Agenda of Council Meeting

Date of Meeting	Question	Responsible Staff Member	Action	Date for completion
5 July 2016	A report was requested on the number of diverted or cancelled Rex flights over the last year, together with air fares to Sydney from Orange, Cowra, Parkes, Dubbo and Bathurst.	Commercial and Emergency Services Manager	Report to be provided.	5 August 2016
Cr Jones requested a report on the current situation with billboard advertising in the Central Business District and the strategies in place to manage compliance.	Director Development Services	Information to be provided.	5 August 2016
Cr Duffy requested that Essential Energy be asked to review lighting levels around taxi ranks in the City and particularly the taxi rank in Anson Street.	Commercial and Emergency Services Manager	Essential Energy have advised they do not undertake street lighting audit. Council would need to engage a contractor to do the audit.	11 July 2016
A request was made for information about any other special arrangements that may be in place with other schools in Orange in relation to pedestrian/bicycle access.	Director Development Services	This item will be researched and information to be provided.	15 July 2016
7 June 2016	Cr Duffy requested a report on parking infringements since the introduction of the new mobile technology.	Director Development Services	Information to be provided.	15 July 2016
2 February 2016	Cr Kidd requested information on Council’s weeds management regime as he indicated many Council properties have weed infestations.	Director Development Services	Natural Resource Coordinator coordinating with a view to also adding to Council’s website.	22 July 2015
Following a question from Cr Jones, a Council briefing will be held to discuss progress on a new caravan park.	Director Corporate and Commercial Services	Options being progressed to present to briefing – includes the trotting track and go kart track implications.	30 October 2016
15 Dec 2015	Cr Gryllis requested consideration be given to allowing property owners to have footpath lighting connected to their supply.	Director Technical Services	This item is being researched and information to be circulated to Councillors.	30 August 2016
17 Nov 2015	Cr Gander requested a Councillor briefing on the RSPCA.	Manager Building and Environment	This item was included In the Councillor Briefing of 12 July	12 July 2016
The Mayor requested a report identifying Council’s resolved position on the requirement for footpaths to be installed in new/existing areas.	Director Technical Services	Report to be provided.	30 October 2016
16 June 2015	Cr Kidd requested an update on plans for landscaping the triangle section of land between the Northern Distributor Road and the Mitchell Highway	Director Technical Services	Information to be circulated to Councillors. Asbestos Steering Group has just received recommended actions for consideration. Asbestos Management Policy and Plan re-circulated to Councillors. Council’s City Presentation Team is awaiting final recommendations back from specialist consultant on appropriate options for covering NOA material at the site and avoiding further contact though effective site management.	30 August 2016
17 Mar 2015	Cr Taylor requested a review of Council’s process for determining requests to waive hire fees for the Orange Function Centre, and include a review of costs for making the Centre available.	Director Community, Recreation and Cultural Services	Information provided to Councillors by memo on 11 July 2016	11 July 2016
2 Sept 2014	Cr Hamling requested a briefing to consider options for private cars for sale being parked on Council land, particularly on the Northern Distributor Road and the Escort Way, and Jack Brabham Park.	Director Development Services	This item was included in the Councillor Briefing held on 12 July 2016.	12 July 2016
15 April 2014	Cr Taylor requested consideration be given to further noise abatement issues at the residential properties in Anson Street adjacent to the Northern Distributor Road.	Director Technical Services	The design of a suitable sound mound has been completed. Construction likely to commence in 2016/17 with mounds to be constructed from projects in close proximity with an excess of clean fill. To allow for settlement, a budget item will be considered for fencing in the 2017/18 financial year.	30 June 2017

Date of Meeting

Question

Responsible Staff Member

Action

Date for completion

5 July 2016

A report was requested on the number of diverted or cancelled Rex flights over the last year, together with air fares to Sydney from Orange, Cowra, Parkes, Dubbo and Bathurst.

Commercial and Emergency Services Manager

Report to be provided.

5 August 2016

Cr Jones requested a report on the current situation with billboard advertising in the Central Business District and the strategies in place to manage compliance.

Director Development Services

Information to be provided.

5 August 2016

Cr Duffy requested that Essential Energy be asked to review lighting levels around taxi ranks in the City and particularly the taxi rank in Anson Street.

Commercial and Emergency Services Manager

Essential Energy have advised they do not undertake street lighting audit. Council would need to engage a contractor to do the audit.

11 July 2016

A request was made for information about any other special arrangements that may be in place with other schools in Orange in relation to pedestrian/bicycle access.

Director Development Services

This item will be researched and information to be provided.

15 July 2016

7 June

2016

Cr Duffy requested a report on parking infringements since the introduction of the new mobile technology.

Director Development Services

Information to be provided.

15 July 2016

2 February 2016

Cr Kidd requested information on Council’s weeds management regime as he indicated many Council properties have weed infestations.

Director Development Services

Natural Resource Coordinator coordinating with a view to also adding to Council’s website.

22 July 2015

Following a question from Cr Jones, a Council briefing will be held to discuss progress on a new caravan park.

Director Corporate and Commercial Services

Options being progressed to present to briefing – includes the trotting track and go kart track implications.

30 October 2016

15 Dec 2015

Cr Gryllis requested consideration be given to allowing property owners to have footpath lighting connected to their supply.

Director Technical Services

This item is being researched and information to be circulated to Councillors.

30 August 2016

17 Nov

2015

Cr Gander requested a Councillor briefing on the RSPCA.

Manager Building and Environment

This item was included In the Councillor Briefing of 12 July

12 July 2016

The Mayor requested a report identifying Council’s resolved position on the requirement for footpaths to be installed in new/existing areas.

Director Technical Services

Report to be provided.

30 October 2016

16 June 2015

Cr Kidd requested an update on plans for landscaping the triangle section of land between the Northern Distributor Road and the Mitchell Highway

Director Technical Services

Information to be circulated to Councillors. Asbestos Steering Group has just received recommended actions for consideration. Asbestos Management Policy and Plan re-circulated to Councillors. Council’s City Presentation Team is awaiting final recommendations back from specialist consultant on appropriate options for covering NOA material at the site and avoiding further contact though effective site management.

30 August 2016

17 Mar 2015

Cr Taylor requested a review of Council’s process for determining requests to waive hire fees for the Orange Function Centre, and include a review of costs for making the Centre available.

Director Community, Recreation and Cultural Services

Information provided to Councillors by memo on 11 July 2016

11 July 2016

2 Sept 2014

Cr Hamling requested a briefing to consider options for private cars for sale being parked on Council land, particularly on the Northern Distributor Road and the Escort Way, and Jack Brabham Park.

Director Development Services

This item was included in the Councillor Briefing held on 12 July 2016.

12 July 2016

15 April 2014

Cr Taylor requested consideration be given to further noise abatement issues at the residential properties in Anson Street adjacent to the Northern Distributor Road.

Director Technical Services

The design of a suitable sound mound has been completed. Construction likely to commence in 2016/17 with mounds to be constructed from projects in close proximity with an excess of clean fill. To allow for settlement, a budget item will be considered for fencing in the 2017/18 financial year.

30 June 2017

Council Meeting 19 July 2016

5.8 Development within Suma Park Inundation zone

TRIM REFERENCE: 2016/1411

AUTHOR: David Waddell, Director Development Services

EXECUTIVE Summary

Council recently approved Development Application DA 287/2015(1) for a two-lot subdivision at 538 Ophir Road.

In that report staff alluded to a need to prevent further subdivision past a point of increased risk in order maintain an acceptable risk level to both Council and potential future residents seeking to develop dwellings below Suma Park Dam wall within the dam’s inundation zone.

This report outlines details around the risk profile of Suma Park Dam and proposes that Council seek to amend Orange Local Environment Plan 2011 to control further subdivision in the Suma Park inundation zone via an increase in minimum lot size (see attached map).

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan strategy “13.2 Our Environment – Identify changing community aspirations and undertake community engagement to inform planning and advocacy of plans and policies for integrated water management and energy utilities”.

Financial Implications

Council has been advised that as a council included in the NSW Government’s merger proposals under consideration by the Office of Local Government since referral on 6 January 2016, Council must comply with the merger proposal period guidelines issued under S23A of the Local Government Act 1993.

