightly behind the main front façades of each dwelling, which is satisfactory. The garages will comprise less than 50% of the dwellings’ frontages, in compliance with the DCP requirements.


 

Setbacks

The DCP sets the following Planning Outcomes in regard to Setbacks:

·    Street setbacks contribute to the desired neighbourhood character, assist with the integration of new development and make efficient use of the site.

·    Street setbacks create an appropriate scale for the street considering all other streetscape components.

Proposed Dwelling 1 will have a front setback of at least 7.5m, with the attached garage being set back at least 6.0m. Proposed Dwelling 2 will have a front setback of at least 8.4m, and a garage setback of at least 5.1m. The garages are setback from the main front façades, however are closer to the street when measured as the street is on an angle running north-northwest. The proposed front setbacks are considered satisfactory.

Visual Bulk

The DCP sets the following Planning Outcome in regard to Visual Bulk:

·    Built form accords with the desired neighbourhood character of the area with:

-   side and rear setbacks progressively increased to reduce bulk and overshadowing

-   site coverage that retains the relatively low density landscaped character of residential areas

-   building form and siting that relates to landform, with minimal land shaping (cut and fill)

-   building height at the street frontage that maintains a comparable scale with the predominant adjacent development form

-   building to the boundary where appropriate.

As a dual occupancy, the dwellings will have a site coverage of 37.1%, which is consistent with the 50% site coverage requirement set out in the DCP. Once the site is subdivided in Stage 2 of the proposed development, they will become single dwellings, which allows for 60% coverage. Dwelling 1 also proposes a rear garden shed, which has been included in the calculations. As shown in the table below, compliance can also be achieved when they become single dwellings.

Dwelling

Footprint

Site Area

Site Coverage

1

247.5m²

650m²

38%

2

216.4m²

600m²

36%

The DCP requires dwellings to be contained within the prescribed envelopes generated by planes projected at 45o over the site commencing 2.5m above existing ground level from each side and rear boundary. The development is sufficiently set back from the side and rear boundaries, and as such will be contained within these planes and is considered acceptable.


 

Walls and Boundaries

The DCP sets the following Planning Outcome in regard to Walls and Boundaries:

·    Building to the boundary is undertaken to provide for efficient use of the site taking into account:

-   the privacy of neighbouring dwellings and private open space

-   the access to daylight reaching adjoining properties

-   the impact of boundary walls on neighbours.

Dwelling 1 will be built 0.9m off the southern side boundary as set out in the DCP guidelines, and all other boundary setbacks are greater than this, ensuring sufficient privacy and daylighting to neighbouring properties.

Daylight and Sunlight

The DCP sets the following Planning Outcome in regard to Daylight and Sunlight:

·    Buildings are sited and designed to ensure:

-   daylight to habitable rooms in adjacent dwellings is not significantly reduced

-   overshadowing of neighbouring secluded open spaces or main living area windows is not significantly increased

-   consideration of Council’s Energy Efficiency Code.

Shadow diagrams have been prepared in support of the proposed development. In consideration of the DCP Guidelines, the proposal is considered to be satisfactory as outlined below:

Overshadowing of Dwellings

According to the DCP Guidelines and Council’s Energy Efficiency Code, sunlight to at least 75% of north-facing living area windows within the development and on adjoining land is to be provided for a minimum of four hours on 21 June; or not further reduced than existing where already less.

Submitted shadow diagrams show that sufficient daylighting can be achieved to northern windows between 10am and 2pm for both Dwellings 1 and 2.

Overshadowing of Private Open Space

In order to provide open space that occupants can use and enjoy, the DCP requires sunlight to be available to at least 40% of the main area of open space for both dwellings within the development and on neighbouring properties for at least three hours between 9am and 3pm.

The submitted shadow diagrams demonstrate that sufficient daylighting will be available to the areas of private open space on the subject site and on neighbouring sites.

Given the siting and layout of the dwellings on the lots, there will not be any daylighting impacts on neighbouring dwellings.


 

Views

The DCP sets the following Planning Outcomes in regard to Views:

·    Building form and design allow for residents from adjacent properties to share prominent views where possible.

·    Views including vistas of heritage items or landmarks are not substantially affected by the bulk and scale of the new development.

The subject site is not within an important view corridor. The proposed dwellings will not unreasonably diminish views for other properties in the vicinity.

Visual Privacy

The DCP sets the following Planning Outcome in regard to Visual Privacy:

·    Direct overlooking of principal living areas and private open spaces of other dwellings is minimised firstly by:

-   building siting and layout

-   location of windows and balconies

and secondly by:

-   design of windows or use of screening devices and landscaping.

The submitted plans show that the placement, orientation and size of windows for each dwelling are such that the potential to overlook other dwellings is minimal. The dwellings have been offset from one another to maximise visual privacy between them, and perimeter fencing will be installed to maintain privacy to internal and external habitable spaces. Landscaping is proposed near the front entrance for both dwellings.

Acoustic Privacy

The DCP sets the following Planning Outcome in regard to Acoustic Privacy:

·    Site layout and building design:

-   protect habitable rooms from excessively high levels of external noise

-   minimise the entry of external noise to private open space for dwellings close to major noise sources

-   minimise transmission of sound through a building to affect other dwellings.

In consideration of the DCP Guidelines the proposal is considered to be satisfactory. The site is located in an area where ambient noise levels are expected to be low due to the predominant residential land use pattern. The dwellings are detached, thus limiting the potential for sound penetration between them.

It is noted that the development is located near to the Northern Distributor Road, however there will not be any adverse noise impacts to the dwellings due to sufficient separation distance from the road and the existing sound abatement measures in place.


 

Security

The DCP sets the following Planning Outcomes in regard to Security:

·    The site layout enhances personal safety and minimises the potential for crime, vandalism and fear.

·    The design of dwellings enables residents to survey streets, communal areas and approaches to dwelling entrances.

The siting and design of both dwellings is appropriate to maintain safety and minimise the potential for crime, vandalism and fear for residents. Habitable room windows will address public roads, thereby providing opportunities for natural surveillance. The proposed landscaping and fencing will not restrict sightlines to public areas and will provide territorial reinforcement and delineate public and private spaces. Internal access to the dwellings will be available through the garages.

Circulation and Design

The DCP sets the following Planning Outcome in regard to Circulation and Design:

·    Accessways and parking areas are designed to manage stormwater.

·    Accessways, driveways and open parking areas are suitably landscaped to enhance amenity while providing security and accessibility to residents and visitors.

·    The site layout allows people with a disability to travel to and within the site between car parks, buildings and communal open space.

Both Dwellings 1 and 2 have direct street frontages to Valencia Drive. Separate access will be provided to the proposed lots via vehicle crossings and driveways. The proposed driveways are well separated from the intersection with Gala Crescent and Mariposa Street. Reverse egress will be required for both dwellings, consistent with vehicle manoeuvring arrangements for single dwellings throughout the City.

Car Parking

The DCP sets the following Planning Outcomes in regard to Car Parking:

·    Parking facilities are provided, designed and located to:

-   enable the efficient and convenient use of car spaces and accessways within the site

-   reduce the visual dominance of car parking areas and accessways.

·    Car parking is provided with regard to the:

-   the number and size of proposed dwellings

-   requirements of people with limited mobility or disabilities.

In consideration of the DCP Guidelines, the proposal is considered to be satisfactory. According to the car parking table in the DCP, the development generates a parking requirement of three off-street spaces (based on 1.5 spaces for each three or more bedroom dwelling).


 

The submitted plans show provision for eight off-street parking spaces in the form of an attached double garage for each dwelling and two tandem spaces in front of the garage of each dwelling. There are no objections to the proposed parking arrangements.

Private Open Space

The DCP sets the following Planning Outcomes in regard to Private Open Space:

·    Private open space is clearly defined for private use.

·    Private open space areas are of a size, shape and slope to suit the reasonable requirements of residents including some outdoor recreational needs and service functions.

·    Private open space is:

–   capable of being an extension of the dwelling for outdoor living, entertainment and recreation

–   accessible from a living area of the dwelling

–   located to take advantage of outlooks; and to reduce adverse impacts of overshadowing or privacy from adjoining buildings

–   Orientated to optimise year round use.

The following table demonstrates that each of the proposed dwellings is provided with open space that complies with the minimum requirement in terms of area.

Dwelling

Living Area (ex. Garage, porches, patios etc)

Private Open Space Required by DCP

Private Open Space Provided

1

186.28m²

93.14m²

235.4m2

2

163.78m²

81.89m²

195.6m2

All private open space is provided behind the front building line. The site plan confirms that the private open space for each residential unit will have a minimum dimension of 3m and the yards are able to provide an area of at least 5m x 5m with access to northern sun, consistent with the requirements of the DCP. The internal living area for each dwelling will connect to its respective area of private open space via glass sliding doors that open out onto an alfresco area. Each private open space area will be enclosed by 1.8m high fencing.

The applicant has adequately demonstrated compliance with the Planning Outcomes for private open space.


 

Open Space and Landscaping

The DCP sets the following Planning Outcomes in regard to Open Space and Landscaping:

·    The site layout provides open space and landscaped areas which:

–   contribute to the character of the development by providing buildings in a landscaped setting

–   provide for a range of uses and activities including stormwater management

–   allow cost effective management.

·    The landscape design specifies landscape themes consistent with the desired neighbourhood character; vegetation types and location, paving and lighting provided for access and security.

·    Major existing trees are retained and protected in a viable condition whenever practicable through appropriate siting of buildings, accessways and parking areas.

·    Paving is applied sparingly and integrated in the landscape design.

A landscape plan has been submitted in support of the proposal, which includes plant species that will provide integration of the dwellings and driveways within the site. The proposed landscaping will include species that are considered to be suitable to the Orange area, in particular native shrubs and groundcovers, as well as trees. The development is consistent with the above planning outcome.

Stormwater

The DCP sets the following Planning Outcomes in regard to Stormwater:

·    On-site drainage systems are designed to consider:

–   downstream capacity and need for on-site retention, detention and re-use

–   scope for on-site infiltration of water

–   safety and convenience of pedestrians and vehicles

–   overland flow paths.

·    Provision is made for on-site drainage which does not cause damage or nuisance flows to adjoining properties.

Relevant conditions of consent are attached to the notice in relation to stormwater management of the site.

Erosion and Sedimentation

The DCP sets the following Planning Outcome in regard to Erosion and Sedimentation:

·    Measures implemented during construction to ensure that the landform is stabilised and erosion is controlled.

An erosion and sediment control plan will be required to be prepared as part of the engineering design plans for the development. Attached is a condition of consent addressing this issue.


 

Subdivision

The DCP sets the following (applicable) Planning Outcomes in regard to residential subdivision in Ploughmans Valley:

·    Subdivision design and construction complies with the Orange Development and Subdivision Code.

The subdivision design and construction will be required to comply with the Orange Development and Subdivision Code. Attached is a condition of consent addressing this issue.

·    The allotment layout provides a high standard of residential amenity:

–   In Area 2 lots have a minimum size of 850m2.

The proposed lots are 650m² and 600m² in area respectively, which are under the 850m² minimum requirement; however, the lot sizes meet the exception to this as set out in the LEP as addressed earlier in this report. There is also a clause within the DCP which states that:

Dual occupancy development within Ploughmans Valley may be subdivided, upon completion of building works, to create two separate allotments with areas less than 850m2.

·    The allotment layout maximises energy-efficiency principles.

The proposed lots can achieve sufficient daylight to windows and areas of private open space, and BASIX Certificates have been provided for each dwelling.

·    Subdivision design retains significant landscape features and minimises disturbance to natural vegetation, landform and over-flow paths.

·    Stormwater runoff from the site is consistent with pre-development stormwater patterns.

·    Drainage systems are designed to consider catchment and downstream capacities, on-site retention and reuse and overland-flow paths.

The current site is vacant and requires only minimal cut and fill to construct the two dwellings. By subdivision stage this site will be considered highly altered. Vegetation and overland flowpaths were considered during the original subdivision of the area. Conditions of consent will ensure that stormwater drainage will be appropriate for the area.

·    All utility services are provided to the proposed lots.

