Agenda of Sustainable Development Committee

Sustainable Development Committee 5 May 2015

2.1 Items Approved Under the Delegated Authority of Council

TRIM REFERENCE: 2015/891

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 257/2009(2)	Determination Date	26 March 2015
PR Number	PR21762
Applicant/s:	Mr I Zhang
Owner/s:	Dinkum Exporting and Importing Pty Ltd
Location:	Lots 4 and 6 DP 1108024 – 128 Kearneys Drive, Orange
Proposal:	Modification of DA 257/2009(1) for subdivision (22 lot residential and two lot public reserve). The modification involves minor reconfiguration of the majority of lots and the addition of a triangular shaped area of land adjacent to Lot 4 which was transferred from the adjoining land to the southeast
Value:	$0

Reference:	DA 183/2014(1)	Determination Date	27 March 2015
PR Number	PR26475
Applicant/s:	Mr M Mustac
Owner/s:	Mustac Enterprises Pty Ltd
Location:	Lot 311 DP 1192977 – 22 Emmaville Street, Orange
Proposal:	Multi dwelling housing (six units), subdivision (three lot Torrens and seven lot Community Title) and two dwellings
Value:	$1,440,000

Reference:	DA 389/2014(1)	Determination Date	27 March 2015
PR Number	PR13447
Applicant/s:	Orange Waratahs Sports Club Ltd
Owner/s:	Trade & Investment – Crown Lands
Location:	Lot 21 DP 632673 – 34 Telopea Way, Orange
Proposal:	Recreation area (training lights and water tank)
Value:	$100,000

Reference:	DA 44/2015(1)	Determination Date	25 March 2015
PR Number	PR26738
Applicant/s:	R-TEC (NSW) Pty Ltd
Owner/s:	R-TEC (NSW) Pty Ltd
Location:	Lot 306 DP 1201019 – 31 Dimboola Way, Orange
Proposal:	Dual occupancy and subdivision (two lot residential)
Value:	$400,000

Reference:	DA 75/2015(1)	Determination Date	1 April 2015
PR Number	PR10738
Applicant/s:	Mrs AL Wilson
Owner/s:	Mr GD and Mrs AL Wilson
Location:	Lot 1 DP 744326 – 39 Sampson Street, Orange
Proposal:	Demolition (tree removal)
Value:	$1,400

Reference:	DA 110/2015(1)	Determination Date	17 April 2015
PR Number	PR7078
Applicant/s:	Mr P Jones
Owner/s:	Rossi Orchards Pty Ltd
Location:	Lot 88 DP 786975 – 196 Lords Place, Orange
Proposal:	Business identification signage
Value:	$7,500

TOTAL NET* VALUE OF ALL DEVELOPMENTS APPROVED IN THIS PERIOD: $1,948,900

* 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 5 May 2015

2.2 Daydawn Place - Post Exhibition Report

TRIM REFERENCE: 2015/1060

AUTHOR: Craig Mortell, Senior Planner

EXECUTIVE Summary

Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 (LEP 2011) Amendment 1 was gazetted on 14 March 2014. That gazettal formalised the Amendment. The Draft amendment originally classified the area around Daydawn Place as an Urban Release Area (URA) with relatively large lot sizes (circa 10,000 m²). Following submissions by some landowners requesting smaller lot sizes, the URA was removed from the Amendment pending further work, as such these lot sizes were not exhibited.

As reported to the 2 December 2014 Sustainable Development Committee (SDC) meeting a draft Development Control Plan (DCP) incorporating a precinct or master plan for the infill development of Daydawn Place was prepared. That SDC meeting resolved to place the DCP and Master Plan on public exhibition.

Exhibition was held between 10 January 2015 and 10 February 2015. Submissions were received from 15 authors, including one community group, and the issues raised in those submissions have been reviewed internally. As a result minor changes to the Master Plan are now recommended in order to address some of the concerns raised while maintaining the overall vision for the precinct as a transitional area between the urban fabric of the city and the adjoining rural hinterland.

This report outlines the issues raised during exhibition, the minor changes proposed as a result of exhibition, and seeks endorsement from Council to adopt the Master Plan in its current form so that the matter may progress to an Amendment of the Local Environmental Plan consistent with the draft DCP Master Plan.

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan strategy “2.1 Our City - Provide a flexible and adaptable community engagement process for gathering and disseminating information, ideas and responses and engage with the community through a variety of formats”.