The guidelines instruct Council it should expend money in accordance with the detailed budget adopted for the purposes of implementing the Delivery/Operational Plan for the 2015/16 year.

Any expenditure outside the adopted budget requires the identification of clear and compelling grounds and must be approved by Council at a meeting that is open to the public. The guidelines indicate the resolution of Council for increased expenditure must specify the reasons why the expenditure is required and warranted.

If increased expenditure is greater than $250,000 or 1% of the Council’s revenue from rates in the preceding year, whichever is the greater, Council is required to exhibit the increase to the budget and consider comments received.

Council must also avoid entering into contracts or undertakings where expenditure or revenue is greater than $250,000 or 1% of the Council’s revenue from rates in the preceding year, whichever is the greater, unless the contract or undertaking is as a result of a decision or procurement process commenced prior to the merger proposal period or where entering into a contract or undertaking is reasonably necessary for the purposes of meeting the ongoing service delivery commitments of the Council or was previously approved in the Council’s Delivery/Operational Plan.

Policy and Governance Implications

It is recommended that Council amends Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 in terms of minimum lot sizes downstream of Suma Park Dam to restrict the potential to increase the number of lots and dwellings in the extreme event flooding area. There is a risk that should the potential not be restricted, Council may incur financial implications of having to further upgrade the dam.

Recommendation

1 That Council prepare a Planning Proposal to control subdivision in the Suma Park Dam inundation zone via an increase in minimum lot size.

2 That Council consult with affected landowners.

3 That Council submit the Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway process.

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

At the Planning and Development Committee meeting held on 5 July 2016 Council resolved to approve Development Application DA 287/2015(1) for a two-lot subdivision at 538 Ophir Road. The report identified the need to prevent further subdivision past a point of increased risk in order to maintain an acceptable risk level to both Council and residents living beneath the dam wall within the inundation zone (see attached map denoting affected area).

The issue of note is the suitability of providing additional housing in a location that has the potential to be greatly affected by flooding should the Suma Park Dam wall fail in an extreme event, such as during an earthquake.

Suma Park Dam has been recently upgraded by raising the Full Supply Level by 1.0m and upgrading the spillway to meet the standards set by the NSW Dam Safety Committee (NSW DSC) and the Australian National Committee on Large Dams (ANCOLD). However, the upgrade was based on the existing infrastructure and population downstream of the dam to meet the societal life safety risk ‘negligible’ threshold.

Council sought technical advice from specialist dam and water consultant, Entura, in regards to that proposal. Based on that advice it was considered that the additional residential lot and future dwelling at 538 Ophir Rd were acceptable in this case, as the ‘negligible’ threshold would still be able to be met, provided that the future dwelling has a flood warning alarm systems installed as with the other existing dwellings downstream of the dam.

The report recommended that Council supports the application but noted, however, that should the population downstream of the dam increase further by way of additional development, the ‘negligible risk’ threshold may no longer be met. As such, it was recommended that Council amends Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 in terms of flood risk or minimum lot sizes downstream of Suma Park Dam to restrict the potential to increase the number of lots and dwellings in the extreme event flooding area.

The recently approved development has the potential to set a precedent for additional development and an increase in population, which may cause conflict between this zone and the nearby Infrastructure (Water Supply) zone for Suma Park Dam. An increase in population would ultimately increase the risk threshold for the dam, and increase the need for further upgrades to the dam. As this locality is not considered to be a suitable to provide for population growth controls to restrict further development are therefore recommended.

It is important to note that the flood mapping set out in the LEP generally determines flood extents based on 1:100 ARI flood events, with the consideration of a 0.5m freeboard. The Design Flood Frequency used in Entura’s mapping and the design of the dam upgrade was a 1,000,000 AEP. Planning controls do not normally take into account extremely rare catastrophic events such as dam failure.

As set out in the Technical Memo prepared by Entura, dated 7 April 2016:

“the upgrade of Suma Park Dam should not increase the potential for flood during a 1:100 ARI event. What the upgrade has done, is increase the storage capacity of the dam and improve the structural integrity of the dam. Unless the dam is at full capacity at the time of a 1:100 ARI event, the amount of inundation downstream should actually decrease. The inundation scenario identified in the dam upgrade was based on a flood frequency of 1,000,000 AEP which is far beyond the 100 AEP event normally provided for within planning schemes”.

Previously it was noted that the dam standards are based on Societal Risk thresholds. Entura made the following comments in regards to risk and the thresholds:

- The application of these standards require the Societal Risk to be assessed which is a consideration of the Dam’s Probability of Failure versus the Number of Fatalities. The Number of Fatalities value is derived, in part, from the calculation of a Population At Risk (PAR) value.

- The development of the upgrade options took into account a PAR value. Potentially, any increase in this value may change the assessment of Societal Risk against a tolerable limit set under ANCOLD standards.

- While it is unlikely that a minor increase in development potential would have a significant impact it is noted that, in the case of Suma Park Dam, the three identified scenarios impact on an Urban Release Area.

Concerns have been raised that any other additional development downstream of the dam will exponentially increase the risk threshold for the dam, where the ‘negligible risk’ threshold may no longer be met as the population increases. Advice received from Council’s dam consultant recommends that planning controls are amended to restrict further development downstream of the dam.

Entura makes the following comments in this regard:

- While development of this land in the future would be required to take into account potential environmental constraints, the concern is that any development may impact upon the outcomes of a future Dam Safety Review and may require further upgrade works to the dam.

- A sensitivity analysis of these scenarios, or a review of the Societal Risk of the dam, would be necessary to quantify this risk. Council has provided additional information on the potential for development downstream of the dam (refer Attachment A) which indicates that there are approximately 31 additional land titles that fall within the potential inundation extent that are likely be subject to development in the future. This would represent an approximate increase in the Population at Risk (PAR) of 78 for flood failure, representing a 62% increase in the current estimate.

- A detailed risk assessment has not been completed for the dam, however, the effect of an additional 31 houses downstream on the Societal Risk has been indicated in Figure 1 (see report Figure 3 below). This shows that the risk posed by the dam will increase over time, however, it will be close to the NSW Dam Safety Committee’s negligible risk line even with the additional development. The increase in risk can be minimised through the extension of the current flood warning system to all new developments in the potential inundation zone and effective emergency planning.

- Another aspect of the Suma Park Dam upgrade is that some of the extreme flood flows will be diverted through the saddle to the west of the main arch dam and then flow down a minor gully back into Summer Hill Creek downstream of the main dam. As a result of this, dangerous flood flows will be directed across Bulgas Road and down the gully under extreme flood events (AEP<1:500). The planning scheme will need to be modified to prevent development within the full extent of this modified flood zone;

Existing subdivision patterns downstream of the Dam consists of a range of lot sizes, from approximately 1.2ha up to 143ha. The current minimum lot size required for subdivision is 2ha. There are approximately 19 lots in the inundation area which have the potential to be further subdivided, that is, existing lots that are over 4ha in size (see Figure 1 and attached map).

Figure 1: Properties within Inundation Area with potential for further subdivision

(under current LEP 2011 provisions)

While there is the potential for up to 71 additional lots, the likely number of additional lots is 31, therefore resulting in the potential for 31 additional dwellings in the area at risk of an extreme flooding event. As noted previously, the cumulative increase in population will increase the societal risk of the dam above the ‘negligible’ threshold (see Figure 2).

Figure 2: Societal Life Safety Risk (from ‘Technical Memo’, by Entura, 7 April 2016)

As such, it is recommended that Council instructs staff to prepare a Planning Proposal to prevent further subdivision in the Suma Park inundation zone via an increase in minimum lot size. It is also recommended that Council instructs staff to consult with affected landowners, and following that consultation, allows staff to submit the Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning Gateway process. This will give the affected landowners two opportunities to engage, as there will also be the formal exhibition period in regards to the proposed LEP amendment.