Council’s Technical Services Division advises that all utility services are available to the site and adequate for the proposal. The proposed development will be connected to Council’s sewer, town water and stormwater reticulations in accordance with normal requirements. Power, telephone and natural gas services will be connected to the dwellings in accordance with the requirements of the relevant supply authority. Attached is a condition of consent addressing this issue.


 

·    Lots are fully serviced and have direct frontage and access to a public road.

The proposed lots will each have direct street frontage and legal and practical access to Valencia Drive. Separate access will be provided to the proposed lots via vehicle crossings and driveways. Council’s Technical Services Division has advised of no objections to the proposed access arrangements.

DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS PLAN 2012

Section 94 Development Contributions

The development has been assessed pursuant to Orange Development Contributions Plan 2012. The following table itemises the contributions payable for the development. A condition is attached to reflect the following requirements. The development includes a new four bedroom dwelling and new three bedroom dwelling, and the lot has a credit for one three bedroom dwelling. As such, the contribution is calculated on the basis of one new four bedroom dwelling, which is considered as a ‘three or more bedroom dwelling’.

The payment of $18,647.70 is to be made to Council in accordance with section 94 of the Act and Orange Development Contributions Plan 2012 (Ploughmans Valley) towards the provision of the following public facilities:

Open Space and Recreation

@ $4,639.08 x 1 additional 3+ bedroom dwelling

4,639.08

Community and Cultural

@ $791.34 x 1 additional 3+ bedroom dwelling

791.34

Roads and Cycleways

@ $5,733.33 x 1 additional 3+ bedroom dwelling

5,733.33

Stormwater Drainage

@ $444.19 x 1 additional 3+ bedroom dwelling

444.19

Local Area Facilities

@ $6,496.63 x 1 additional 3+ bedroom dwelling

6,496.63

Plan Preparation & Administration

@ $543.13 x 1 additional 3+ bedroom dwelling

543.13

TOTAL:

 

$18,647.70

The contribution will be indexed quarterly in accordance with the Orange Development Contributions Plan 2012 (Ploughmans Valley).

Section 64 Water and Sewer Headworks Charges

Section 64 water and sewer headwork charges are also applicable to the proposal. Such charges are calculated at the time of release of a Construction Certificate for the proposed dual occupancy development. Attached are draft conditions requiring the payment of the required contributions prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

PROVISIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE REGULATIONS s79C(1)(a)(iv)

The development is not inconsistent with the provisions prescribed by the regulations.

THE LIKELY IMPACTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT s79C(1)(b)

Traffic Impacts

The capacity of the road network in the vicinity of the site is sufficient to accommodate additional localised traffic generated by the development. As previously considered (see “DCP 2004”), proposed parking and manoeuvring arrangements are acceptable.


 

Neighbourhood Amenity

The proposed dwellings will provide and retain a reasonable standard of residential amenity for the proposed dwellings and development on adjoining lands in respect of solar access, privacy, etc. The proposed development will provide for a continuation of residential land use, albeit in a more compact form, and will not alter the function of the neighbourhood. The development will not have adverse impacts on neighbourhood amenity.

Cumulative Impacts

The proposal is considered to be satisfactory in terms of cumulative impact. The proposal will maintain the pattern of single storey detached dwellings that characterises this streetscape. The building design and detailing for the proposed dwellings will generally complement the style of adjoining established dwellings. The proposal provides for a continuation of residential land use, albeit in a more compact form.

The proposed development will not reduce the open space, solar access or privacy afforded to neighbouring properties. Similarly, the site layout and building design will provide a reasonable standard of residential amenity for the proposed dwellings in terms of open space, daylighting and privacy.

Environmental Impacts

The subject land has been recently subdivided and works have been undertaken to create a residential site. As a result, significant vegetation, threatened species or ecological endangered communities or their habitats are unlikely. The proposed development will not impact upon the locality in terms of environmental impacts.

Soil Erosion and Stormwater

Provided that adequate measures are implemented during the construction phase, the proposed development would not generate adverse impacts in terms of soil erosion and stormwater. Attached are recommended conditions of consent addressing this issue.

THE SUITABILITY OF THE SITE s79C(1)(c)

Servicing

Council’s Technical Services Division advises that all utility services are available to the site and adequate for the proposal. The proposed development will be connected to Council’s sewer, town water and stormwater reticulations in accordance with normal requirements. Power, telephone and natural gas services will be connected to the dwellings in accordance with the requirements of the relevant supply authority. Attached is a condition of consent addressing this issue.

Physical Attributes

The subject site is considered to be suitable for the proposed development. There are no physical attributes within the site that would unreasonably constrain the development.


 

ANY SUBMISSIONS MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACT s79C(1)(d)

The proposed development is defined as "advertised development" under the provisions of the LEP. The application was advertised for the prescribed period of 14 days and at the end of that period no submissions were received.

PUBLIC INTEREST s79C(1)(e)

The proposed development is considered to be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the subdivision and residential development standards, as well as the objectives for the R2 zone. It is considered to be of minor interest to the wider public due to the relatively localised nature of potential impacts.

SUMMARY

The proposed development is permissible with the consent of Council. The proposed development complies with the relevant aims, objectives and provisions of the LEP. A section 79C assessment of the development indicates that the development is acceptable in this instance. Attached is a draft Notice of Approval outlining a range of conditions considered appropriate to ensure that the development proceeds in an acceptable manner.

COMMENTS

The requirements of the Environmental Health and Building Surveyor and the Engineering Development Manager are included in the attached Notice of Approval.

 

Attachments

1          Notice of Approval, D15/8400

2          Plans, D15/7628

 


Sustainable Development Committee                                                                   7 April 2015

2.3                       Development Application DA 45/2015(1) - 45 Valencia Drive

Attachment 1      Notice of Approval

 

leaflogo

ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

 

Development Application No DA 45/2015(1)

 

NA15/                                                                                             Container PR26768

 

 

NOTICE OF DETERMINATION

OF A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

issued under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Section 81(1)

 

Development Application

 

  Applicant Name:

Mr D Purvis

  Applicant Address:

C/- GHD Pty Ltd

PO Box 950

ORANGE  NSW  2800

  Owner’s Name:

Mr DW and Mrs NS Purvis

  Land to Be Developed:

Lot 4 DP 1202010 - 45 Valencia Drive, Orange

  Proposed Development:

Dual Occupancy and Subdivision (two lot residential)

 

 

Building Code of Australia

  building classification:

 

To be determined by the PCA

 

 

Determination

 

  Made On:

7 April 2015

  Determination:

CONSENT GRANTED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS DESCRIBED BELOW:

 

 

Consent to Operate From:

8 April 2015

Consent to Lapse On:

8 April 2020

 

Terms of Approval

 

The reasons for the imposition of conditions are:

 

(1)      To ensure compliance with relevant statutory requirements.

(2)      To provide adequate public health and safety measures.

(3)      To ensure a quality urban design for the development which complements the surrounding environment.

(4)      To maintain neighbourhood amenity and character.

(5)      Because the development will require the provision of, or increase the demand for, public amenities and services.

(6)      To ensure the utility services are available to the site and adequate for the development.

(7)      To prevent the proposed development having a detrimental effect on adjoining land uses.

(8)      To minimise the impact of development on the environment.

 

 

 

 


 

Conditions

 

(1)      The development must be carried out in accordance with:

 

(a)      Drawings by Bassmann Drafting Services, dated 18.09.2014, 13 sheets numbered:   - DA1, DA3, DA5, DA6, DA 12 and DA13 Issue C; DA2, DA4, DA7-DA11 Issue D

 

(b)      statements of environmental effects or other similar associated documents that form part of the approval

 

as amended in accordance with any conditions of this consent.

 

 

PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS

 

(2)      All building work must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia.

 

(3)      A sign is to be erected in a prominent position on any site on which building work, subdivision work or demolition work is being carried out:

 

a.       showing the name, address and telephone number of the principal certifying authority for the work, and

b.       showing the name of the principal contractor (if any) for any building work and a telephone number on which that person may be contacted outside working hours, and

c.       stating that unauthorised entry to the site is prohibited.

 

Any such sign is to be maintained while the building work, subdivision work or demolition work is being carried out.

 

(4)      In the case of residential building work for which the Home Building Act 1989 requires there to be a contract of insurance in force in accordance with Part 6 of the Act, evidence that such a contract of insurance is in force is to be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority before any building work authorised to be carried out by the consent commences.

 

(5)      Residential building work within the meaning of the Home Building Act 1989 must not be carried out unless the principal certifying authority for the development to which the work relates (not being the council) has given the council written notice of the following information:

 

a   in the case of work for which a principal contractor is required to be appointed:

 

1   the name of the licence number of the principal contractor, and

2   the name of the insurer by which the work is insured under Part 6 of that Act,

 

b   in the case of work to be done by an owner-builder:

 

1   the name of the owner-builder, and

2   if the owner-builder is required to hold an owner-builder permit under that Act, the number of the owner-builder permit.

 

If arrangements for doing the residential building work are changed while the work is in progress so that the information under this condition becomes out of date, further work must not be carried out unless the principal certifying authority for the development to which the work relates (not being the council) has given the council written notice of the updated information.


 

(6)      Where any excavation work on the site extends below the level of the base of the footings of a building on adjoining land, the person having the benefit of the development consent must, at the person’s own expense:

 

a        protect and support the adjoining premises from possible damage from the excavation, and

b        where necessary, underpin the adjoining premises to prevent any such damage.

 

Note:  This condition does not apply if the person having the benefit of the development consent owns the adjoining land or the owner of the adjoining land has given consent in writing to that condition not applying.

 

 

DUAL OCCUPANCY

 

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

 

(7)      The payment of $18,647.70 is to be made to Council in accordance with section 94 of the Act and the Orange Development Contributions Plan 2012 (Ploughmans Valley) towards the provision of the following public facilities:

 

Open Space and Recreation

@ $4,639.08 x 1 additional 3+ bedroom dwelling

4,639.08

Community and Cultural

@ $791.34 x 1 additional 3+ bedroom dwelling

791.34

Roads and Cycleways

@ $5,733.33 x 1 additional 3+ bedroom dwelling

5,733.33

Stormwater Drainage

@ $444.19 x 1 additional 3+ bedroom dwelling

444.19

Local Area Facilities

@ $6,496.63 x 1 additional 3+ bedroom dwelling

6,496.63

Plan Preparation & Administration

@ $543.13 x 1 additional 3+ bedroom dwelling

543.13

TOTAL:

 

$18,647.70

 

The contribution will be indexed quarterly in accordance with the Orange Development Contributions Plan 2012 (Ploughmans Valley), and may be inspected at the Orange Civic Centre, Byng Street, Orange.

 

(8)      A Construction Certificate application is required to be submitted to, and issued by, Council/Accredited Certifier prior to any excavation or building works being carried out on site.

 

(9)      An approval under Section 68 of the Local Government Act is to be sought from Orange City Council, as the Water and Sewer Authority, for water, sewer and stormwater connection. Details concerning the proposed backflow prevention between the nominated water tank supply and the potable system is to be provided. No plumbing and drainage is to commence until approval is granted.

 

(10)    Engineering plans, showing details of all proposed work and adhering to any engineering conditions of development consent, are to be submitted to, and approved by, Orange City Council or an Accredited Certifier (Categories B1, C3, C4, C6) prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate.

 

(11)    A water and soil erosion control plan is to be submitted to Orange City Council or an Accredited Certifier (Categories B1, C3, C4, C6) for approval prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate. The control plan is to be in accordance with the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code and the Landcom, Managing Urban Stormwater; Soils and Construction Handbook.

 

(12)    A 150mm-diameter sewer junction is to be constructed from Council’s existing main to serve the proposed dwelling 1. Orange City Council, prior to issuing a Construction Certificate, is to approve engineering plans for this sewerage system.


 

(13)    Payment of contributions for water, sewer and drainage works is required to be made at the contribution rate applicable at the time that the payment is made.  The contributions are based on 1 ET for water supply headworks and 1 ET for sewerage headworks.  A Certificate of Compliance, from Orange City Council in accordance with the Water Management Act 2000, will be issued upon payment of the contributions.

 

This Certificate of Compliance is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate.