Financial Implications

Nil

Policy and Governance Implications

If adopted the DCP Master Plan will form part of the planning framework that governs development in the Daydawn Place precinct.

Recommendation

1 That Council adopt the Daydawn Place Master Plan for inclusion into the Orange Development Control Plan 2004.

2 That Council proceed with submitting a Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning Gateway process seeking to amend the Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 to be consistent with the Daydawn Place Master Plan.

further considerations

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Issues of roads, sewer and water servicing and environmental considerations were presented to SDC in the pre-exhibition report.

Four submissions were either in favour or conditionally in favour of the proposal. These submissions sought adjustments to proposed lot boundaries or an additional lot. Where possible the Master Plan has been adapted to accommodate some, but not all of these concerns.

Supply and Demand

One submission questioned whether the proposal was required to meet demand given the Shiralee project has increased the overall level of supply. The proposal would convert the area from 10 lots to a total of 38, an increase of 28 lots. The Shiralee project is anticipated to yield approximately 1,765 lots. Clearly, the Daydawn Place precinct makes a modest contribution to the level of supply.

Daydawn Place was selected, along with others such as the Phillip Street precinct, as an example of infill development. The infill sites have the advantage of having reticulated services already available. While Shiralee will provide a substantial amount of supply over many years, the infill sites are well placed to meet more immediate demand from the market as Shiralee is brought online. Additionally, the infill sites provide a degree of locational variety which may appeal to some buyers ahead of Shiralee and other sites.

Another submission expressed the view that this project would displace a supply of 2ha lots. While true, there are alternative locations with such lots within commuting range of Orange.

Landowner Certainty

A view was expressed that once established the zoning pattern of an area should be permanently fixed, in order to provide landowners with a reasonable degree of certainty about future developments in the area. The planning system does seek to provide a level of certainty and comfort to landowners in this regard. However, whenever a city or town experiences sustained growth some level of adaptation must be made.

In effect there are only three options possible when planning to accommodate growth;

1 increased density in established urban areas;

2 increased geographic spread of urban settlement; or

3 creation of satellite suburbs, towns and cities well beyond the existing urban footprint.

All three of the possible options involve disruption to the established pattern of settlement, and the expectations of landowners. It therefore becomes a question of the degree and scale of change proposed and the reasonableness of such change. In this regard Daydawn Place is a fully serviced 2ha subdivision on the fringe of a growing regional city. Neighbouring subdivisions are significantly smaller (0.4ha in Girrahween Place and 0.2ha in Dairy Hill Place). The proposed increase in density to a scale comparable with the neighbouring subdivisions is seen to be a natural and reasonable response to the continued growth in the Orange population overall.

Naturally Occurring Asbestos

Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA) and the potential for harm to residents and the broader community was raised in 6 submissions. The potential for NOA in serpentinite rock formations over the northern half of the subject land is acknowledged. However this does not preclude all forms of development, indeed five of the existing houses in Daydawn Place have been constructed on land considered to be affected by NOA.

Developing on NOA affected lands requires adherence to a variety of legislative requirements and appropriate work methods and practices. These are outlined in Council’s document “Naturally Occurring Asbestos Planning Procedures” as prepared by Noel Arnold and Associates and adopted in January 2006. Therefore, provided works are undertaken with appropriate care and adopts precautionary measures and practices the presence of NOA need not prevent development of the land.

Character and Amenity

Impacts upon character and amenity of the area were raised in many of the submissions. This was often expressed in the form of comparing the proposed lot sizes with those present both on the site itself and in adjacent developments, namely Girrahween Place and Dairy Hill Place. Some submissions suggested that any reduction below the current 2ha lot size would mean the area would lose its rural character. One submission argued that the “character” of the area should have regard to lot sizes on adjoining subdivisions.

In this regard properties in Girrahween Place, where lots are 4,000m² (0.4ha) and above, were stated to be part of the established character. However, any move to lots below that level such as to the potential 2,500m² suggested in the Master Plan would be inconsistent with the rural character.

This suggests that a change in lot size from one side of Ophir Road to the other of 0.4ha to 2ha (i.e. a 80% difference) is in keeping with the character of the area, whereas a difference of 0.25ha to 0.4ha (i.e. a 37.5% difference) is deemed unacceptable. Clearly, the relationship of lot sizes is not the sole criteria and percentage comparisons have different significance at different scales. Nonetheless, the lot sizes proposed along Ophir Road have been designed to be comparable in feel to Girrahween Place, lot sizes then increase in size towards the south-eastern side of the precinct so that the largest blocks adjoin the farmland beyond.