Attachments

1 Suma Park Affected Lots Map, D16/29702 ⇩

Council Meeting 19 July 2016

5.9 Development Application DA 171/2016(1) - 102-110 Autumn Street

TRIM REFERENCE: 2016/1448

AUTHOR: Michael Glenn, Senior Planner

EXECUTIVE Summary

Application lodged	27 May 2016
Applicant/s	Havenhand & Mather Architects Pty Ltd
Owner/s	United Protestant Association of NSW Limited
Land description	Lot 50 DP 1130577 - 102-110 Autumn Street, Orange
Proposed land use	Seniors Housing – Group Of Self-Contained (Six)
Value of proposed development	$2,300,000

Council's consent is sought to construct Seniors Housing – Group of Self-Contained Dwellings (Six) (designated Units 21-26) on land described as Lot 50 DP 1130577 - 102-110 Autumn Street Orange.

The development comprises a group of six independent self-contained dwellings specifically for seniors (and people with a disability). The dwellings are proposed to be configured and fitted out to a standard suitable for able bodied seniors, but the internal dimensions, gradients and general characteristics of the proposed dwellings are such that they could be converted to accommodation suitable for more mobility impaired occupants if the demand arose. In detail the proposed units each comprise one bedroom with ensuite, a separate bathroom, second bedroom, and garaging for one vehicle with laundry behind the garage area for each unit. Each of the dwellings is proposed to include a combined kitchen/dining/living area. Two toilets for each unit are proposed - one each in the bathroom and ensuite. Units 21-22 and 25-26 would each be attached, whilst Units 23 and 24 are each proposed to be fully detached dwellings.

The development is consistent with Council’s relevant planning provisions and the Seniors Housing SEPP, and as such 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

The guidelines instruct Council it should expend money in accordance with the detailed budget adopted for the purposes of implementing the Delivery/Operational Plan for the 2015/16 year.

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

Recommendation

That Council consents to development application DA 171/2016(1) for Seniors Housing – Group Of Self-Contained Dwellings (Six) at Lot 50 DP 1130577 - 102-110 Autumn Street Orange pursuant to the conditions of consent in the attached Notice of Approval.

further considerations

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

THE APPLICATION

Council's consent is sought to construct six self-contained dwellings on land described as Lot 50 DP 1130577 - 102-110 Autumn Street Orange.

THE PROPOSAL

The development comprises Seniors Housing, being a group of six self-contained dwellings suitable for occupation by able bodied persons, but capable of conversion to suit mobility impaired persons if the need arises. Each of the proposed units would comprise one bedroom with ensuite, a separate bathroom, second bedroom, and garaging for one vehicle with laundry behind the garage area for each unit. Each of the dwellings is proposed to include a combined kitchen/dining/living area. Two toilets for each unit are proposed - one each in the bathroom and ensuite. Units 21-22 and 25-26 would each be attached, whilst Units 23 and 24 are each proposed to be fully detached dwellings.

The proposed development is seniors living residential accommodation, and as such must either provide essential services on the site, or be within 400m of accessible (for aged persons or people with a disability, including gradients and footpath surfaces) public transport that meet the relevant Australian Standards. It is also critical that, as aged care accommodation, the proposal either provide onsite a holistic level of care for both self-reliant retirees and also people with greater levels of dependence (or demonstrate that conversion of the units in the application can be so adapted to meet the relevant design standards); or alternatively show that such capacity as might be required is locally available. In this case the applicant has shown that complying access to public transport is possible within the specified distance and further demonstrated that supported care facilities are available within the locality, as well as incorporating into the design the ability to convert as many units as might be required in future for occupation by mobility impaired persons.

The development also incorporates four small private courtyards attached to the self-contained dwellings, six parking spaces and landscaped areas.

The proposed development would be located on a vacant site on which a former building, which was approved as a "custodial care unit" in 1975. It was used for some time as an aged care hostel for about ten years, before being changed to crisis care accommodation, and then falling vacant about ten years ago.

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,

(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) 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 R1 General Residential
Lot Size Map:	No Minimum Lot Size
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 R1 General Residential zone. The proposed development are self contained units or dwellings proposed as Seniors Housing. Seniors Housing is defined in OLEP 2011 in the following terms:

seniors housing means a building or place that is:

(a) a residential care facility, or

(b) a hostel within the meaning of clause 12 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004, or

(c) group of self-contained dwellings, or

(d) a combination of any of the buildings or places referred to in paragraphs (a)–(c),

and that is, or is intended to be, used permanently for:

(e) seniors or people who have a disability, or

(f) people who live in the same household with seniors or people who have a disability, or

(g) staff employed to assist in the administration of the building or place or in the provision of services to persons living in the building or place,

but does not include a hospital.

Note. Seniors housing is a type of residential accommodation.

Self contained dwellings or units are a particular form of Seniors Housing. Seniors Housing is permitted with consent for this zone. It is noted that a State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP-Seniors Living) is also applicable to the development and that it takes precedence over the LEP (or any other environmental planning instrument) where any inconsistency exists. In the case of land use classification there are no significant differences between the LEP and the SEPP.

Clause 2.3 of LEP 2011 references the Land Use Table and Objectives for each zone in LEP 2011. These objectives for land zoned R1 General Residential are as follows:

· To provide for the housing needs of the community.

· To provide for a variety of housing types and densities.

· 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 is not inconsistent with the zone objectives.

Part 5 - Miscellaneous Provisions

5.9 - Preservation of Trees or Vegetation

The objective of this clause is to preserve the amenity of the area, including biodiversity values through the preservation of trees and other vegetation. There are a number of trees on the site and also on the adjacent Newman Park that are at risk from the proposed development, though it is not proposed under this application to remove any protected vegetation as part of the proposed work. It will be necessary to remove trees from the subject land, but these trees are of a species type and size as to be not protected by Council’s protection of vegetation clauses.

Council in December 2015 considered a development application for the demolition of the abandoned “Astill Court” building. Parts of this building lay within the drip and root zones of the very significant trees planted along the southern common boundary within Newman Park. Council’s assessing staff at that time sought the advice of the Manager City Presentation who is the responsible asset manager for Newman Park. The advice is as follows:

Trees within Newman Park

Located within Newman Park in close proximity to the proposed building demolition are the following trees;

· English Oak (Quercus robusta)

· English Elm (Ulmus minor)

· Evergreen Oak (Quercus ilex) X 2

Appropriate measures as per the Australian Standard for the Protection of Trees on Development Site AS 4970 – 2009 shall be put in place to ensure that the health, vigour and structural integrity of the subject trees is not impacted upon. This shall include as a minimum the protection of the structural root zone contained within the subject site and ground protection for the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) as outlined in Clause 4.5.3 of AS 4970 – 2009.

Trunk and branch protection shall be installed to prevent damage to the specified trees located within Newman Park.

Comment:

Boundary_trees in newman park 2IMG_2644

Figure 1 - adjoining trees facing Nile Street in Newman Park

The assessment by the Manager City Presentation remains valid to the current application. As was the case for the demolition consent of December 2015, the references to AS 4970 are problematic as this standard, among other things, requires the establishment of TPZs outside the drip zone of the trees being protected. Clearly this will be difficult to achieve for this site since inherently the proposed works would be within that zone (as the above photo shows), and the construction processes will inherently involve subsoil disturbance within that zone. Under the circumstances it is considered appropriate to impose conditions that require the following

Prior to the commencement of works:

The applicant shall submit a report from a qualified arborist that is to the satisfaction of the Manager – Development Assessments, in which the tree protection measures within the Tree Protection Zones for those trees in Newman Park meet or meet as far as existing site conditions permit, the standards of AS 4970—2009 (Incorporating Amendment No. 1) - Protection of trees on development site.

During construction:

The approved works shall be undertaken in accordance with the recommendations contained within the approved Arborists report.

No vehicles site disturbance materials storage or similar of any kind is permitted to be undertaken on Council parklands at any time in relation to this development.

5.10 - Heritage Conservation

The subject property is not located within a conservation area, but is adjacent to a listed heritage item of the LEP and in close proximity to other items, as shown in the locality plan below.

(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,

(d) to conserve Aboriginal objects and Aboriginal places of heritage significance.

Figure 2 - location of adjacent and nearby heritage items

In relation to (a), the proposed development does not adversely alter the fabric or form of the existing development and seeks to replace recently demolished buildings from the site which were assessed at the time of their removal to be of indifferent visual quality. The impacts on the environmental heritage of this site and its surroundings are considered to be minor.