 

 

PRIOR TO WORKS COMMENCING

 

(14)    A temporary onsite toilet is to be provided and must remain throughout the project or until an alternative facility meeting Council’s requirements is available onsite.

 

(15)    Soil erosion control measures shall be implemented on the site.

 

 

DURING CONSTRUCTION/SITEWORKS

 

(16)    All construction/demolition work on the site is to be carried out between the hours of 7.00 am and 6.00 pm Monday to Friday inclusive, 7.00 am to 5.00 pm Saturdays and 8.00 am to 5.00 pm on Sundays and Public Holidays. Written approval must be obtained from the General Manager of Orange City Council to vary these hours.

 

(17)    A Registered Surveyor’s certificate identifying the location of the building on the site must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the pouring of the slab or footings.

 

(18)    All materials onsite or being delivered to the site are to be contained within the site. The requirements of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 are to be complied with when placing/stockpiling loose material or when disposing of waste products or during any other activities likely to pollute drains or watercourses.

 

(19)    Storage of materials including stockpiles is not permitted on the public footpath area or roadway unless a hoarding is provided and approval granted.

 

(20)    Any adjustments to existing utility services that are made necessary by this development proceeding are to be at the full cost of the developer.

 

(21)    The provisions and requirements of the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code are to be applied to this application and all work constructed within the development is to be in accordance with that Code.

 

The developer is to be entirely responsible for the provision of water, sewerage and drainage facilities capable of servicing the development from Council’s existing infrastructure. The developer is to be responsible for gaining access over adjoining land for services where necessary and easements are to be created about all water, sewer and drainage mains within and outside the lots they serve.

 

(22)    All driveway and parking areas are to be sealed with bitumen, hot mix or concrete and are to be designed for all expected loading conditions (provided however that the minimum pavement depth for gravel and flush seal roadways is 200mm) and be in accordance with the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code.

 

(23)    Heavy-duty concrete kerb and gutter laybacks and footpath crossings are to be constructed for the entrances to the proposed development. The location and construction of the laybacks and footpath crossings are to be as required by the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code.


 

(24)    Dual water and sewerage reticulation is to be provided to every lot in the proposed residential subdivision in accordance with the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code.

 

 

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF AN OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE

 

(25)    Landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans and shall be permanently maintained to the satisfaction of Council's Manager Development Assessments.

 

(26)    No person is to use or occupy the building or alteration that is the subject of this approval without the prior issuing of an Occupation Certificate.

 

(27)    Where Orange City Council is not the Principal Certifying Authority, a final inspection of water connection, sewer and stormwater drainage shall be undertaken by Orange City Council and a Final Notice of Inspection issued, prior to the issue of either an interim or a final Occupation Certificate.

 

(28)    Certification from Orange City Council is required to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate stating that all works relating to connection of the development to Council assets, works on Public Land, stormwater, sewer and water reticulation mains and footpaths have been carried out in accordance with the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code and the foregoing conditions.

 

(29)    All of the foregoing conditions are to be at the full cost of the developer and to the requirements and standards of the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code, unless specifically stated otherwise. All work required by the foregoing conditions is to be completed prior to the issuing of an Occupation or Subdivision Certificate, unless stated otherwise.

 

 

TWO LOT SUBDIVISION

 

DURING CONSTRUCTION/SITEWORKS

 

(30)    Any adjustments to existing utility services that are made necessary by this development proceeding are to be at the full cost of the developer.

 

 

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A SUBDIVISION CERTIFICATE

 

(31)    Application shall be made for a Subdivision Certificate under Section 109(C)(1)(d) of the Act.

 

(32)    Prior to the issuing of the Subdivision Certificate, a Surveyor’s Certificate or written statement is to be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority, stating that the buildings within the boundaries of the proposed Lots 4A and 4B comply in respect to the distances of walls from boundaries.

 

(33)    Prior to the issuing of the Subdivision Certificate, a written statement is to be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority stating that the existing wastewater disposal system/sewer connection, stormwater disposal and water supply are all fully contained within the boundaries of the proposed Lots 4A and 4B.

 

(34)    Certification from Essential Energy, stating that electricity and street lighting systems comply with Essential Energy’s Networks Division Customer Connection Policy NP11.1, is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issuing of a Subdivision Certificate.

 

(35)    An easement to drain sewage and to provide Council access for maintenance of sewerage works a minimum of 2.0 metres wide is to be created over the proposed sewerage works. The Principal Certifying Authority is to certify that the easement is in accordance with the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code prior to the issuing of a Subdivision Certificate.


 

(36)    All services are to be contained within the allotment that they serve. A Statement of Compliance, from a Registered Surveyor, is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issuing of a Subdivision Certificate.

 

(37)    Where stormwater crosses land outside the lot it favours, an easement to drain water is to be created over the works. A Restriction-as-to-User under section 88B of the NSW Conveyancing Act 1979 is to be created on the title of the proposed lots requiring that no structures are to be placed on the site, or landscaping or site works carried out on the site, in a manner that affects the continued operation of the interlot drainage system. The minimum width of the easement is to be as required in the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code.

 

(38)    All of the foregoing conditions are to be at the full cost of the developer and to the requirements and standards of the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code, unless specifically stated otherwise. All work required by the foregoing conditions is to be completed prior to the issuing of an Occupation or Subdivision Certificate, unless stated otherwise.

 

 

 

 

Other Approvals

 

(1)      Local Government Act 1993 approvals granted under section 68.

 

          Nil

 

(2)      General terms of other approvals integrated as part of this consent.

 

          Nil

 

 

 

 

Right of Appeal

 

If you are dissatisfied with this decision, section 97 of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 gives you the right to appeal to the Land and Environment Court within 6 months after the date on which you receive this notice.

* Section 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 does not apply to the determination of a development application for State significant development or local designated development that has been the subject of a Commission of Inquiry.

 

 

  Disability Discrimination Act 1992:

This application has been assessed in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. No guarantee is given that the proposal complies with the Disability Discrimination Act 1992.

 

The applicant/owner is responsible to ensure compliance with this and other anti-discrimination legislation.

 

The Disability Discrimination Act covers disabilities not catered for in the minimum standards called up in the Building Code of Australia which references AS1428.1 - "Design for Access and Mobility". AS1428 Parts 2, 3 and 4 provides the most comprehensive technical guidance under the Disability Discrimination Act currently available in Australia.


 

 

 

  Disclaimer - S88B Restrictions on the Use of Land:

The applicant should note that there could be covenants in favour of persons other than Council restricting what may be built or done upon the subject land. The applicant is advised to check the position before commencing any work.

 

 

Signed:

On behalf of the consent authority ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

 

 

Signature:

 

 

Name:

 

ALLAN RENIKE - MANAGER DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENTS

 

Date:

 

8 April 2015

 


Sustainable Development Committee                                                                                    7 April 2015

2.3                       Development Application DA 45/2015(1) - 45 Valencia Drive

Attachment 2      Plans


Sustainable Development Committee                                                          7 April 2015

 

 

2.4     Development Application DA 42/2015(1) - 389 Molong Road

TRIM REFERENCE:        2015/823

AUTHOR:                       Michael Glenn, Senior Planner    

 

 

EXECUTIVE Summary

 

Application lodged

17 February 2015

Applicant/s

Orange City Council

Owner/s

Orange City Council

Land description

Lot 20 DP 1076334 - 389 Molong Road, Orange

Proposed land use

Emergency Services Facility (alterations and additions)

Value of proposed development

$140,000

Council's consent is sought for an extension of the existing building, to be used as an emergency services facility by the Rural Fire Service at 389 Molong Road. The application is recommended for approval.

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan strategy “13.4 Our Environment – Monitor and enforce regulations relating to City amenity”.

Financial Implications

Nil

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

 

Recommendation

That Council consents to development application DA 42/2015(1) for Emergency Services Facility (alterations and additions) at Lot 20 DP 1076334 - 389 Molong Road, Orange pursuant to the conditions of consent in the attached Notice of Approval.

 

further considerations

Consideration has been given to the recommendation’s impact on Council’s service delivery; image and reputation; political; environmental; health and safety; employees; stakeholders and project management; and no further implications or risks have been identified.

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

THE APPLICATION

Council's consent is sought for alterations and additions to an emergency services facility used by the Rural Fire Service at Lot 20 DP 1076334 - 389 Molong Road, Orange.


 

THE PROPOSAL

The proposal involves the addition of a new four bay shed to the west of the existing shed. This shed will be connected to the existing shed. The shed is proposed to be constructed of Colorbond materials with green exterior and four vehicle sized roller shutters. In terms of external appearance the proposed structure would be similar to the existing shed.

The proposal also includes the addition of a training room that is to be placed at the front of the station along the southern boundary. This element of the proposed building will be 8m x 4m. This area will be constructed in green Colorbond. The proposed development incorporates landscaping to soften the impact on what is considered to be a major entrance point to the City at the north western corner of the intersection of the Mitchell Highway and the Northern Distributor Road.

MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION

Section 5A Assessment

In the administration of sections 78A, 79B, 79C, 111 and 112, the provisions of Section 5A must be taken into account for every development application in deciding whether there is likely to be a significant effect on threatened species, populations or ecological communities or their habitats. This section includes a requirement to consider any adopted assessment guidelines, which means assessment guidelines issued and in force under section 94A of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. Assessment guidelines are in force (see DECC-W “Threatened Species Assessment Guidelines - The Assessment of Significance”) which requires consent authority to adopt the precautionary principle in its assessment.

The subject property does not have high inherent biodiversity value, however parts of the site are located or affected by the riparian zone for Ploughman's Creek. The Ploughman's Creek constructed wetlands are located nearby to the south (but are upstream of the development), whilst there are isolated pockets of significant vegetation within the creek system itself, including on or adjacent to this site. Ploughman's Creek north of Molong Road is a prescribed stream under the Fisheries Management Act and likely to trigger a need for an integrated development assessment under that legislation. North of Molong Road, the stream is also a Category 3 stream, which also triggers a needs for integrated assessment under the Controlled Activity provisions of the Water Management Act 2000 (integrated development provisions are circumvented in this case because the proposed development is being undertaken by a Public Authority, however this does not obviate or avoid the implications the integrated development provisions infer).

The building contained in this proposed development does not have any significant effect in terms of biodiversity impacts.

The landscaping that is proposed is cause for some concern as it incorporates a proportion of non-native species within or close to the riparian zone. Of particular concern is the selection of 5 x taxodium distichum (Swamp Cypress) close to the waterway north of the proposed shed. This species is large on maturity and from available data (no information was provided in the submission regarding species characteristics) appears to be prolific in its ability to propagate, particularly in riparian environments.


 

To assist in the assessment, advice was sought from Council’s Wetlands Team Leader. She advises:

My concerns are that plantings adjacent or near a waterway need to be thoroughly thought through with concerns such as seed germination rates , tannin release from vegetative matter particularly from deciduous species and changes to the hydrology within a site considered before planting goes ahead.  Reading through the documentation on this species there is uncertainty as to whether this would happen but I do agree with the (Project Support Officer Salinity & Water Quality Alliance) that precaution is a must.  I know that Ploughman’s Creek is regarded as a significant waterway due to its location which I think is classified as the commencement of the Barwon Darling Catchment flowing from Ploughman’s to the Bell River and then onto the Macquarie River.   Another concern that I have is if we are to go ahead with this design will the plantings of exotics have any negative outcome for future funding which is strongly aimed at local endemic species as a must in rehabilitation or restoration projects especially riparian zones that have a great capacity to increase weed species throughout our landscape. I hope that this helps as I agree with you and your aim to carry out the right approach to planting in riparian zones.

Given the above comments and concerns, it is not considered appropriate to utilise Swamp Cypress from an environmental standpoint. A condition is included that requires these species to be replaced in the landscape plan with a native species of similar height and appearance, but not deciduous.

In this instance, subject to the conditions outlined above, there would be no significant impacts arising from the proposed development on the biodiversity values of the locality.

Section 79C

Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 requires Council to consider various matters, of which those pertaining to the application are listed below.