The extent and quality of landscaping evident in Girrahween Place is commendable and serves to demonstrate the high quality environment that can be achieved on lots well below the 2ha mark. By contrast the sparse and dispersed landscaping currently found in Daydawn Place demonstrates that it can take a considerable timeframe for larger blocks to achieve a similar outcome.

To put it another way, small lots have less opportunity for landscaping than large lots but increasing lot size beyond a certain “manageable” size results in landscaping being spread more thinly and giving a more sparse appearance due to finite time, effort or cost involved.

The contention that 2,500m² lots will either destroy, or cannot contribute positively to, the rural character of the area is not supported. Such lots are 4 to 5 times the size of many urban lots and clearly have the potential for a house surrounded by generous landscaping.

Traffic

Objectors suggested that the proposal would require turning lanes from Ophir Road into Daydawn Place in order to handle the anticipated volume of traffic. One submission highlighted concerns about the existing volume of traffic at the intersection of March Street (Ophir Road) and Winter Street located some 430m from the Daydawn Place intersection.

It was suggested that the additional traffic volumes generated by the Daydawn Place proposal would worsen an existing perceived problem intersection. Both traffic matters have been referred to Council’s Engineers for consideration. However the existing capacity in the local road network is considered to be adequate to cater for the increased demand.

A related concern expressed involves whether waste removal trucks would be able to properly access and service the site. This is effectively a matter of ensuring that the new cul-de-sacs are designed with appropriate turning circle radii and would be addressed during assessment of individual development applications.

The road layout was also questioned suggesting that the new roads would be oriented across the slope of the hill leading to erosion. The layout has been reviewed and the new roads are oriented to run up the slope which would limit potential for erosion.

Artists Impression

One submission questioned the appropriateness of the “artists impression” noting that this illustration had included additional mature landscaping along with the additional dwellings. It was stated that landscaping obviously takes time to mature and therefore the impression was an attempt to cover up the dwellings and mislead the public. The actual intent of the impression was to give a long term visualisation of the estate. The additional landscaping was included to reflect the level of landscaping typically provided on lots of similar size.

The submitter concerned supplied an “alternative artists impression”. The alternative impression removed the additional landscaping and included several dozen additional dwellings well in excess of anything proposed in the master plan. Despite the deficiencies of the alternative impression it has nonetheless illustrated the need to prevent an expanse of metal panel fencing along Ophir Road. As such, the fencing provisions of the Master Plan have been amended to ensure an open style of fencing is required to all road frontages.

Inclusion of Council land

The inclusion of a triangular area of road reserve at the Priest Lane end of Ophir Road was noted by some submissions either suggesting a financial bias or recommending the road reserve be kept for stormwater detention and a wetland. This is related to the concerns about stormwater runoff described below.

Stormwater and runoff

Submissions detailed current stormwater overland flow patterns in Ophir Road. It was stated that during wet weather flows currently run along the north-western side of Ophir Road before crossing to the eastern side in front of 1 Girrahween Place and then flowing into the dam at 12 Daydawn Place. Overall run off from the northern end of the precinct.

One landowner submitted an objection to additional lots being provided at 24 Daydawn Place due to previous experiences when the house was built at that address and as a result of earthworks stormwater runoff allegedly damaged the property at 26 Daydawn Place. Any similar issues would be addressed during assessment of development applications.

Topography

A submission suggested that due to the slope of the land new houses would either require excessive cut-and-fill or be built on elevated foundations which may in turn create overshadowing.

The degree of excavation would be assessed during each development application. With respect to overshadowing the slope of the hill faces north to northeast and the lots will be of a considerable size. Consequently shadow casting would fall on the uphill side of the houses, shortening its distance, and the lot sizes mean there will be ample opportunity to site buildings so that overshadowing does not impact upon neighbours.

Land Values

An objection raised the issue of potential impact upon property prices. Staff do not support the view that the Master Plan would have a negative impact on property values. In any respect property values do fluctuate with the broader economy and the level of population growth. It is therefore impossible to isolate, with any degree of certainty, the effect positive or negative that the proposal could have on land values.