In relation to (b), it is noted that the adjacent listed Newman park is significant because the "park retains open grassed landscape dominated by large mature trees typical of the English commons, for encouraging simple recreational activity without civic memorial clutter." The impacts of the proposed development on the heritage significance of this adjacent space are considered limited, subject to the proposed work being undertaken so as not to harm or place at risk the long term health and stability of trees located near to the shared boundary, as well as those protected trees on the site itself.

In relation to (c), there is no obvious indication that the site is a potential archaeological site. In relation to (d), there is no obvious evidence of Aboriginal heritage on the site.

Heritage Assessment

Council may, before granting consent to any development on land that is within the vicinity of land containing a heritage item or adjacent to a conservation area, require a heritage management document to be prepared that assesses impacts on the heritage significance of the heritage item or heritage conservation area. In this case the heritage significance of the adjacent item is the tree plantings of Newman Park, which will need protection during the carrying out of the work. To this end conditions have been included in the consent for the protection of those heritage items. This report requires retention of the existing vegetation on the site, and the imposition of protective conditions to protect the trees on the adjoining heritage listed Newman Park.

Clauses 5.10(6), (7), (8), (9) and (10) have been considered, but are not relevant to this assessment.

Requirement for Consent

The applicant is seeking consent in accordance with the requirements of the LEP.

Effect of Proposed Development on Heritage Significance

The consent authority must, before granting consent under this clause in respect of a heritage item or heritage conservation area, consider the effect of the proposed development on the heritage significance of the item or area concerned. This subclause applies regardless of whether a heritage management document is prepared under subclause (5) or a heritage conservation management plan is submitted under subclause (6).

The proposed development is considered unlikely to have a significant impact on any of the nearby and adjoining heritage items in the locality.

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 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.

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. Matters in relation to the protection of trees on adjoining land have been discussed above. 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 not in proximity to any waterway, drinking water catchment or sensitive area. Conditions may be 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 includes onsite retention of stormwater runoff.

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 (HOUSING FOR SENIORS OR PEOPLE WITH A DISABILITY) 2004

State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 applies to the subject development. As such, the following is provided in consideration of the development.

2 - Aims of Policy

(1) This Policy aims to encourage the provision of housing (including residential care facilities) that will:

(a) increase the supply and diversity of residences that meet the needs of seniors or people with a disability, and

(b) make efficient use of existing infrastructure and services, and

(c) be of good design.

(2) These aims will be achieved by:

(a) setting aside local planning controls that would prevent the development of housing for seniors or people with a disability that meets the development criteria and standards specified in this Policy, and

(b) setting out design principles that should be followed to achieve built form that responds to the characteristics of its site and form, and

(c) ensuring that applicants provide support services for seniors or people with a disability for developments on land adjoining land zoned primarily for urban purposes.

With consideration of the conditions of consent it is determined that the development is consistent with the aims of the policy.

It is considered the proposed development is generally not inconsistent with the aims of the plan.

4 - Land to Which Policy Applies

1 - General

This Policy applies to land within New South Wales that is land zoned primarily for urban purposes or land that adjoins land zoned primarily for urban purposes, but only if:

(a) development for the purpose of any of the following is permitted on the land:

(i) dwelling-houses,

(ii) residential flat buildings,

(iii) hospitals,

(iv) development of a kind identified in respect of land zoned as special uses, including (but not limited to) churches, convents, educational establishments, schools and seminaries, or

(b) the land is being used for the purposes of an existing registered club.

The land is zoned R1 General Residential Pursuant to Orange LEP 2011. The objectives of the zone indicate that the land is zoned primarily for urban purposes and is consistent with the identified purposes listed in 1(a) above.

Chapter 2 - Key Concepts

8 - Seniors

In this Policy, seniors are any of the following:

(a) people aged 55 or more years,

(b) people who are resident at a facility at which residential care (within the meaning of the Aged Care Act 1997 of the Commonwealth) is provided,

(c) people who have been assessed as being eligible to occupy housing for aged persons provided by a social housing provider.

9 - People with a Disability

people with a disability are people of any age who have, either permanently or for an extended period, one or more impairments, limitations or activity restrictions that substantially affect their capacity to participate in everyday life.

With regard to clauses 8 and 9, the Statement of Environmental Effects submitted with the application specifies that the housing is intended for seniors and people with a disability as set out in this clause. Elsewhere the SEPP allows Council the ability to impose as a condition of consent a Restriction-as-to-User limiting future occupants to seniors or disabled people, or people married to a senior or person with a disability , or carers for a senior or person with a disability.

10 - Seniors Housing

In this Policy, seniors housing is residential accommodation that is, or is intended to be, used permanently for seniors or people with a disability consisting of:

(a) a residential care facility, or

(b) a hostel, or

(c) a group of self-contained dwellings, or

(d) a combination of these,

but does not include a hospital.

Note. The concept of seniors housing is intended to be a shorthand phrase encompassing both housing for seniors and for people with a disability. This Policy deals with both kinds of housing.

Accommodation provided by seniors housing does not have to be limited to seniors or people with a disability. Clause 18 provides that seniors housing may be used for the accommodation of the following:

(a) seniors or people who have a disability,

(b) people who live within the same household with seniors or people who have a disability,

(c) staff employed to assist in the administration of and provision of services to housing provided under this Policy.

The proposed development is consistent with 10(c) of the Seniors housing classification, being a group of self-contained dwellings.

13 - Self-Contained Dwellings

The proposed development is consistent with 'infill self-care housing" which under this Policy is:

seniors housing that consists of self-contained dwellings where the following services are available on the site: meals, cleaning services, personal care, nursing care

Chapter 3 - Development for Seniors Housing

14 - Objective of Chapter

The objective of this Chapter is to create opportunities for the development of housing that is located and designed in a manner particularly suited to both those seniors who are independent, mobile and active as well as those who are frail, and other people with a disability regardless of their age

This clause is a critical assessment issue as Council must be satisfied that a given development for Seniors Living can cater to the full range of housing needs for Seniors and people with a Disability, or have access to other facilities able to provide for un-met needs contained in the proposed development. Social Impact Statements can be a requirement, but are not considered necessary in this case as the housing proposed meets the criteria for “adaptable housing” and UPA already provide more intense levels of nursing home style care at their nearby Spring Street facility

In this case, the applicant has not provided a social impact statement, however they have pointed out that the UPA group has a facility in the locality (83 Spring Street) designed to cater to seniors who are more frail, with less mobility than able bodied seniors. It is considered that this off-site facility will tend to at least partly meet the housing needs of an increasingly ageing population as it moves though their system. The applicant in the Statement of Environmental effects supporting the application shows the housing proposed has characteristics (relating to room sizes, doorway widths, access gradients etc) that could be adapted so as to comply with AS 1428 and other mobility related Australian Standards.

18 - Restrictions on Occupation of Seniors Housing

(1) Development allowed by this Chapter may be carried out for the accommodation of the following only:

(a) seniors or people who have a disability,

(b) people who live within the same household with seniors or people who have a disability,

(c) staff employed to assist in the administration of and provision of services to housing provided under this Policy.

(2) A consent authority must not consent to a development application made pursuant to this Chapter unless:

(a) a condition is imposed by the consent authority to the effect that only the kinds of people referred to in subclause (1) may occupy any accommodation to which the application relates, and

(b) the consent authority is satisfied that a restriction as to user will be registered against the title of the property on which development is to be carried out, in accordance with section 88E of the Conveyancing Act, limiting the use of any accommodation to which the application relates to the kinds of people referred to in subclause (1).

A condition is included in the consent imposing these restrictions.

Part 2 - Site-Related Requirements

26 Location and Access to Facilities

(1) A consent authority must not consent to a development application made pursuant to this Chapter unless the consent authority is satisfied, by written evidence, that residents of the proposed development will have access that complies with subclause (2) to:

(a) shops, bank service providers and other retail and commercial services that residents may reasonably require, and

(b) community services and recreation facilities, and

(c) the practice of a general medical practitioner.