PROVISIONS OF ANY ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENT s79C(1)(a)(i)

Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011

Part 1 - Preliminary

Clause 1.2 - Aims of Plan

The broad aims of the LEP are set out under subclause 2. Those relevant to the application are as follows:

(a)     to encourage development which complements and enhances the unique character of Orange as a major regional centre boasting a diverse economy and offering an attractive regional lifestyle,

(b)     to provide for a range of development opportunities that contribute to the social, economic and environmental resources of Orange in a way that allows present and future generations to meet their needs by implementing the principles for ecologically sustainable development,

(c)     to conserve and enhance the water resources on which Orange depends, particularly water supply catchments,


 

In relation to (a), the proposed development is on a prominent entry point of the City with a high degree of visibility. The proposed structure is of unremarkable design, with materials not considered particularly attractive. These are considered to be detrimental to the image and character of the City. However to an extent, the setbacks from the road and the landscaping that is proposed will to a degree mitigate the adverse visual impacts of the building works. It is also considered that to a very limited extent the placement of the shed behind the existing building will lessen or limit the visual intrusion of this building. No landscaping has been provided on the site since the construction of the existing building which is of concern. It is considered important that landscaping be provided on the site under this proposal. Attached is a condition of consent requiring landscaping to be established prior to the issue of an occupation certificate.

In relation to (b) the provision of emergency services such as a fire service of an adequate capacity is considered an essential pre-cursor to the development of social, economic and environmental resources of the City.

In relation to (c), it needs to be acknowledged that the proposed development is located within close proximity of a prescribed stream that, except for certain provisions in the Water Management Act Regulation (specifically clause 38 of the Water Management Act Regulations states that: a public authority is exempt from section 91E (1) of the Act in relation to all controlled activities that it carries out in, on or under waterfront land) would normally need a co-approval from NSW Office of Water. Section 91E is the trigger that requires integrated development assessment for developments within a riparian zone of a prescribed stream. Such an exemption does not remove the environmental consideration of development on a riparian zone, but it does remove the need for co-approval from the NSW Office of Water.

Clause 1.6 - Consent Authority

This clause establishes that, subject to the Act, Council is the consent authority for applications made under the LEP.

Clause 1.9A - Suspension of Covenants, Agreements and Instruments

This clause provides that covenants, agreements and other instruments which seek to restrict the carrying out of development do not apply with the following exceptions.

·    covenants imposed or required by Council

·    prescribed instruments under Section 183A of the Crown Lands Act 1989

·    any conservation agreement under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974

·    any trust agreement under the Nature Conservation Trust Act 2001

·    any property vegetation plan under the Native Vegetation Act 2003

·    any biobanking agreement under Part 7A of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995

·    any planning agreement under Division 6 of Part 4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Council staff are not aware of the title of the subject property being affected by any of the above.

 

Mapping

The subject site is identified on the LEP maps in the following manner:

Land Zoning Map:

Land zoned R5 Large Lot Residential

Lot Size Map:

Minimum Lot Size 20000m2

Heritage Map:

Not a heritage item or conservation area

Height of Buildings Map:

No building height limit

Floor Space Ratio Map:

No floor space limit

Terrestrial Biodiversity Map:

No biodiversity sensitivity on the site

Groundwater Vulnerability Map:

ground water vulnerable

Drinking Water Catchment Map:

Not within the drinking water catchment

Watercourse Map:

within and/or affecting a defined watercourse

Urban Release Area Map:

Not within an urban release area

Obstacle Limitation Surface Map:

No restriction on building siting or construction

Additional Permitted Uses Map:

No additional permitted use applies

Those matters that are of relevance are addressed in detail in the body of this report.

Part 2 - Permitted or Prohibited Development

Land Use Zones

As indicated in the following map extracts, the subject property has more than one zone affecting the site due to the irregular shape of the block and the mis-correlation to zone boundaries.

The lot shape, as shown in the most recent registered survey (dated August 2004, and drawn principally to excise that land required for the corner splay for the Northern Distributor Road/Mitchell Highway intersection) incorporates the Ploughman's Creek drainage line (which previously was not part of the registered lot).


 

 

Note that the subject property straddles Ploughman's creek.

The zoning extract from the relevant map layer of OLEP 2011 is as follows:

Comparing the zoning extract to the registered lot plan, the conclusion is that the subject property is zoned part R5 Large Lot Residential and part RE1 Public Open Space. It is considered that there is no E2 Environmental Conservation zoned land affecting the subject property.

In summary, the subject site is located within the R5 Large Lot Residential and RE1 (Public Recreation) zones. The proposed development is defined as an “emergency services facility” under OLEP 2011. The proposed development is not permissible under the provisions of the LEP for either of these zones.

However, development for the purpose of an emergency services facility may be carried out with consent by or on behalf of the NSW Rural Fire Service on land zoned R5 Large Lot Residential or RE1 ((Public Recreation). This should not be viewed as overriding the LEP since, at the introduction of the new Standard Instrument (of which OLEP 2011 is an example), the Department of Planning made it very clear that it did not want duplication in the lists of permissible uses between instruments.

By application of the SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007, the proposed development is permissible in both zones affecting the subject property.

Clause 2.3 of LEP 2011 references the Land Use Table and Objectives for each zone in LEP 2011. These objectives for land zoned R5 Large Lot Residential are as follows:

1 - Objectives of the R5 Large Lot Residential Zone

·    To ensure that large residential lots do not hinder the proper and orderly development of urban areas in the future.

·    To ensure that development in the area does not unreasonably increase the demand for public services or public facilities.

·    To minimise conflict between land uses within this zone and land uses within adjoining zones.

·    To ensure development is ordered in such a way as to maximise public transport patronage, and encourage walking and cycling, in close proximity to settlement.

In relation to the first dot point, there are no plans at the present time to change the density or minimum lots sizes for this site. Regardless, as a site accommodating an emergency services  facility, such considerations are not really relevant.

With regard to the second dot point, the proposed development will serve to actually increase the ability to provide an emergency service considered vital to the benefit and safety of the general community.

In relation to the third dot point, there is theoretically potential for conflict between the proposed use and more general residential development that may occur in the R5 zone. However, the specifics of this site suggest that such risk is minimal. The site is relatively isolated and removed from current and future residential development, and its relatively infrequent use further suggests that imposts on residential amenity would be rare or occasional.

In relation to the fourth dot point, the opportunities for public transport to this facility are limited, however the need for access to public transport to and from a facility of this type is considered to be very low. There is not a need for the general public to attend this facility and volunteer firefighters are likely to use private motor vehicles to get to and from the site.


 

2 - Objectives of the RE1 Public Open Space Zone

·    To enable land to be used for public open space or recreational purposes.

·    To provide a range of recreational settings and activities and compatible land uses.

·    To protect and enhance the natural environment for recreational purposes.

·    To ensure development is ordered in such a way as to maximise public transport patronage and encourage walking and cycling in close proximity to settlement.

With regard to the first, third and fourth dot points, the proposed development is inconsistent with the zone objectives. It cannot be considered development that in any way is associated with recreational or open space land use. With regard to the second dot point, it can be argued that the overall use of the site, incorporating as it does large areas of unused outdoor space and good levels of landscaping, might be considered allied or incidental land uses that complement the second open space zoning of the site and its purpose as public open space.

Part 7 - Additional Local Provisions

7.1 - Earthworks

This clause establishes a range of matters that must be considered prior to granting development consent for any application involving earthworks, such as:

(a)     the likely disruption of, or any detrimental effect on, existing drainage patterns and soil stability in the locality of the development

(b)     the effect of the development on the likely future use or redevelopment of the land

(c)     the quality of the fill or the soil to be excavated, or both

(d)     the effect of the development on the existing and likely amenity of adjoining properties

(e)     the source of any fill material and the destination of any excavated material

(f)     the likelihood of disturbing relics

(g)     the proximity to and potential for adverse impacts on any waterway, drinking water catchment or environmentally sensitive area

(h)     any measures proposed to minimise or mitigate the impacts referred to in paragraph (g).

The earthworks proposed in the application are limited to the extent of cutting and filling required for the proposed building or structure. The extent of disruption to the drainage of the site is considered to be minor and will not detrimentally affect adjoining properties or receiving waterways, subject to effective installation of erosion and sediment control measures.

The extent of the earthworks will not materially affect the potential future use or redevelopment of the site that may occur at the end of the proposed development's lifespan.

The site is not known to be contaminated. The earthworks will be appropriately supported onsite and the change in ground level is not substantial. Therefore the effect on the amenity of adjoining properties is considered to be minor.

The site is not known to contain any Aboriginal, European or archaeological relics. Previous known uses of the site do not suggest that any relics are likely to be uncovered.

The site is in proximity to a prescribed waterway, but not a City drinking water catchment. Conditions are included in the consent that require a sediment control plan, including silt traps and other protective measures, to ensure that loose dirt and sediment does not escape the site boundaries.

7.2 - Flood Planning

This clause applies to:

(a)     land identified as “Flood planning area” on the Flood Planning Map, and

(b)     other land at or below the flood planning level

The subject property is not shown as a Flood Planning Area on Councils LEP flooding maps , however it is affected to a limited extent by overland flowpaths (a limited form of flooding threat) as shown in the attached map extract:

Such affectation is an appropriate trigger for consideration under (b) above.

Before any consent is issued, Council must be satisfied that the proposal:

(a)     is compatible with the flood hazard of the land, and

(b)     is not likely to significantly adversely affect flood behaviour resulting in detrimental increases in the potential flood affectation of other development or properties, and

(c)     incorporates appropriate measures to manage risk to life from flood, and

(d)     is not likely to significantly adversely affect the environment or cause avoidable erosion, siltation, destruction of riparian vegetation or a reduction in the stability of river banks or watercourses, and

(e)     is not likely to result in unsustainable social and economic costs to the community as a consequence of flooding.


 

In relation to (a), the proposed building would be located outside the overland flowpath, suggesting minimal risk. In relation to (b), the proposed development is unlikely to significantly affect flood behaviour, and will not result in increased affectation of other properties or development. In relation to (c) the proposed development does not inherently pose any elevated risk to increased flooding. In relation to (d), conditions are included to minimise erosion and sedimentation arising from the proposed development. In relation to (e) the proposed development has no obvious elements likely to result in unsustainable social and economic costs to the community due to flooding.

In this regard, the proposed development is unlikely to change flooding regimes on or off the site, and would be unlikely to cause or contribute to erosion, siltation or reduce riparian vegetation, and is therefore unlikely to create a cost burden on the community.

7.3 - Stormwater Management

This clause applies to all industrial, commercial and residential zones and requires that Council be satisfied that the proposal:

(a)     is designed to maximise the use of water permeable surfaces on the land having regard to the soil characteristics affecting onsite infiltration of water

(b)     includes, where practical, onsite stormwater retention for use as an alternative supply to mains water, groundwater or river water; and

(c)     avoids any significant impacts of stormwater runoff on adjoining downstream properties, native bushland and receiving waters, or if that impact cannot be reasonably avoided, minimises and mitigates the impact.

The proposal will not significantly affect runoff rates from the subject property and runoff can be managed in such a way as to restrict post development discharge rates to the same as pre-development flows.

7.4 - Terrestrial Biodiversity

This clause seeks to maintain terrestrial biodiversity and requires that consent must not be issued unless the application demonstrates whether or not the proposal:

(a)     is likely to have any adverse impact on the condition, ecological value and significance of the fauna and flora on the land

(b)     is likely to have any adverse impact on the importance of the vegetation on the land to the habitat and survival of native fauna

(c)     has any potential to fragment, disturb or diminish the biodiversity structure, function and composition of the land, and

(d)     is likely to have any adverse impact on the habitat elements providing connectivity on the land.


 

Additionally this clause prevents consent being granted unless Council is satisfied that:

(a)     the development is designed, sited and will be managed to avoid any significant adverse environmental impact, or

(b)     if that impact cannot be reasonably avoided - the development is designed, sited and will be managed to minimise that impact, or

(c)     if that impact cannot be minimised - the development will be managed to mitigate that impact.

The subject property has no onsite biodiversity of significant value, however there are some isolated patches here and there along the creek line. The landscaping plan that was submitted with the application incorporates some species that are considered inappropriate. To address this, a condition is included in the consent that requires more appropriate species selection along the creek boundary closest to the creek.