Governance

An objector asked what process led to Daydawn Place being rezoned and whether a Local Environmental Study had been undertaken. Daydawn Place was identified for rezoning during the Amendment 1 process but was withdrawn when it became clear that several landowners were seeking a more ambitious level of subdivision. This Master Plan DCP is therefore seen as the first step in the process and would in turn lead to an LEP amendment supported by appropriate studies as may be required under any Gateway Determination.

Proposed changes

The owner of 19 Daydawn Place sought a design change in relation to the size and configuration of lots proposed on their land. The Master Plan proposes four additional lots on their land as shown in the figure below.

While this request would not alter the number of lots created it would either reduce the size of two lots considerably. Staff considered whether re-positioning of the new road could allow the change sought and still give the new lots sufficient room to allow for generous landscaping.

This would result in a “staggered T” intersection given the new road proposed on the other side of Daydawn Place. In order to give the stagger enough separation to be safe the corner lot fronting Ophir Road and Daydawn Place would then face the same reduction in size and reduction of landscaping potential. It is also considered that a full cross intersection is the safest outcome for both motorists and pedestrians.

It should be noted that the Master Plan as proposed does not require the owner to fully subdivide and create all four new lots.

With due regard to all the issues raised in submissions, staff recommend two minor changes to the layout provided in the draft Master Plan. The layout as exhibited and the proposed changes are shown below.

The exhibited version of the plan (total of 36 house lots)

The revised version of the plan (total of 38 house lots)

The first proposed change involves the existing properties at 12 Ophir Road and 20 Daydawn Place. The exhibited version of the plan had shown one of the new lots straddling the boundary between the two properties. This would require both property owners to reach agreement and wish to proceed simultaneously with their respective subdivisions.

Since subdivision of 12 Ophir Road is already reliant upon the new road across 12 Daydawn Place being constructed it was considered appropriate to revise design to remove the straddle. This has resulted in one additional lot potential being created on 12 Ophir Road.

The second proposed change relates to the property at 26 Daydawn Place, whose owner made a submission questioning the rationale for neighbouring properties to have potential for 2 or 3 additional lots while they would only have potential for 1.

Given the lower position on the slope of the hill and the reasonable distance from the Northern Distributor Road it was considered that an additional lot at the front of the property could be achieved without hindering the intent. This is consistent with placing the smaller parcels towards the Ophir Road side of the precinct and gradually increasing in size with distance from Ophir Road.

A request for additional yield was received from the owners of 24 Daydawn Place. However this was not supported on the basis of being in a more elevated position. The concept plan is predicated on limiting dwelling density at the top of the hill so as to maintain a lower density appearance.

A request for additional yield was also received from the owners of 23 Daydawn Place, however this property backs directly onto the Northern Distributor Road and the design seeks to limit the number of dwellings that would be subjected to NDR traffic noise.

WHERE TO FROM HERE?

The DCP and Precinct Plan incorporate detailed urban design controls as necessary to ensure the delivery of a quality urban expansion consistent with community and landowner expectations.

This will bring the strategic process to completion, allowing for the orderly development of a high quality residential precinct, catering for the constraints of the land, natural environment and enhancing the reputation of Orange as a desirable place to live, work and raise a family.

The process from here will see the Planning Proposal sent to the Department of Planning for a Gateway Determination to amend the LEP. That amendment will then undergo public scrutiny during a separate exhibition process before returning to Council for adoption, which in turn would lead to gazettal through the Parliamentary Counsel’s Office.

Attachments

1 DRAFT Daydawn Place Development Control Plan 2014, D15/12065 ⇩

2 Daydawn Place Draft DCP Submission, IC15/424 ⇩

3 Daydawn Place Draft DCP Submission, IC15/392 ⇩

4 Daydawn Place Draft DCP Submission, IC15/662 ⇩

5 Daydawn Place Draft DCP Submission, IC15/849 ⇩

6 Daydawn Place Draft DCP Submission, D15/11776 ⇩

7 Daydawn Place Draft DCP Submission, IC15/1416 ⇩

8 Daydawn Place Draft DCP Submission, IC15/1458 ⇩

9 Daydawn Place Draft DCP Submission, D15/11769 ⇩

10 Daydawn Place Draft DCP Submission, D15/11771 ⇩

11 Daydawn Place Draft DCP Submission, IC15/1550 ⇩