See sub-clause (2). There is no direct access to these services, however there is access to public transport, that in turn leads to these services and connecting pedestrian access from the public transport (a bus stop in Nile Street) to the proposed units.

(2) Access complies with this clause if:

(a) the facilities and services referred to in subclause (1) are located at a distance of not more than 400 metres from the site of the proposed development that is a distance accessible by means of a suitable access pathway and the overall average gradient for the pathway is no more than 1:14, although the following gradients along the pathway are also acceptable:

(i) a gradient of no more than 1:12 for slopes for a maximum of 15 metres at a time,

(ii) a gradient of no more than 1:10 for a maximum length of 5 metres at a time,

(iii) a gradient of no more than 1:8 for distances of no more than 1.5 metres at a time, or

The proposed development has been shown to comply with this requirement.

(c) in the case of a proposed development on land in a local government area that is not within the Sydney Statistical Division—there is a transport service available to the residents who will occupy the proposed development:

(i) that is located at a distance of not more than 400 metres from the site of the proposed development and the distance is accessible by means of a suitable access pathway, and

(ii) that will take those residents to a place that is located at a distance of not more than 400 metres from the facilities and services referred to in subclause (1), and

(iii) that is available both to and from the proposed development during daylight hours at least once each day from Monday to Friday (both days inclusive),

and the gradient along the pathway from the site to the public transport services (and from the transport services to the facilities and services referred to in subclause (1)) complies with subclause (3).

The submission includes information demonstrating that this requirement is met.

(4) For the purposes of subclause (2):

(a) a suitable access pathway is a path of travel by means of a sealed footpath or other similar and safe means that is suitable for access by means of an electric wheelchair, motorised cart or the like, and

(b) distances that are specified for the purposes of that subclause are to be measured by reference to the length of any such pathway.

(5) In this clause:

bank service provider means any bank, credit union or building society or any post office that provides banking services.

With respect to the provisions of (4) and (5), the applicant is relying on existing off-site services to be accessed either by private motor vehicles, or as the residents age, the potential for seniors to access a bus service, with a bus stop on the opposite side of Nile Street. The accessibility guidelines attached or relating to the SEPP set a maximum distance of 400m or less from the front door of a unit to the public transport access point and travel paths in which gradients of the Australian Standard are met. For this application the applicant has submitted information that suggests full compliance with “suitable access pathway” requirements of the SEPP.

28 - Water and Sewer

(1) A consent authority must not consent to a development application made pursuant to this Chapter unless the consent authority is satisfied, by written evidence, that the housing will be connected to a reticulated water system and have adequate facilities for the removal or disposal of sewage.

(2) If the water and sewerage services referred to in subclause (1) will be provided by a person other than the consent authority, the consent authority must consider the suitability of the site with regard to the availability of reticulated water and sewerage infrastructure. In locations where reticulated services cannot be made available, the consent authority must satisfy all relevant regulators that the provision of water and sewerage infrastructure, including environmental and operational considerations, are satisfactory for the proposed development.

Adequate provisions have been made in terms of water and sewer. Relevant conditions are attached.

29 - Consent Authority to Consider Certain Site Compatibility Criteria for Development Applications to Which Clause 24 Does Not Apply

(1) This clause applies to a development application made pursuant to this Chapter in respect of development for the purposes of seniors housing (other than dual occupancy) to which clause 24 does not apply.

Note. Clause 24 (1) sets out the development applications to which that clause applies.

(2) A consent authority, in determining a development application to which this clause applies, must take into consideration the criteria referred to in clause 25(5)(b)(i),(iii) and (v).

25 - Application for Site Compatibility Certificate

(5) The Director-General must not issue a site compatibility certificate unless the Director-General:

(b) is of the opinion that the proposed development is compatible with the surrounding land uses having regard to (at least) the following criteria:

(i) the natural environment (including known significant environmental values, resources or hazards) and the existing uses and approved uses of land in the vicinity of the proposed development,

(iii) the services and infrastructure that are or will be available to meet the demands arising from the proposed development (particularly, retail, community, medical and transport services having regard to the location and access requirements set out in clause 26) and any proposed financial arrangements for infrastructure provision,

(v) without limiting any other criteria, the impact that the bulk, scale, built form and character of the proposed development is likely to have on the existing uses, approved uses and future uses of land in the vicinity of the development.

In relation to 25(5)(b)(i) above, the development site is not subject to known natural resources, hazards or significant environmental value in terms of flora and fauna. The development is not considered to have significant heritage value, although it is noted that it is beside a public park that is listed in the heritage inventory. The site is essentially a different form of seniors living accommodation, more attune to current market trends and demands, which is not an invalid approach to seniors living housing. It is considered that the existing use as seniors living housing (as also configured in the current proposal) is compatible and non-conflicting with the adjoining residential uses.

In relation to 25(5)(b)(iii) above, the application does show that complying access to public transport, that in turn leads to the specified services required, is available to the proposed development. It is considered that the existing infrastructure and services will be adequate to meet the needs of the development.

In relation to 25(5)(b)(v) above, this is discussed extensively under the headings “DCP 2004” and “Likely Impacts of the Development”; and it is appropriate to do so given clause 3 below. Appropriate conditions are attached in response to those considerations.

(3) Nothing in this clause limits the matters to which a consent authority may or must have regard (or of which a consent authority must be satisfied under another provision of this Policy) in determining a development application to which this clause applies.

Further matters outside of this clause are considered within the report.

Division 1 - General

30 - Site Analysis

(1) A consent authority must not consent to a development application made pursuant to this Chapter unless the consent authority is satisfied that the applicant has taken into account a site analysis prepared by the applicant in accordance with this clause.

A suitable site analysis plan has been submitted in support of the application.

Division 2 - Design Principles

33 - Neighbourhood Amenity and Streetscape

The proposed development should:

(a) recognise the desirable elements of the location’s current character (or, in the case of precincts undergoing a transition, where described in local planning controls, the desired future character) so that new buildings contribute to the quality and identity of the area, and

The area is characterised as an established residential precinct. Predominately, the theme of residential development in the locality is characterised as single storey detached dwellings presenting to the street with varied front setbacks. The style and period of dwellings in the locality is also varied; however, in the most part dwellings comprise masonry or weatherboard exterior walls and hip roofs with corrugated iron or tiles.

The proposed development continues the pattern of single storey development of a residential scale. The proposed buildings will not adversely impact upon the quality and identity of the area.

(b) retain, complement and sensitively harmonise with any Heritage Conservation Areas in the vicinity and any relevant heritage items that are identified in a local environmental plan, and

The subject land adjoins a heritage item, with the dominant element of that item being the mature tree plantings that come close to the shared boundary. The relationship with the heritage item and the location of the building works is such that the two are reasonably well separated. The setback for the proposed units is greater than the setback was for the previous buildings on the site. This results in minimal impacts upon the heritage item and the associated curtilage; and as such there is likely to be minimal impact upon the significance of the heritage item located on the land.

(c) maintain reasonable neighbourhood amenity and appropriate residential character by:

(i) providing building setbacks to reduce bulk and overshadowing, and

The proposed building is separated from other dwellings to the north by a driveway, and there are no dwellings to the south. The front setback from the street is less than that of other dwellings to the north (numbers 81, 83, 85 and 87 Nile street) which have setbacks from 4.5m to 7.9m); but no worse than the development previously erected on this land and also the same as the community hall on the opposite side of the driveway located adjacent to where the proposed development would be constructed. It is considered that the setback proposed is adequate as to avoid significant adverse impacts on neighbourhood character. The amended plans also include some details on front fencing and materials for finishes, all of which are considered to be appropriate.

(ii) using building form and siting that relates to the site’s land form, and

The proposed buildings are compatible with the low density residential development that characterises this locality. It is considered the proposed development would not be out of place with its surrounding environment and is generally suited to the land form.

(iii) adopting building heights at the street frontage that are compatible in scale with adjacent development, and

The development adopts a single storey design, which is consistent with the prevailing development pattern of the area.

(iv) considering, where buildings are located on the boundary, the impact of the boundary walls on neighbours, and

There are no buildings proposed close to any boundaries.

(d) be designed so that the front building of the development is set back in sympathy with, but not necessarily the same as, the existing building line, and

Setbacks are considered appropriate.