7.5 - Riparian Land and Watercourses

This clause seeks to preserve both water quality and riparian ecological health. The clause applies to land identified as a “Sensitive Waterway” on the Watercourse Map. The subject land contains such a waterway and therefore Council must consider whether or not the proposal:

(a)     is likely to have any adverse impact on the following:

(i)      the water quality and flows within a watercourse

(ii)     aquatic and riparian species, habitats and ecosystems of the watercourse

(iii)    the stability of the bed and banks of the watercourse

(iv)    the free passage of fish and other aquatic organisms within or along the watercourse

(v)     any future rehabilitation of the watercourse and its riparian areas, and

(b)     is likely to increase water extraction from the watercourse.

Additionally, consent may not be granted until Council is satisfied that:

(a)     the development is designed, sited and will be managed to avoid any significant adverse environmental impact, or

(b)     if that impact cannot be reasonably avoided - the development is designed, sited and will be managed to minimise that impact, or

(c)     if that impact cannot be minimised - the development will be managed to mitigate that impact.

While the subject site does contain a sensitive waterway, the proposal has been designed to site the building in excess of 30m from the waterway. Using the NSW Office of Water's stream classification system as a guideline (the Strahler method) the nearby stream is a Category 2 waterway, with a prescribed riparian corridor of 20m from the top of the bank of the stream. It is difficult in this instance to precisely define the top of the bank, however it is considered that the stream bank (such as it is) is further than 20m.


 

There is a reasonable separation distance to manage the post development runoff. Additionally, stormwater retention will be required for this development and will further reduce potential risk to the watercourse.

Overall, while there will always remain a risk to the waterway under extreme circumstances such as record storms and the like, it is considered that the risk of adverse impact can be appropriately managed to an acceptable level.

7.6 - Groundwater Vulnerability

This clause seeks to protect hydrological functions of groundwater systems and protect resources from both depletion and contamination. Orange has a high water table and large areas of the LGA, including the subject site, are identified with “Groundwater Vulnerability” on the Groundwater Vulnerability Map. This requires that Council consider:

(a)     whether or not the development (including any onsite storage or disposal of solid or liquid waste and chemicals) is likely to cause any groundwater contamination or have any adverse effect on groundwater dependent ecosystems, and

(b)     the cumulative impact (including the impact on nearby groundwater extraction for potable water supply or stock water supply) of the development and any other existing development on groundwater.

Furthermore consent may not be granted unless Council is satisfied that:

(a)     the development is designed, sited and will be managed to avoid any significant adverse environmental impact, or

(b)     if that impact cannot be reasonably avoided - the development is designed, sited and will be managed to minimise that impact,

(c)     if that impact cannot be minimised - the development will be managed to mitigate that impact.

The proposal is not anticipated to involve the discharge of toxic or noxious substances and is therefore unlikely to contaminate the groundwater or related ecosystems. The proposal does not involve extraction of groundwater and will therefore not contribute to groundwater depletion. The design and siting of the proposal avoids impacts on groundwater and is therefore considered acceptable.

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICIES

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (the "SEPP") applies to the subject development. As an "emergency services facility", special provisions are applicable in the SEPP that serve to give permissibility to the proposed use and provide controls in the assessment application.


 

The aims of this Policy are to facilitate the effective delivery of infrastructure across the State by:

(a)     improving regulatory certainty and efficiency through a consistent planning regime for infrastructure and the provision of services, and

(b)     providing greater flexibility in the location of infrastructure and service facilities, and

(c)     allowing for the efficient development, redevelopment or disposal of surplus government owned land, and

(d)     identifying the environmental assessment category into which different types of infrastructure and services development fall (including identifying certain development of minimal environmental impact as exempt development), and

(e)     identifying matters to be considered in the assessment of development adjacent to particular types of infrastructure development, and

(f)      providing for consultation with relevant public authorities about certain development during the assessment process or prior to development commencing.

The proposed development is considered to be not inconsistent with the aims of the policy.

Clause 8 of the policy sets out the relationship between the policy and other environmental planning instruments (EPIs). For OLEP 2011, the relationship is that if there is an inconsistency between the SEPP and the LEP, whether made before or after the commencement of this Policy, this Policy prevails to the extent of the inconsistency.

Clause 47 of the SEPP has the effect of making an emergency services facility permissible with consent.

PROVISIONS OF ANY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENT THAT HAS BEEN PLACED ON EXHIBITION s79C(1)(a)(ii)

There are no draft environmental planning instruments that apply to the subject land or proposed development.

DESIGNATED DEVELOPMENT

The proposed development is not designated development.

PROVISIONS OF ANY DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN s79C(1)(a)(iii)

Development Control Plan 2004

Development Control Plan 2004 (“the DCP”) applies to the subject land. An assessment of the proposed development against the relevant Planning Outcomes will be undertaken below.


 

Pursuant to Planning Outcome 0.2-1 Interim Planning Outcomes - Conversion of Zones:

·    Throughout this Plan, any reference to a zone in Orange LEP 2000 is to be taken to be a reference to the corresponding zone(s) in the zone conversion table.

That part of the site now zoned R5 Large Lot Residential was previously zoned 1(c) Rural Residential under the previous LEP. These two zones are equivalent to each other. The land now zoned RE1 Public Recreation was previously zoned 6 (Open Space and Recreation) which are also zones that are equivalent to each other.

As such, for the R5 Large Lot Residential the most appropriate chapters for consideration are Chapters 6 (Rural Development) and Chapter 7 (Residential Development). Both these chapters are principally concerned with development types other than emergency services facilities. The issues principally relevant are those guidelines relating to visual bulk and parking.

With regard to the RE1 affectation, Chapter 11 of th e DCP is the relevant chapter for consideration of the development insofar as it relates to the RE1 land. There are no elements of this chapter of the DCP that are relevant to the proposed development.

Visual Bulk

The subject site is located in a prominent entry point of the City, and the building proposed, when considered in conjunction with the existing structure will be of substantial bulk and visual presence and finished in materials and colours likely to detract from the amenity and character of the area. The existing building is skinned in "Mist Green" Colorbond, which is badly faded and quite visually prominent in its effect. It will not be possible to exactly colour match this finish in the new extension. Given that the Mist Green finish is not a colour that diminishes the visual impact of the building, this major upgrade of the building should be taken as an opportunity to change direction in the finishes and specify a colour less obtrusive. In this regard, the Council heritage architect has advised that the most appropriate colour selection in the Colorbond range to achieve this blending in effect is "Wind Spray", a silver-grey colour similar to dulled galvanised iron. A condition to that effect is included in the attached Notice of Approval.

Landscaping is included in the proposed development, and from the standpoint of visual masking, generally considered to be satisfactory. A condition is included requiring slight amendment of the landscaping plan for environmental reasons (already discussed in this report); however such changes will not detract from the purpose of the landscaping as a screening element.

Car Parking

The applicant has submitted a letter stating that the new extension would be used as a vehicle storage shed for vehicles currently stored in the open at the RFS facility in South Orange. Once constructed the building may or may not be used for this purpose.

The RFS has access to the whole of the site, and in the past volunteers and others attending the site have tended to park informally on the grassed areas. There is no objection to this, and one is led to the conclusion that the additional building contained in this proposed development, whilst likely to increase demand for parking to an unspecified extent, can still be accommodated in this informal fashion after the completion of the proposed development.

However, there are a number of issues associated with parking that need to be addressed by appropriate conditions in the consent. These issues of concern are discussed below.

1        Vehicle access onto and off the site other than via the designated access drive. The following photographic image demonstrates that such access is occurring from the Northern Distributor Road and that such access is an unsafe practice).

IMAG0266

Unauthorised entry from the Northern Distributor Road

2        Protection and delineation of the landscaped areas of the site to prevent or discourage damage and compaction to these areas.

3        Prevent vehicles associated with the use being parked roadside in either the NDR or Molong Road.

Conditions are included in the attached approval that address these issues

PROVISIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE REGULATIONS s79C(1)(a)(iv)

Demolition of a Building (clause 92)

The proposal does not involve the demolition of a building.

Fire Safety Considerations (clause 93)

The proposal does not involve a change of building use for an existing building.

Buildings to be Upgraded (clause 94)

Upgrading of the building will be required to ensure that the existing building is brought into partial or total conformity with the Building Code of Australia. Conditions are attached in relation to the required upgrading works.


 

THE LIKELY IMPACTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT s79C(1)(b)

Traffic Impacts

It is considered that the existing access via Molong Road is satisfactory in terms of its ability to allow the safe entry and exit to and from the property. The unauthorised entry from the NDR is not a safe means of access to and from the site. A condition of consent is included in the attached consent that excludes any access other than from the approved access point.

Visual Impacts

The proposed development involves the construction of a large building which is considered already to have adverse visual effects due to the nature of the construction and the absence of any significant screening. It is considered appropriate given the prominence of the location to impose a condition requiring details of external colours and finishes.

As to colours, the obvious choice is to simply match the existing shed colour, however this does have a number of adverse aspects. It will not be possible to fully colour match the existing material because it is 10 years old and significantly faded compared to the new equivalent material "Mist Green". This colour as a building choice was a popular colour in the 80's and 90's because it was assumed to be a colour that would "blend in" with the landscape. However, experience shows this to not be the case at all. A better, more landscape compatible colour would be a "Monument Grey" or "Wind Spray". It is conceded, however, that colour choice in this case is a lesser problem to the building form and general finish.

The building will be placed on a longitudinal orientation, which will make the building more visible from Molong Road to the northeast and when travelling north and south along the Northern Distributor Road. It is considered that the visual impact of the building when viewed from the properties to the west of the site is reduced to a degree by the existing riparian vegetation and the fact that the building sits below the finished surface level of the Northern Distributor Road.

Both the existing building and proposed extension have (or will have) adverse impacts on City presentation and streetscape. This would be not a big problem in a less prominent location, but the site is a prominent entry point to the City, and in many ways gives a poor impression of the City's cultural depth. It is an essential emergency service, and the RFS funds are quite limited (these facts are acknowledged); but as an element of the landscape, the existing building and the proposed extension present poorly. As indicated previously landscaping has not been provided on the site since the construction of the existing building and the current visual appearance of the development highlights the need to effectively landscape the site. The main saving grace for this building is the setback from the boundary, particularly the Molong Road side of the site. Further, the site coverage is very small, allowing significant landscaping elements to be considered.

The proposed development incorporates a landscape plan, which to a degree will lessen the visual impact of the building. It is important that the landscaping be installed promptly, nurtured during its initial establishment period (approximately two years from the date of planting) and protected (particularly from vehicles moving around the site) so that it does achieve its screening purpose. Conditions are included aimed at achieving those outcomes.


 

Environmental Impacts

The environmental impacts of the proposed development are considered to be very minor. There is a minor level of concern with regard to one of the non-native species adjacent to the riparian zone. As previously stated, this can be addressed as a condition of consent.

THE SUITABILITY OF THE SITE s79C(1)(c)

The site is considered suitable for the proposed development

ANY SUBMISSIONS MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACT s79C(1)(d)

The proposed development is not defined as advertised development under the provisions of the LEP, and as such no formal exhibition of the application was required. No submissions have been received in relation to this application.

PUBLIC INTEREST s79C(1)(e)

The proposed development is considered to be of minor interest to the wider public due to the relatively localised nature of potential impacts. The proposal is not inconsistent with any relevant policy statements, planning studies, guidelines, etc that have not been considered in this assessment.

SUMMARY

The proposed development is permissible with the consent of Council. The proposed development complies with the relevant aims, objectives and provisions of the LEP. A section 79C assessment of the development indicates that the development is acceptable in this instance. Attached is a draft Notice of Approval outlining a range of conditions considered appropriate to ensure that the development proceeds in an acceptable manner.

COMMENTS

The requirements of the Environmental Health and Building Surveyor and the Engineering Development Section are included in the attached Notice of Approval.