(e) embody planting that is in sympathy with, but not necessarily the same as, other planting in the streetscape, and

A landscape master plan has been submitted in support of the application showing the extent of both hard and soft landscape areas both internally within the site and at the site frontage within Spring Street. The concept plans and accompanying documentation are generally acceptable. A detailed landscape plan will be required to be submitted prior to the release of a Construction Certificate that incorporates the landscape strategy submitted with the application. Relevant conditions are attached.

(f) retain, wherever reasonable, major existing trees, and

There are no significant trees on the site.

(g) be designed so that no building is constructed in a riparian zone.

The subject land is not in the vicinity of a riparian zone.

34 - Visual and Acoustic Privacy

The proposed development should consider the visual and acoustic privacy of neighbours in the vicinity and residents by:

(a) appropriate site planning, the location and design of windows and balconies, the use of screening devices and landscaping, and

(b) ensuring acceptable noise levels in bedrooms of new dwellings by locating them away from driveways, parking areas and paths.

Note. The Australian and New Zealand Standard entitled AS/NZS 2107–2000, Acoustics - Recommended design sound levels and reverberation times for building interiors and the Australian Standard entitled" AS 3671 - 1989, Acoustics - Road traffic noise intrusion - Building siting and construction, published by Standards Australia, should be referred to in establishing acceptable noise levels.

As discussed below, the development is considered acceptable in terms of visual privacy. The proposal is single storey and well separated from adjoining neighbours and there is some perimeter fencing around the boundary of the development site.

The development is located in a residential environment away from busy roads and rail corridors where background noise levels are typically quite low. As such, it is not likely that the development will be unreasonably impacted upon by high noise sources in the locality.

35 - Solar Access and Design for Climate

The proposed development should:

(a) ensure adequate daylight to the main living areas of neighbours in the vicinity and residents and adequate sunlight to substantial areas of private open space, and

(b) involve site planning, dwelling design and landscaping that reduces energy use and makes the best practicable use of natural ventilation solar heating and lighting by locating the windows of living and dining areas in a northerly direction.

Note. AMCORD: A National Resource Document for Residential Development, 1995, may be referred to in establishing adequate solar access and dwelling orientation appropriate to the climatic conditions.

The design approach includes a long building axis facing north which maximises the northern exposure of the development. The landscape concept provides for shade trees within the areas of private open space.

36 - Stormwater

The proposed development should:

(a) control and minimise the disturbance and impacts of stormwater runoff on adjoining properties and receiving waters by, for example, finishing driveway surfaces with semi-pervious material, minimising the width of paths and minimising paved areas, and

(b) include, where practical, on-site stormwater detention or re-use for second quality water uses.

Suitable arrangements and conditions have been considered and attached in relation to stormwater.

37 - Crime Prevention

The proposed development should provide personal property security for residents and visitors and encourage crime prevention by:

(a) site planning that allows observation of the approaches to a dwelling entry from inside each dwelling and general observation of public areas, driveways and streets from a dwelling that adjoins any such area, driveway or street, and where shared entries are required, providing shared entries that serve a small number of dwellings and that are able to be locked, and

(c) providing dwellings designed to allow residents to see who approaches their dwellings without the need to open the front door.

There are three key principles of crime prevention through environmental design: territoriality, surveillance and access control.

The applicant submits that the design is acceptable in terms of crime prevention through:

· Main entry points to the building are located close to staff areas for surveillance of access.

· Minimum of high structures in courtyards and car parks to minimise potential hiding places for intruders.

· Lighting of car parks, gardens and pathways at night will be provided.

· Perimeter garden fence to be provided with secure gates on access control system.

· Access control and intercom system will provide for night access via external gates and doors.

Council staff agree with the above. The development is considered satisfactory in terms of safer by design principles. External lighting providing for security within the site needs to be balanced against not creating nuisance to adjoining sensitive receivers. Relevantly, a condition is attached that requires external lighting to be consistent with the relevant Australian Standard.

38 - Accessibility

The proposed development should:

(a) have obvious and safe pedestrian links from the site that provide access to public transport services or local facilities, and

(b) provide attractive, yet safe, environments for pedestrians and motorists with convenient access and parking for residents and visitors.

As established above, the applicant submits that the provisions relating to accessibility both inside and outside of the site are achieved.

39 - Waste Management

The proposed development should be provided with waste facilities that maximise recycling by the provision of appropriate facilities.

The applicant submits that existing arrangements will be maintained in terms of the disposal and collection of waste.

40 - Development Standards - Minimum Sizes and Building Height

(1) - General

A consent authority must not consent to a development application made pursuant to this Chapter unless the proposed development complies with the standards specified in this clause.

(2) - Site Size

The size of the site must be at least 1,000 square metres.

The subject property on which the proposed development is to be erected is in excess of the required minimum.

(3) - Site Frontage

The site frontage must be at least 20 metres wide measured at the building line.

The subject land incorporates almost an entire residential block, and as such the land comprises a frontage greater than 20m.

41 - Standards for Hostels and Self-Contained Dwellings

(1) A consent authority must not consent to a development application made pursuant to this Chapter to carry out development for the purpose of a hostel or self-contained dwelling unless the proposed development complies with the standards specified in Schedule 3 for such development.

The submission by the applicant indicates compliance with the requirements of schedule 3.

4 - Self-Contained Dwellings

50 - Standards that Cannot be Used to Refuse Development Consent for Self-Contained Dwellings

A consent authority must not refuse consent to a development application made pursuant to this Chapter for the carrying out of development for the purpose of a self-contained dwelling (including in-fill self-care housing and serviced self-care housing) on any of the following grounds:

(a) building height: if all proposed buildings are 8 metres or less in height (and regardless of any other standard specified by another environmental planning instrument limiting development to 2 storeys),

The proposed development is for single storey buildings only.

(b) density and scale: if the density and scale of the buildings when expressed as a floor space ratio is 0.5:1 or less,

The proposed floor space ratio is 0.38:1, which is well within the maximum allowable limits.

(c) landscaped area: if:

(i) in the case of a development application made by a social housing provider—a minimum 35 square metres of landscaped area per dwelling is provided, or

(ii) in any other case - a minimum of 30% of the area of the site is to be landscaped,

The Statement of Environmental Effects submits that over 37.8% of the site would be set aside as landscaped area, and it is clear from the plans that each unit would be provided with more than 35m² of landscaped area as private open space.

(d) Deep soil zones: if, in relation to that part of the site (being the site, not only of that particular development, but also of any other associated development to which this Policy applies) that is not built on, paved or otherwise sealed, there is soil of a sufficient depth to support the growth of trees and shrubs on an area of not less than 15% of the area of the site (the deep soil zone). Two-thirds of the deep soil zone should preferably be located at the rear of the site and each area forming part of the zone should have a minimum dimension of 3 metres,

Deep soil zones are provided for each of the proposed units. There will be space to plant some significant trees should future residents be so inclined to do that.

(e) solar access: if living rooms and private open spaces for a minimum of 70% of the dwellings of the development receive a minimum of 3 hours direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm in mid-winter,

The submission for the proposed development includes solar access diagrams, indicating compliance to the standards set out in this clause.

(h) parking: if at least the following is provided:

(i) 0.5 car spaces for each bedroom where the development application is made by a person other than a social housing provider, or

(ii) 1 car space for each 5 dwellings where the development application is made by, or is made by a person jointly with, a social housing provider.

Note. The provisions of this clause do not impose any limitations on the grounds on which a consent authority may grant development consent

The proposed development, notwithstanding being submitted on behalf of a social housing provider within the meaning of the legislation, provides parking well in excess of either standard, being 1 space for each of the proposed dwellings

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICY 55 - REMEDIATION OF LAND

State Environmental Planning Policy 55 - Remediation of Land applies to the subject land, specifically clause 7 which states:

7 - Contamination and Remediation to be Considered in Determining Development Application

(1) A consent authority must not consent to the carrying out of any development on land unless:

(a) it has considered whether the land is contaminated, and

(b) if the land is contaminated, it is satisfied that the land is suitable in its contaminated state (or will be suitable, after remediation) for the purpose for which the development is proposed to be carried out, and

(c) if the land requires remediation to be made suitable for the purpose for which the development is proposed to be carried out, it is satisfied that the land will be remediated before the land is used for that purpose.