 

Attachments

1          Notice of Approval, D15/8406

2          Plans, D15/7820

 


Sustainable Development Committee                                                                   7 April 2015

2.4                       Development Application DA 42/2015(1) - 389 Molong Road

Attachment 1      Notice of Approval

 

leaflogo

ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

 

Development Application No DA 42/2015(1)

 

NA15/                                                                                             Container PR20001

 

 

NOTICE OF DETERMINATION

OF A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

issued under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Section 81(1)

 

Development Application

 

  Applicant Name:

Orange City Council

  Applicant Address:

(Attention Kelvin Gardiner)

PO Box 35

ORANGE  NSW  2800

  Owner’s Name:

Orange City Council

  Land to Be Developed:

Lot 20 DP 1076334 - 389 Molong Road, Orange

  Proposed Development:

Emergency Services Facility (alterations and additions)

 

 

Building Code of Australia

  building classification:

 

Class 5 and Class 7

 

 

Determination

 

  Made On:

7 April 2015

  Determination:

CONSENT GRANTED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS DESCRIBED BELOW:

 

 

Consent to Operate From:

8 April 2015

Consent to Lapse On:

8 April 2020

 

Terms of Approval

 

The reasons for the imposition of conditions are:

 

(1)      To ensure a quality urban design for the development which complements the surrounding environment.

 

(2)      To maintain neighbourhood amenity and character.

 

(3)      To ensure compliance with relevant statutory requirements.

 

(4)      To provide adequate public health and safety measures.

 

(5)      Because the development will require the provision of, or increase the demand for, public amenities and services.

 

(6)      To ensure the utility services are available to the site and adequate for the development.

 

(7)      To prevent the proposed development having a detrimental effect on adjoining land uses.

 

(8)      To minimise the impact of development on the environment.


 

 

 

Conditions

 

(1)      The development must be carried out in accordance with:

 

(a)      Plan/s numbered Undated, unreferenced plan sheets submitted with the application (6 sheets)

 

(b)      statements of environmental effects or other similar associated documents that form part of the approval

 

as amended in accordance with any conditions of this consent.

 

 

PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS

 

(2)      All building work must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia.

 

(3)      A sign is to be erected in a prominent position on any site on which building work, subdivision work or demolition work is being carried out:

 

a.       showing the name, address and telephone number of the principal certifying authority for the work, and

b.       showing the name of the principal contractor (if any) for any building work and a telephone number on which that person may be contacted outside working hours, and

c.       stating that unauthorised entry to the site is prohibited.

 

Any such sign is to be maintained while the building work, subdivision work or demolition work is being carried out.

 

 

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

 

(4)      Full details of external colours and finishes of external materials are to be submitted and approved by Councils Manager Development Assessments prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

 

(5)      An amended landscaping plan is required that replaces the Swamp Cypress species included in the plan with a replacement riparian species of native origin. This amended plan shall be submitted and approved by Council's Manager Development Assessments prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. 

 

(6)      A Construction Certificate application is required to be submitted to, and issued by, Council/Accredited Certifier prior to any excavation or building works being carried out on site.

 

(7)      A Fire Safety Schedule specifying the fire-safety measures (both current and/or proposed) to be implemented in the building is to be submitted with the Construction Certificate application, in accordance with Part 9 Clause 168 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

(8)      Plans and specifications are to be provided indicating all details in relation to the energy efficiency of the building in accordance with Section J (Energy Efficiency) of the Building Code of Australia.

 

(9)      Engineering plans providing complete details of the proposed manoeuvring areas in front of the proposed building shall be submitted to Orange City Council or an Accredited Certifier (Categories B1, C3, C4, C6) upon application for a Construction Certificate. These plans are to provide details of levels, cross falls of all pavements, proposed sealing materials and proposed drainage works and are to be in accordance with Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code.


 

(10)    All stormwater from the site is to be collected and piped to the existing drainage system on site. Orange City Council or an Accredited Certifier (Categories B1, C3, C4, C6), prior to issuing a Construction Certificate, is to approve engineering plans for this drainage system.

 

(11)    A water and soil erosion control plan is to be submitted to Orange City Council or an Accredited Certifier (Categories B1, C3, C4, C6) for approval prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate. The control plan is to be in accordance with the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code and the Landcom, Managing Urban Stormwater; Soils and Construction Handbook.

 

 

PRIOR TO WORKS COMMENCING

 

(12)    A temporary onsite toilet is to be provided and must remain throughout the project or until an alternative facility meeting Council’s requirements is available onsite.

 

(13)    Soil erosion control measures shall be implemented on the site.

 

 

DURING CONSTRUCTION/SITEWORKS

 

(14)    All construction/demolition work on the site is to be carried out between the hours of 7.00 am and 6.00 pm Monday to Friday inclusive, 7.00 am to 5.00 pm Saturdays and 8.00 am to 5.00 pm on Sundays and Public Holidays. Written approval must be obtained from the General Manager of Orange City Council to vary these hours.

 

(15)    Where Orange City Council is appointed as the Principal Certifying Authority, the following inspections will be required to be carried out by Council:

-    footing reinforcement, prior to the pouring of concrete

-    slab reinforcement, prior to the pouring of concrete

-    frame inspection

-    final inspection

 

Should any of the above mandatory inspections not be carried out by Council, an Occupation Certificate will not be issued on the complete structure.

 

(16)    Any adjustments to existing utility services that are made necessary by this development proceeding are to be at the full cost of the developer.

 

(17)    The provisions and requirements of the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code are to be applied to this application and all work constructed within the development is to be in accordance with that Code.

 

The developer is to be entirely responsible for the provision of water, sewerage and drainage facilities capable of servicing all the lots from Council’s existing infrastructure. The developer is to be responsible for gaining access over adjoining land for services where necessary and easements are to be created about all water, sewer and drainage mains within and outside the lots they serve.

 

(18)    All manoeuvring areas in front of the proposed building shall be sealed with bitumen, hot mix or concrete and are to be designed for all expected loading conditions (provided however that the minimum pavement depth for gravel and flush seal roadways is 200mm) and be in accordance with the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code.


 

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF AN OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE

 

(19)    Appropriate control devices that prevent regular unauthorised access by vehicles onto or over the designated landscape beds is to be provided. Such control devices can include fencing or rock armouring. A design sketch is to be submitted showing the details of the required protection, prior to the carrying out of the work. The work shall be undertaken prior to issue of an Occupation Certificate.

 

(20)    No person is to use or occupy the building or alteration that is the subject of this approval without the prior issuing of an Occupation Certificate.

 

(21)    Finished ground levels are to be graded away from the buildings and adjoining properties and must achieve natural drainage. The concentrated flows are to be dispersed down slope or collected and discharged to the stormwater drainage system.

 

(22)    Commitments listed in the Section J Report - “Energy Efficiency” must be fulfilled and certified by the installer prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

 

(23)    A final inspection of water, sewer and stormwater drainage shall be carried out by Orange City Council prior to the issue of either an Interim or Final Occupation Certificate.

 

(24)    Certification from Orange City Council is required to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate stating that all works relating to connection of the development to Council assets, works on Public Land, stormwater, sewer and water reticulation mains and footpaths have been carried out in accordance with the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code and the foregoing conditions.

 

(25)    All of the foregoing conditions are to be at the full cost of the developer and to the requirements and standards of the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code, unless specifically stated otherwise. All work required by the foregoing conditions is to be completed prior to the issuing of an Occupation Certificate, unless stated otherwise.

 

(26)    Landscaping shall be established in accordance with the stamped approved plans prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

 

 

MATTERS FOR THE ONGOING PERFORMANCE AND OPERATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT

 

(27)    Vehicular access onto and off the site shall be limited at all times, for all vehicles attending the site, to the approved access point from Molong Road

 

          Operators of the facility shall ensure that all current members, and all future members are advised of this restriction as part of their training and induction processes.

 

          In the event that unauthorised access from points other than the approved access drive continues, on written direction from Council, fencing or other control devices shall be installed at the full cost of the occupant within 60 days of such direction being given. A design detail for such devices shall be submitted and that is to the satisfaction of Council prior to the carrying out of such work.

 

(28)    Vehicles attending this site shall not be parked outside the site, in particular, no parking is permitted in the verge areas of the Northern Distributor or Molong Road

 

(29)    The owner is required to provide to Council and to the NSW Fire Commissioner an Annual Fire Safety Statement in respect of the fire-safety measures, as required by Clause 177 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.


 

 

 

Other Approvals

 

(1)      Local Government Act 1993 approvals granted under section 68.

 

          Nil

 

(2)      General terms of other approvals integrated as part of this consent.

 

(1)      All plumbing and drainage (water supply, sanitary plumbing and drainage, stormwater drainage and hot water supply) is to comply with the Local Government (Water, Sewerage and Drainage) Regulation 1998, the Plumbing Code of Australia 2012 - Plumbing & Drainage and Australian Standard AS3500 - National Plumbing and Drainage Code. Such work is to be installed by a licensed plumber and is to be inspected and approved by Council prior to concealment.

 

(2)      Convey all stormwater a minimum of 3m clear of any building, boundaries and human waste water treatment disposal areas.

 

 

 

 

Right of Appeal

 

If you are dissatisfied with this decision, section 97 of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 gives you the right to appeal to the Land and Environment Court within 6 months after the date on which you receive this notice.

* Section 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 does not apply to the determination of a development application for State significant development or local designated development that has been the subject of a Commission of Inquiry.

 

 

  Disability Discrimination Act 1992:

This application has been assessed in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. No guarantee is given that the proposal complies with the Disability Discrimination Act 1992.

 

The applicant/owner is responsible to ensure compliance with this and other anti-discrimination legislation.

 

The Disability Discrimination Act covers disabilities not catered for in the minimum standards called up in the Building Code of Australia which references AS1428.1 - "Design for Access and Mobility". AS1428 Parts 2, 3 and 4 provides the most comprehensive technical guidance under the Disability Discrimination Act currently available in Australia.

 

 

  Disclaimer - S88B Restrictions on the Use of Land:

The applicant should note that there could be covenants in favour of persons other than Council restricting what may be built or done upon the subject land. The applicant is advised to check the position before commencing any work.

 

 

Signed:

On behalf of the consent authority ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

 

 

Signature:

 

 

Name:

 

ALLAN RENIKE - MANAGER DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENTS

 

Date:

 

8 April 2015

 


Sustainable Development Committee                                                                                    7 April 2015

2.4                       Development Application DA 42/2015(1) - 389 Molong Road

Attachment 2      Plans


Sustainable Development Committee                                                          7 April 2015

 

 

2.5     Development Application DA 63/2015(1) - Camp Gallipoli - Wade Park - Lords Place

TRIM REFERENCE:        2015/857

AUTHOR:                       Andrew Crump, Senior Planner    

 

 

EXECUTIVE Summary

 

Application lodged

2 March 2015

Applicant/s

Orange City Council

Owner/s

Trade and Investment, Crown Lands , PO Box 2185

Dangar, NSW 2309

Land description

Lot 701 DP 1001618 - Wade Park - Lords Place, Orange

Proposed land use

Camping Ground (temporary use - Camp Gallipoli)

Value of proposed development

$10,000

Council's consent is sought to host a temporary camping ground for the Camp Gallipoli function on land described as Lot 701 DP 1001618 known as Wade Park, Lords Place, Orange.

The applicant submits that the purpose of Camp Gallipoli:

is to provide an opportunity for our youth to support ANZAC Day as participants rather than spectators.

Participants will be required to purchase tickets for the event and bring along with them a sleeping device such as a sleeping bag or swag, and camp out within the oval. Numbers expected for the event will be between 1000 and 1500 participants.

The applicant submits the run sheet for the event will be as follows:

·    6.00pm start with introductions

·    2 x 45 minutes sets of music/story telling

·    screening of Gallipoli movie

·    lights out at 10.00pm.

·    lights on at 4.45am for dawn service.

Toilets and food vans will be provided for the event as shown on the submitted plan.

Parking for the event will be limited to the surrounding streets and there is sufficient capacity to cater for the event. No vehicles will be permitted on the site.

Noise controls/curfews have been imposed to ensure the event does not temporarily impact on adjoining properties.

The event is viewed as making a positive contribution to the social and cultural fabric of the City. There is not expected to be any unreasonable environmental impacts as a result of the temporary use of the land and the development is recommended for approval.

It is noted that at the time of preparing the report owner’s consent from Crown Lands had not yet been obtained and Council will be further advised of this matter at the meeting.

 

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan strategy “13.4 Our Environment – Monitor and enforce regulations relating to City amenity”.