The development has had a long history being used for residential purposes dating back to circa 1950 or earlier. There is nothing to suggest that the site is contaminated; nor is there any evidence to suggest that the site should not continue to be used for such purposes.

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, however it is noted also that clause 3 of the SEPP – Seniors Living states that “If this Policy is inconsistent with any other environmental planning instrument, made before or after this Policy, this Policy prevails to the extent of the inconsistency”. It can be argued that this provision limits the application of the DCP controls to a degree, but it does not exonerate council from completing an assessment against the DCP provisions. An assessment of the proposed development against the relevant Planning Outcomes will be undertaken below.

PART 0 - LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2011

Part 0.2 - General Translation of Zones

Part 0.2 of DCP 2004 establishes a conversion table for old zones under OLEP 2000 to new zones under LEP 2011, and in turn provides which chapters of the DCP are applicable in instances of new zonings under LEP 2011. This is pertinent given the subject land's new zoning, being R1 General Residential. The conversion table therefore establishes that Part 7 of Orange DCP 2004 is applicable to the zone.

PART 7 - DEVELOPMENT IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS

Design Elements For Residential Development

Streetscape

Objectives:

· To ensure that the development fits into its setting and environmental features of the locality;

· To ensure that the appearance of housing is of a high visual quality, enhances the streetscape and complements good quality surrounding development;

· To ensure that new development complements places with heritage significance and their settings in a contemporary way.

· To develop a sense of place with attractive street frontages

· To encourage visually appealing cohesive streetscapes

· To create a safe and secure environment

· To provide consistent design elements that protect private investment

An assessment of how the development responds to the applicable streetscape objectives is considered below.

Neighbourhood Character and Building Appearance

The character and identity of a particular area are influenced by the intricate interrelationship of the public and private realms, taking into account the qualitative interplay of built form, vegetation and topographic characteristics; all of which contribute to creating a unique neighbourhood character.

The neighbourhood is characterised by an established residential precinct considered to be of a reasonable level of residential amenity. Predominately, the scale of development within the locality comprises single storey detached dwellings on average sized residential parcels. The proposed development is consistent with the scale of development..

In terms of the proposed buildings, external finishes, materials and colour palette are consistent with the existing UPA building on the land.

Setbacks

The DCP requires setbacks in established areas to be calculated with reference to the setbacks on adjoining land. The proposed building is sited 4.0m from the front boundary. Council’s DCP would ordinarily require a setback of at least 4.5m or the setback consistent with other setbacks in an established area.

The applicant has requested that Council accept the proposed setback in this case based on the submitted streetscape analysis. A detailed streetscape analysis was undertaken which identified that the precinct comprises a variation of front setbacks. The setback line for the subject land is reasonably complex to establish given the large area of the site and the built form that already exists within the site. The following diagram, submitted with the application and prepared by the applicant gives some indication of both the existing and proposed setbacks.

Figure 3: setback diagram

The dwellings to the north of the subject land in Nile Street comprise an existing setback of approximately 4-7m. It is considered that whilst the proposed setback is less than that observed for the nearby dwellings in Nile Street, there is considerable separation between the proposed development and these dwellings. It is considered that the proposed development will not establish an undesirable precedent, or otherwise excessively impede neighbourhood character through its lesser setbacks.

Fences and Walls

The stated Planning Outcomes for Fences and Walls are;

· Assist in highlighting entrances and creating a sense of identity within the streetscape

· Are constructed of materials compatible with associated housing and with fences visible from the site that positively contribute to the streetscape

· Provide for facilities in the street frontage such as mailboxes

The applicant was requested to provide a plan that outlined the elevational details for fencing facing Nile Street, which has been provided. Along the Nile Street frontage it is proposed to construct a new fence with 1500mm high brick piers, spaced at 2100mm centres. It is further proposed to construct powder coated slat screening behind the fence in the vicinity of the private open area courtyards of dwellings 23 and 24 (those adjacent to the Nile Street frontage).

Figure 4: front fencing at 79 Nile Street (1.2m high fencing)

Figure 5: front fencing detail (1.5 m high fencing)

The fencing is inconsistent with other fencing evident in the street in that it proposes a height of 1.5m along the Nile Street frontage. Generally, for other forms of housing the DCP requires fencing in front of the building line where it is the primary frontage to be no more than 1.2m high. However, in those instances the principal private open space areas are not in front of the dwelling. In this case, the SEPP allows such arrangements to occur. There is an obvious deleterious effect arising from this in terms of the impacts on the neighbourhood character, however to an extent the uncharacteristic height of the fence is offset by a 1m wide landscape buffer.

Whilst Council would normally not allow such a high fence for more regular forms of housing, in this case the special circumstances generated by the SEPP need to be taken into account. Viewed in the light of the SEPP, it is considered that the fencing treatments facing Nile Street are acceptable.

Bulk and Scale

Objectives:

· To allow flexibility in siting buildings and to ensure that the bulk and scale of new development reasonably protects the amenity of neighbouring properties and maintains appropriate neighbourhood character.

· To allow adequate daylight, sunlight and ventilation to living areas and private open spaces of new and neighbouring developments.

· To encourage the sharing of views, while considering the reasonable development of the site.

An assessment of how the development responds to the applicable bulk and scale objectives is considered below.

Visual Bulk

The proposed development is single storey, consistent with the scale of development within the locality and well set back from adjoining neighbours such that the built form will not unreasonably impact upon adjoining residents. The development is considered satisfactory in relation to visual bulk.

Daylight and Sunlight Access

The SEPP has overshadowing provisions that are different to those contained in the DCP. The proposed development complies with the standards contained in the SEPP, but no assessment has been undertaken with respect to the DCP solar access standards.

Security

Suitable arrangements are proposed in terms of the security of the residents within the site. Consideration has been given to the Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design model, and the measures taken are considered appropriate. This is discussed further in response to the SEPP provisions above.

Site Access and Circulation

Objectives:

· To provide convenient and safe access and parking that meets the needs of all residents and visitors.

· To encourage the integrated design of access and parking facilities to minimise visual and environmental impacts.

An assessment of how the development responds to the applicable site access and circulation objectives is considered below.

Public Transport

An assessment of public transport considerations has been undertaken above pursuant to the requirements of the SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability). Refer to the assessment of the requirements of that SEPP for public transport.

Circulation Design

An assessment of circulation design has been undertaken above pursuant to the requirements of the SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability). Refer to the assessment of the requirements of that SEPP for circulation design.

Car Parking

An assessment of the onsite parking requirements has been undertaken above pursuant to the requirements of the SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability). Refer to the assessment of the requirements of that SEPP for onsite parking.

Private Open Space

The DCP has the following Planning Outcomes for 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 and 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

Oriented to optimise year round use.

The private open space that is proposed is configured so as to comply with the SEPP requirements rather than the DCP. Both the SEPP and the DCP have provisions relating to private open space with the SEPP having generally lesser standards, but also having pre-eminence over the DCP when differences do arise between the local and state controls.

The principal physical difference arising from this is that under the SEPP there is no prohibition to providing private open space in the front setback area of this part of the site, and has also been accepted for earlier stages (facing Autumn Street) of the site. It is considered that the age and mobility restrictions applicable to this style of development will limit the usage of private open space and therefore the arrangement of the private open space for two of the proposed units is in this case acceptable.

Stormwater

Adequate provision for stormwater is proposed. Relevant draft conditions are attached.

Erosion and Sediment Control

A draft condition is attached requiring a copy of the soil and water management plan to be kept onsite at all times and made available to Council officers on request.

ORANGE DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS PLAN 2015

Clause 2.6.1 of Orange Development Contributions Plan 2015 provides the following:

The following types of development, or components of development, will be exempted from a requirement to make contributions under this Plan:

Development for the purposes of any form of seniors housing as defined in State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 that is provided by a social housing provider as defined in that Policy.