Financial Implications

Nil

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

 

 

Recommendation

That Council consents to development application DA 63/2015(1) for Camping Ground (temporary use - Camp Gallipoli) at Lot 701 DP 1001618 - Wade Park - Lords Place, Orange pursuant to the conditions of consent in the attached Notice of Approval.

 

further considerations

Consideration has been given to the recommendation’s impact on Council’s service delivery; image and reputation; political; environmental; health and safety; employees; stakeholders and project management; and no further implications or risks have been identified.

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

THE APPLICATION

Council's consent is sought to host a temporary camping ground for the Camp Gallipoli function on land described as Lot 701 DP 1001618 known as Wade Park, Lords Place, Orange.

THE PROPOSAL

The proposal involves camping out under the stars at Wade Park and conducting various ANZAC related activities such as storey telling and a screening of Gallipoli the movie. The activities will conclude at 10pm at which point the lights will be turned off and people will sleep on the oval in sleeping bags and swags.

Participants will then be woken for the dawn service at 4.45am to either walk to the Orange Cenotaph or watch the Sydney dawn service on the big screen at the oval.

The event will conclude at 9am on Anzac Day.


 

MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION

Section 5A Assessment

In the administration of sections 78A, 79B, 79C, 111 and 112, the provisions of Section 5A must be taken into account for every development application in deciding whether there is likely to be a significant effect on threatened species, populations or ecological communities or their habitats. This section includes a requirement to consider any adopted assessment guidelines, which means assessment guidelines issued and in force under section 94A of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. Assessment guidelines are in force (see DECC-W “Threatened Species Assessment Guidelines - The Assessment of Significance”) which requires consent authority to adopt the precautionary principle in its assessment.

In this instance, site inspection reveals that the subject property has no biodiversity or habitat value.

 

Section 79C

Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 requires Council to consider various matters, of which those pertaining to the application are listed below.

Local Government (Manufactured Home Estates, Caravan Parks, Camping Grounds and Moveable Dwellings) Regulation 2005

The above referenced Local Government Regulation sets out minimum requirements and the requirement for approval under the Local Government Act for permanent camping grounds; and although technically relevant to this proposal, given the temporary nature of the proposal it is not necessary to assess the development against those provisions. The applicant is seeking approval under section 68 of the Local Government Act for the temporary event.

PROVISIONS OF ANY ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENT s79C(1)(a)(i)

Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011

Part 1 - Preliminary

Clause 1.2 - Aims of Plan

The broad aims of the LEP are set out under subclause 2. Those relevant to the application are as follows:

(a)     to encourage development which complements and enhances the unique character of Orange as a major regional centre boasting a diverse economy and offering an attractive regional lifestyle,

(b)     to provide for a range of development opportunities that contribute to the social, economic and environmental resources of Orange in a way that allows present and future generations to meet their needs by implementing the principles for ecologically sustainable development,

(f)      to recognise and manage valued environmental heritage, landscape and scenic features of Orange.

The application is considered to be consistent with aims (a), (b) and (f) as listed above.

Clause 1.6 - Consent Authority

This clause establishes that, subject to the Act, Council is the consent authority for applications made under the LEP.

 

Clause 1.9A - Suspension of Covenants, Agreements and Instruments

This clause provides that covenants, agreements and other instruments which seek to restrict the carrying out of development do not apply with the following exceptions.

·    covenants imposed or required by Council

·    prescribed instruments under Section 183A of the Crown Lands Act 1989

·    any conservation agreement under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974

·    any trust agreement under the Nature Conservation Trust Act 2001

·    any property vegetation plan under the Native Vegetation Act 2003

·    any biobanking agreement under Part 7A of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995

·    any planning agreement under Division 6 of Part 4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Council staff are not aware of the title of the subject property being affected by any of the above.

Mapping

The subject site is identified on the LEP maps in the following manner:

Land Zoning Map:

Land zoned RE2 Private Recreational

Lot Size Map:

No Minimum Lot Size

Heritage Map:

heritage item

Height of Buildings Map:

No building height limit

Floor Space Ratio Map:

No floor space limit

Terrestrial Biodiversity Map:

No biodiversity sensitivity on the site

Groundwater Vulnerability Map:

Ground water vulnerable

Drinking Water Catchment Map:

Not within the drinking water catchment

Watercourse Map:

Not within or affecting a defined watercourse

Urban Release Area Map:

Not within an urban release area

Obstacle Limitation Surface Map:

No restriction on building siting or construction

Additional Permitted Uses Map:

No additional permitted use applies

Those matters that are of relevance are addressed in detail in the body of this report.


 

Part 2 - Permitted or Prohibited Development

Land Use Zones

The subject site is located within the RE2 Private Recreation zone. The proposed development is defined as a “camping ground” which under OLEP 2011 means:

an area of land that has access to communal amenities and on which campervans or tents, annexes or other similar portable and lightweight temporary shelters are, or are to be, installed, erected or placed for short term use, but does not include a caravan park.

The applicant submits that the camping ground will only be used for sleeping bags and swags. Tents, annexes or the like are not permitted to be erected on the oval for the event. Nonetheless, camping grounds are permitted with consent in the RE2 Private Recreation zone.

Clause 2.3 of LEP 2011 references the Land Use Table and Objectives for each zone in LEP 2011. These objectives for land zoned RE2 Private Recreational are as follows:

1 - Objectives of the RE2 Private Recreational Zone

·    To enable land to be used for private open space or recreational purposes.

·    To provide a range of recreational settings and activities and compatible land uses.

·    To protect and enhance the natural environment for recreational purposes.

·    To ensure development is ordered in such a way as to maximise public transport patronage and encourage walking and cycling in close proximity to settlement.

·    To ensure development along the Southern Link Road has alternative access.

The development is  not antipathetic to the objectives of the zone.

Clause 2.8 - Temporary Use of Land

This clause enables Council to provide consent for the temporary use of land if the use does not compromise future development of the land, or have detrimental economic, social, amenity or environmental effects on the land. Such temporary uses must be limited to no more than 52 days (whether or not consecutive) in any 12 month period.

In considering a temporary use under this clause Council must be satisfied that:

·   the temporary use will not prejudice the subsequent development of the land in accordance with the LEP, and

·   the temporary use will not adversely impact on any adjoining land or the amenity of the neighbourhood, and

·   the temporary use and location of any structures involved will not adversely impact on environmental attributes or features, or increase the risk of natural hazards affecting the land, and

·   that at the end of the temporary use period, the land will as far as practicable, be restored to the condition it was previously in.


 

The proposal seeks to use the site for a one-off, overnight camping ground in connection with the nationwide Camp Gallipoli event. The applicant has committed to limiting this use to a one-off event. The use is not considered to compromise the future use and development of the land for other purposes consistent with the LEP and zone objectives.

The temporary use can be undertaken without detriment to the neighbourhood, adjoining lands, environmental attributes, features and values of the land; and does not elevate the risk of natural hazards in the area. The applicant has committed to restoring the site to its current condition upon cessation of the temporary use.

Part 3 - Exempt and Complying Development

The application is not exempt or complying development. The application is seeking development consent.

Part 5 - Miscellaneous Provisions

5.10 - Heritage Conservation

Wade Park is identified as a heritage item.

(1)     Objectives

          The objectives of this clause are as follows:

(a)     to conserve the environmental heritage of Orange,

(b)     to conserve the heritage significance of heritage items and heritage conservation areas, including associated fabric, settings and views,

(c)     to conserve archaeological sites,

(d)     to conserve Aboriginal objects and Aboriginal places of heritage significance.

The development will have zero effect on the significance of the heritage item. The development is considered acceptable in this regard.

Part 6 - Urban Release Area

Not relevant to the application. The subject site is not located in an Urban Release Area.

7.2 - Flood Planning

This clause applies to land identified on the Flood Planning Map as a Flood Planning Area and requires that, before any consent is issued, Council must be satisfied that the proposal:

(a)     is compatible with the flood hazard of the land, and

(b)     is not likely to significantly adversely affect flood behaviour resulting in detrimental increases in the potential flood affectation of other development or properties, and

(c)     incorporates appropriate measures to manage risk to life from flood, and

(d)     is not likely to significantly adversely affect the environment or cause avoidable erosion, siltation, destruction of riparian vegetation or a reduction in the stability of river banks or watercourses, and

(e)     is not likely to result in unsustainable social and economic costs to the community as a consequence of flooding.

The subject land is located within the flood planning area by virtue of the freeboard criteria. Notwithstanding this, given the nature of the temporary event with participants sleeping under the stars, in the unfortunate event of inclement weather it is likely the event would be cancelled.

7.6 - Groundwater Vulnerability

This clause seeks to protect hydrological functions of groundwater systems and protect resources from both depletion and contamination. Orange has a high water table and large areas of the LGA, including the subject site, are identified with “Groundwater Vulnerability” on the Groundwater Vulnerability Map. This requires that Council consider:

(a)     whether or not the development (including any onsite storage or disposal of solid or liquid waste and chemicals) is likely to cause any groundwater contamination or have any adverse effect on groundwater dependent ecosystems, and

(b)     the cumulative impact (including the impact on nearby groundwater extraction for potable water supply or stock water supply) of the development and any other existing development on groundwater.

Furthermore consent may not be granted unless Council is satisfied that:

(a)     the development is designed, sited and will be managed to avoid any significant adverse environmental impact, or

(b)     if that impact cannot be reasonably avoided - the development is designed, sited and will be managed to minimise that impact,

(c)     if that impact cannot be minimised - the development will be managed to mitigate that impact.

The proposal is not anticipated to involve the discharge of toxic or noxious substances and is therefore unlikely to contaminate the groundwater or related ecosystems. The proposal does not involve extraction of groundwater and will therefore not contribute to groundwater depletion.

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICIES

There are no State Environmental Planning Policies applicable to the development.

PROVISIONS OF ANY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENT THAT HAS BEEN PLACED ON EXHIBITION s79C(1)(a)(ii)

There are no draft environmental planning instruments that apply to the subject land or proposed development.

DESIGNATED DEVELOPMENT

The proposed development is not designated development.


 

PROVISIONS OF ANY DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN s79C(1)(a)(iii)

Development Control Plan 2004

Development Control Plan 2004 (“the DCP”) applies to the subject land (Chapter 3 - General Considerations and Chapter 11 - Land Used for Open Space and Recreation). An assessment of the proposed development against the relevant Planning Outcomes will be undertaken below.

Chapter 0 - Orange LEP 2011

Pursuant to Planning Outcome 0.2-1 Interim Planning Outcomes - Conversion of Zones:

·    Throughout this Plan, any reference to a zone in Orange LEP 2000 is to be taken to be a reference to the corresponding zone(s) in the zone conversion table.

The corresponding zone to zone 6 (Orange LEP 2000) is zone RE2 Private Recreation (Orange LEP 2011). As such, Orange DCP 2004 - Chapter 11 is of primary relevance to this proposal and the relevant provisions are considered below.

Chapter 3 - General Considerations

Planning Outcomes - Temporary Use Of Land

·    The land used for temporary use is provided with all necessary services to meet the anticipated demand. Applications demonstrate to Council’s satisfaction that arrangements have been made for the provision of all necessary services including water supply, public amenities, car-parking facilities and electricity at the operator’s cost.

The development will achieve the above planning outcome. Toilets will be provided for the development and parking will occur within the surrounding streets.

·    Public-liability insurance is obtained by the operator for a minimum cover of $10 million dollars or greater amount if determined necessary by Council for the temporary use of public land, places or roads.

A condition is not considered warranted in relation to public liability insurance as Council is undertaking the event.

·    The approval of Council is obtained for any temporary road closures required in association with the use. The operator is responsible for all costs associated with any road closures.

The applicant has not indicated that road closures will be necessary. The volume of traffic at 5am when the participants are moving to the cenotaph will not warrant any road closures.

·    All approvals under the section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993 are granted for temporary use of Community land.

Section 68 approval under the Local Government Act is required for the camping ground, which forms part of this approval.


 

·    Applications for temporary development in the vicinity of residential areas demonstrate that the amenity of the area will not be adversely affected by intrusion from noise, night lighting or traffic.