The SEPP defines a social housing provider as:

social housing provider means any of the following:

(a) the New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation,

(b) the Department of Housing,

(c) a community housing organisation registered with the Office of Community Housing of the Department of Housing,

(d) the Aboriginal Housing Office,

(e) a registered Aboriginal housing organisation within the meaning of the Aboriginal Housing Act 1998,

(f) the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care,

(g) a local government authority that provides affordable housing,

(h) a not-for-profit organisation that is a direct provider of rental housing to tenants.

For a similar development approved in December 2015 (see DA 325/2015 - Lot 100 March Street aka 83 Spring Street), the applicant submitted that:

UPA is a not-for-profit organisation and is the owner of the site. On this site UPA provides housing direct to elderly tenants as well as the residential aged care facility (Ascott Gardens) under licence of the Commonwealth Department of Human Services.

We believe that as a not-for-profit organisation UPA providing housing fit the definition under SEPP Seniors Chapter 1, Clause 3 (h)

Also, UPA as a provider of residential aged care services under licence of the Commonwealth may fit the definition SEPP Seniors Chapter 1, Clause 3 (h).

They have re-submitted the same note to council for the current proposal and advise in the SoEE that the proponent is a not for profit organisation. As such they are not subject to make contributions under the council Contributions Plan.

Council staff are of the view that the subject development is similar to the development approved under DA 325/2015 which ultimately forms a part of this overall complex, and that the proposed development is exempt from the requirement for contributions as the development achieves the requirements of a social housing provider under the definitions provided within SEPP. As such, contributions are not applicable for the development.

Section 64 Water and Sewer Headworks Charges

Pursuant to section 64 of the Local Government Act Council has the ability to require a monetary contribution for water and sewer headworks charges for any additional equivalent tenements. Relevant conditions are attached in relation to Section 64 charges.

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)

The proposal does not involve the rebuilding, alteration, enlargement or extension of an existing building.

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

Context and Setting

The subject site is located in a well-established residential precinct. The site encompasses almost the entirety of a residential block. The site is bound by Nile Street to the east, Newman Park to the south and Spring Street to the east. Dwellings exist opposite the site to the east and a row of dwellings adjoin the site to the north.

A heritage item exists on the adjoining site (Newman Park). The proposed development is unlikely to adversely affect the listed item. Conditions of consent have been recommended that seek to protect the integrity of the heritage values on Newman Park

The development represents a continuation of the long standing residential use of the land and is proposed at a scale that is commensurate with the predominate scale of the locality.

The development is not antipathetic to the context and setting of the locality.

Residential Amenity

The applicant is proposing to undertake limited cut around the edges of the site so as to achieve gradients consistent with the access and mobility standards of the SEPP. This will result in a step-up around the outer fence lines. There will be somewhat of an enclosing effect caused by the 1.5m fencing along the Nile Street frontage.

However this form of self-care units for seniors are popular among able bodied retirees and allow social bonding by association to occur within these complexes. Provision of a generous amount of parking, landscaping in excess of the minimum requirements, and site coverages well within the maximum allowed all suggest development that will provide a high level of residential amenity.

Visual Impacts

The proposed buildings are residential in scale with satisfactory external appearance and finishes. As such, the development is not likely to present any unsatisfactory visual impacts in the locality.

Traffic Impacts

The development is not expected to result in any adverse traffic impact. Sufficient parking exists onsite and no new access points are proposed. A new mini-bus drop-off area is available within the existing complex erected on the remainder of the site.

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

The site is located in a residential zone and will continue to be used for residential purposes. Council staff are not aware of any physical, natural or technological hazards that may constrain the development from occurring in a satisfactory manner

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 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 and State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004. 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, NA16/395 ⇩

2 Plans, D16/27907 ⇩

Division of Voting
Voted For	Cr K Duffy, Cr R Gander, Cr C Gryllis, Cr N Jones, Cr R Kidd, Cr S Munro, Cr G Taylor, Cr R Turner, Cr J Whitton
Voted Against	Nil
Absent	Cr J Davis (Mayor), Cr J Hamling, Cr A Brown

Division of Voting
Voted For	Cr K Duffy, Cr R Gander, Cr C Gryllis, Cr N Jones, Cr R Kidd, Cr S Munro, Cr G Taylor, Cr R Turner, Cr J Whitton
Voted Against	Nil
Absent	Cr J Davis, Cr J Hamling, Cr A Brown

Division of Voting
Voted For	Cr K Duffy, Cr R Gander, Cr C Gryllis, Cr N Jones, Cr R Kidd, Cr S Munro, Cr G Taylor, Cr R Turner, Cr J Whitton
Voted Against	Nil
Absent	Cr J Davis, Cr J Hamling, Cr A Brown

Division of Voting
Voted For	Cr K Duffy, Cr R Gander, Cr C Gryllis, Cr N Jones, Cr R Kidd, Cr S Munro, Cr G Taylor, Cr R Turner, Cr J Whitton
Voted Against	Nil
Absent	Cr J Davis, Cr J Hamling, Cr A Brown

Division of Voting
Voted For	Cr K Duffy, Cr R Gander, Cr C Gryllis, Cr N Jones, Cr R Kidd, Cr S Munro, Cr G Taylor, Cr R Turner, Cr J Whitton
Voted Against	Nil
Absent	Cr J Davis, Cr J Hamling, Cr A Brown

	30/06/2016	31/05/2016
General Fund	44,351,435.55	41,536,871.56
Sewer Local Fund	36,597,443.36	35,833,768.71
Water Supply Local Fund	34,310.105.48	30,975,195.28
Orange CBD Special Rate	2,031,667.93	2,287,817.05
	117,290,652.32	110,633,652.60

Externally Restricted	30/06/2016	31/05/2016
General Fund	20,482,048.14	20,482,048.14
Water Fund	34,310,105.48	30,975,195.28
Sewer Fund	36,597,443.36	35,833,768.71
CBD Fund	2,031,667.93	2,287,817.05
Auspiced	1,434,611.83	1,434,611.83
Internally Restricted	14,993,777.55	14,993,777.55
Unrestricted	7,440,998.03	4,626,434.04
	117,290,652.32	110,633,652.60

Term to Maturity Allocation	Maximum	Holdings	Capacity
0 - 3 Months	100.00%	10.75%	89.25%
3 - 12 Months	100.00%	50.53%	49.47%
1 - 2 Years	70.00%	19.76%	50.24%
2 - 5 Years	50.00%	18.97%	31.03%
5+ Years	25.00%	0.00%	25.00%

	Maximum	Holding	Capacity
AAA	100.00%	0.00%	100.00%
AA	100.00%	25.31%	74.69%
A	60.00%	40.62%	19.38%
BBB & NR	40.00%	32.17%	7.83%
Below BBB	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Image and Reputation	Council has been providing these services for more than 30 years and is highly regarded for the quality of care provided by both users of the services and Government agencies. A clear direction in the service provision is essential during the period of transition to the National Disability Insurance Scheme “NDIS”.
Employees	It is important that Council has a clear direction for the provision of services to provide a stable environment for staff and users of the services provided by Council.
Stakeholders	Individuals who utilise Councils services will be going through a period of change under the NDIS program which will cause some concern to those individuals and their carers. Council needs to provide a clear direction on the range of services to enable clients to make informed decisions regarding their future care. This direction will also provide staff with a level of stability.

Development Application
Applicant Name:	Havenhand & Mather Architects Pty Ltd
Applicant Address:	PO Box 208 BATHURST NSW 2795
Owner’s Name:	United Protestant Association of NSW Limited
Land to Be Developed:	Lot 50 DP 1130577 - 102-110 Autumn Street, Orange
Proposed Development:	Seniors Housing – Group Of Self-Contained Dwellings (Six)

Building Code of Australia building classification:	To be determined by the PCA

Determination
Made On:	19 July 2016
Determination:	CONSENT GRANTED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS DESCRIBED BELOW:

Consent to Operate From:	20 July 2016
Consent to Lapse On:	20 July 2021

*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:	DAVID WADDELL - DIRECTOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
Date:	20 July 2016

Councillors have the opportunity to ask questions of the General Manager throughout Council and Committee meetings. While many questions asked can be answered at the meeting, or via a memo circulated to Councillors after the meeting, some questions require further action.