These are addressed below under the heading “Likely Impacts of the Development”.

Planning Outcomes - Use of Public Open Space Land

·    Land is used in accordance with the relevant adopted plan of management.

The development is not inconsistent with the relevant Plan of Management for Wade Park.

PROVISIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE REGULATIONS s79C(1)(a)(iv)

The development is not inconsistent with the provisions prescribed by the regulations.

THE LIKELY IMPACTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT s79C(1)(b)

Noise Impacts

Council’s Environmental Health and Building Surveyor advises of no objection to the development in relation to noise impacts. The applicant submits that all amplified sound will be switched off no later 10pm. Moreover, when participants are woken at 4.45am there will be no amplified noise at this time either, with information conveyed to the participants through messages displayed on the big screen.

Relevant conditions are attached to the consent to ensure the event occurs in an acceptable manner.

Neighbourhood Amenity and Light Spill

The main lights will be turned off no later than 10pm and then will be reilluminated at 4.45am for people to move to the Dawn Service. Staff raise no objections to this. A condition is attached in relation to any lighting provided in addition to the existing lighting that it must be shielded so as to not cause nuisance to adjoining properties.

Traffic Impacts

Vehicles will be restricted from entering the site, with vehicles required to park on the surrounding street network. This is considered acceptable based on the time that vehicles will be parked (ie outside of business hours) the availability of area to park within close proximity to Wade Park and the short term/one-off nature of the development.

Toilet Facilities

A condition is attached to the consent that requires an appropriate amount of toilet facilities. The Federal/Australian Emergency Management Series which provides suggested numbers of toilets for temporary events has been provided to the applicant. A condition is attached referencing this document in relation to the required number of toilets.

Waste

The applicant will be required to provide a suitable amount of bins for the event and to charge someone with the responsibility of monitoring them to ensure they do not overflow with rubbish during the event.


 

THE SUITABILITY OF THE SITE s79C(1)(c)

The site is considered suitable for the proposed development. Council staff are not aware of any natural or technological constraints that would unreasonably constrain the development form occurring.

ANY SUBMISSIONS MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACT s79C(1)(d)

The proposed development is not defined as advertised development under the provisions of the LEP, and as such no formal exhibition of the application was required. Notwithstanding this, the application was notified to adjoining properties for 14 days. At the end of the exhibition period no submissions had been received.

PUBLIC INTEREST s79C(1)(e)

The proposed development is considered to be of significant interest to the wider public due to the public participation, social and cultural connections the public would have with the event. Regardless of the likely public interest, the proposal is not inconsistent with any relevant policy statements, planning studies, guidelines etc that have not been considered in this assessment.

SUMMARY

The proposed development is permissible with the consent of Council. The proposed development complies with the relevant aims, objectives and provisions of the LEP. A section 79C assessment of the development indicates that the development is acceptable in this instance. Attached is a draft Notice of Approval outlining a range of conditions considered appropriate to ensure that the development proceeds in an acceptable manner.

COMMENTS

The requirements of the Environmental Health and Building Surveyor and the Engineering Development Section are included in the attached Notice of Approval.

 

Attachments

1          Notice of Approval, D15/8412

2          Plan, D15/8179

 


Sustainable Development Committee                                                                   7 April 2015

2.5                       Development Application DA 63/2015(1) - Camp Gallipoli - Wade Park - Lords Place

Attachment 1      Notice of Approval

 

leaflogo

ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

 

Development Application No DA 63/2015(1)

 

NA15/                                                                                               Container PR7095

 

 

NOTICE OF DETERMINATION

OF A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

issued under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Section 81(1)

 

Development Application

 

  Applicant Name:

Orange City Council

  Applicant Address:

(Attention Scott Maunder)

PO Box 35

ORANGE  NSW  2800

  Owner’s Name:

Orange City Council

  Land to Be Developed:

Lot 701 DP 1001618 - Wade Park - Lords Place, Orange

  Proposed Development:

Camping Ground (temporary use - Camp Gallipoli)

 

 

Building Code of Australia

  building classification:

 

Not applicable

 

 

Determination

 

  Made On:

7 April 2015

  Determination:

CONSENT GRANTED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS DESCRIBED BELOW:

 

 

Consent to Operate From:

8 April 2015

Consent to Lapse On:

8 April 2020

 

Terms of Approval

 

The reasons for the imposition of conditions are:

 

(1)      To ensure compliance with relevant statutory requirements.

(2)      To provide adequate public health and safety measures.

(3)      To maintain neighbourhood amenity and character.

(4)      To prevent the proposed development having a detrimental effect on adjoining land uses.

(5)      To minimise the impact of development on the environment.

 

 

 

 

Conditions

 

(1)      The development must be carried out in accordance with:

 

(a)      Plan/s - one unnumbered site plan (1 sheet)

 

(b)      statements of environmental effects or other similar associated documents that form part of the approval

 

as amended in accordance with any conditions of this consent.


 

PRIOR TO WORKS COMMENCING

 

(2)      The applicant shall ensure that suitable arrangements are in place for the collection of any waste or recyclable materials likely to be generated as a result of the use of the site. Additionally, measures shall be implemented to ensure adequate arrangements continue during the event.

 

(3)      The applicant shall ensure that suitable arrangements are in place for the provision of male and female amenities facilities to cater for the likely number of participants expected for the event. The Federal/Australian Emergency Management Series for major events shall be used as a guide to calculate the number of toilets required.

 

 

DURING CONSTRUCTION/SITEWORKS

 

(4)      Any adjustments to existing utility services that are made necessary by this development proceeding are to be at the full cost of the developer.

 

(5)      All of the foregoing conditions are to be at the full cost of the developer and to the requirements and standards of the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code, unless specifically stated otherwise. All work required by the foregoing conditions is to be completed prior to the issuing of an Occupation Certificate, unless stated otherwise.

 

 

MATTERS FOR THE ONGOING PERFORMANCE AND OPERATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT

 

(6)      Any lighting associated with the event, in addition to existing lighting on the subject land, shall be sufficiently shielded or orientated such that it will cause no nuisance to adjoining residential properties.  

 

(7)      Emitted noise shall not exceed 5dB(A) above background sound level measured at the nearest affected residence.

 

 

 

 

Other Approvals

 

(1)      Local Government Act 1993 approvals granted under section 68.

 

          Approval granted to operate a Camping Ground.

 

(2)      General terms of other approvals integrated as part of this consent.

 

          Nil

 

 

 

 

Right of Appeal

 

If you are dissatisfied with this decision, section 97 of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 gives you the right to appeal to the Land and Environment Court within 6 months after the date on which you receive this notice.

* Section 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 does not apply to the determination of a development application for State significant development or local designated development that has been the subject of a Commission of Inquiry.


 

  Disability Discrimination Act 1992:

This application has been assessed in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. No guarantee is given that the proposal complies with the Disability Discrimination Act 1992.

 

The applicant/owner is responsible to ensure compliance with this and other anti-discrimination legislation.

 

The Disability Discrimination Act covers disabilities not catered for in the minimum standards called up in the Building Code of Australia which references AS1428.1 - "Design for Access and Mobility". AS1428 Parts 2, 3 and 4 provides the most comprehensive technical guidance under the Disability Discrimination Act currently available in Australia.

 

 

  Disclaimer - S88B Restrictions on the Use of Land:

The applicant should note that there could be covenants in favour of persons other than Council restricting what may be built or done upon the subject land. The applicant is advised to check the position before commencing any work.

 

 

Signed:

On behalf of the consent authority ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

 

 

Signature:

 

 

Name:

 

ALLAN RENIKE - MANAGER DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENTS

 

Date:

 

8 April 2015

 


Sustainable Development Committee                                                                                    7 April 2015

2.5                       Development Application DA 63/2015(1) - Camp Gallipoli - Wade Park - Lords Place

Attachment 2      Plan

 


Sustainable Development Committee                                                          7 April 2015

 

 

2.6     JRPP Planning Proposal for Rezoning to B2 Local Centre Telopea Way North Orange

TRIM REFERENCE:        2015/835

AUTHOR:                       David Waddell, Director Development Services    

 

 

EXECUTIVE Summary

PlanningNSW staff in Dubbo have advised that the exhibition of the North Orange Planning Proposal for land on the corner of Telopea Way and Farrell road (aka KFC/Service station) will be extended to April 13 2015.

In addition a ‘drop-in’ session was held on March 30 at Waratahs 2-5 pm to provide information to the public.

It is of note that the JRPP will decide this matter later in the year. It is also of note that due to the Gateway determination the proposal now involves rezoning to B2 Local Centre (which would allow a wide range of commercial uses) which is the same as the current Woolworths site across the road. Previously the applicant sought an Additional Permitted Use (APU) which would have seen Service station/fast food uses added to the Residential zone on that lot only.

Council’s previous resolution was:

RESOLVED – 13/430                                                                                         Cr Kidd/Cr Gander

1        That Council note the contents of this report and associated supporting material.

2        That Council determine to reject the rezoning request for the corner of Farrell Road and Telopea Way on the following grounds:

a   Rezoning of the site is beyond the commercial needs of north Orange as identified in adopted Council strategies.

b   Two alternative sites at Leeds Parade and the Northern Distributor Road have already been zoned for highway service centres of the scale envisaged.

Council made vigorous submission to the earlier public hearing on 20 February 2014.

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan strategy “1.1 Our City - Provide easily obtainable information on the legal responsibilities of Councillors, Council staff and the community”.

Financial Implications

Nil

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

 

Recommendation

That

1        Council strongly request a public hearing be held in the process of the Joint Regional Planning Panel determining the proposed re-zoning of the corner at Telopea and Farrell Road to full B2 Local Centre zoning.

2        The report on the Joint Regional Planning Panel – Planning Proposal for re-zoning to B2 Local Centre – Telopea Way North Orange be noted.

 

further considerations

Consideration has been given to the recommendation’s impact on Council’s service delivery; image and reputation; political; environmental; health and safety; employees; stakeholders and project management; and no further implications or risks have been identified.

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

PlanningNSW staff in Dubbo have advised that the exhibition of the North Orange Planning Proposal for land on the corner of Telopea Way and Farrell road (aka KFC/Service station) will be extended to April 13 2015.

In addition a ‘drop-in’ session was held on March 30 at Waratahs 2-5 pm to provide information to the public.

It is of note that the JRPP will decide this matter later in the year.  It is also of note that due to the Gateway determination the proposal now involves rezoning to B2 Local Centre (which would allow a wide range of commercial uses) which is the same as the current Woolworths site across the road. Previously the applicant sought an Additional Permitted Use (APU) which would have seen Service station/fast food uses added to the Residential zone on that lot only.

Council’s previous resolution was:

RESOLVED – 13/430                                                                                         Cr Kidd/Cr Gander

1        That Council note the contents of this report and associated supporting material.

2        That Council determine to reject the rezoning request for the corner of Farrell Road and Telopea Way on the following grounds:

a   Rezoning of the site is beyond the commercial needs of north Orange as identified in adopted Council strategies.

b   Two alternative sites at Leeds Parade and the Northern Distributor Road have already been zoned for highway service centres of the scale envisaged.

Council made vigorous submission to the earlier public hearing on 20 February 2014.

Council will remember that the proposal involves the use of the site on the corner of Telopea Way and Farrell Road for the purposes of a fast food premises and service station, which are not permissible uses under the R1 zoning in OLEP 2011. The proposal would see the site rezoned to B2 Local Centre, effectively the same as the North Orange Woolworths site. It is notable that this would then also allow myriad commercial uses.

In short, the Gateway team at the Department has resolved that the planning proposal should proceed to public exhibition and consultation.

Council's opposition to the proposal has resulted in the JRPP being appointed the Relevant Planning Authority, as is the right of the applicant to seek consideration from a higher planning authority.

At this stage the department of planning has not confirmed that a public hearing will be held as a step in the determination process. Council had anticipated that a public hearing would be an essential step in such a controversial local development. As such it is considered that Council ought resolve to seek a public hearing on the matter.

Staff will again be making submission to the JRPP on the planning proposal, opposing the proposal on strategic planning grounds as well as local issues such as inappropriateness of the site given the relevantly zoned SP3 sites on the Northern Distributor Road that are available for such purposes.