Agenda of Planning and Development Committee

Planning and Development Committee 4 September 2018

2.3 Development Application DA 242/2017(2) - 212-220 Summer Street and Post Office Lane

RECORD NUMBER: 2018/2148

AUTHOR: Andrew Crump, Senior Planner

EXECUTIVE Summary

Application lodged	9 July 2018
Applicant/s	Alceon Group Pty Limited
Owner/s	Alceon Group Pty Limited
Land description	Lot 564 DP 776383 - 212-220 Summer Street Orange and Post Office Lane
Proposed land use	Demolition (ground, first and second floors, and roof of existing retail tenancy), and Commercial Premises (alterations and additions including elevated outdoor dining area)
Value of proposed development	$12,081,304

Application has been made to modify development consent DA 242/2017(1) relating to the former Myer building. The consent essentially involves a reconfiguration of approved tenancies. Primarily the applicant is seeking to delete the major tenancy and replace with additional smaller tenancies and a food court (refer to Figures 1 and 2 below). It is also proposed to demolish the existing roof over the location of the food court and replace with a butterfly shaped roof with skylights.

Figure 1: proposed tenancy layout

Figure 2: approved tenancy layout

Also observable in the above modified tenancy layout is the change to the shopfronts to Post Office Lane and an increase in the size of the outdoor dining/covered deck in the laneway, as well as a reconfiguration of the approved northern (smaller) tenancies and the addition of the main switch room in the loading dock.

As a consequence of the internal changes, the amenities and back-of-house service corridors are proposed to be adjusted also.

The applicant is also seeking to have certain conditions revised as part of this modification. Other matters detailed as conditions of consent on the issued approval (such as the design of the internal mall space, the design of the structure in the laneway and the reinstated façade elements) are intended to be addressed separately as part of the issuance of a Construction Certificate; and as such those conditions remain in place and only those that have been explicitly sought to be modified are modified as detailed below, or where the proposed layout necessitates an adjustment to a condition, those changes are made also and commentary is provided within the report below.

A Section 4.15 assessment of the development indicates that the development as modified is acceptable. Attached is an amended Notice of Approval for Council’s consideration.

It is recommended that Council supports the subject proposal.

RECENT LEGISLATIVE CHANGES

On 1 March 2018 the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 was substantially amended. The most immediate change involves the restructuring and renumbering of the Act, with other more substantive changes to be phased in over time. However, for some applications (particularly where an application was lodged prior to the changes coming into effect) the supporting documentation may still reference the previous numbering regime. In the drafting of this report the content and substance of the supporting material has been considered irrespective of which legislative references were used.

DECISION FRAMEWORK

Development in Orange is governed by two key documents Orange Local Environment Plan 2011 and Orange Development Control Plan 2004. In addition the Infill Guidelines are used to guide development, particularly in the heritage conservation areas and around heritage items.

Orange Local Environment Plan 2011 – The provisions of the LEP must be considered by the Council in determining the application. LEPs govern the types of development that are permissible or prohibited in different parts of the City and also provide some assessment criteria in specific circumstances. Uses are either permissible or not. The objectives of each zoning and indeed the aims of the LEP itself are also to be considered and can be used to guide decision making around appropriateness of development.

Orange Development Control Plan 2004 – the DCP provides guidelines for development. In general it is a performance based document rather than prescriptive in nature. For each planning element there are often guidelines used. These guidelines indicate ways of achieving the planning outcomes. It is thus recognised that there may also be other solutions of merit. All design solutions are considered on merit by planning and building staff. Applications should clearly demonstrate how the planning outcomes are being met where alternative design solutions are proposed. The DCP enables developers and architects to use design to achieve the planning outcomes in alternative ways.

DIRECTOR’S COMMENTS

This modification to the consent involves conversion of previously allocated major retail space to a food court and smaller retail tenancies, as well as providing a thoroughfare through the centre. Changes are also proposed to Post Office Lane and various conditions of consent. It is supported on planning grounds by staff. It is not for Council to determine the composition of retail tenancies within a zoned retail space.

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan strategy “10.1 Preserve - Engage with the community to ensure plans for growth and development are respectful of our heritage”.

Financial Implications

Nil

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

Recommendation

That Council modifies development consent DA 242/2017(1) for Demolition (ground, first and second floors, and roof of existing retail tenancy), and Commercial Premises (alterations and additions including elevated outdoor dining area) at Lot 564 DP 776383 – 212‑220 Summer Street and Post Office Lane, Orange pursuant to the conditions of consent in the attached modified Notice of Approval.

further considerations

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

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

THE APPLICATION/PROPOSAL

Application has been made to modify development consent DA 242/2017(1). The application to modify the consent involves the following:

· Deletion of the major tenancy and replacement with additional smaller tenancies and a series of food and drink premises in a food court type arrangement.

· Creation of a service corridor and storage areas to the west of the food court.

· Reconfiguration of tenancies at the front of the building (Summer Street side).

· Amendments to the Post Office Lane interface, including additional shopfronts to the laneway and additional seating, along with modification to the approved ramp and extension to the cover awning/structure over the seating area.

· New non-habitable mezzanine floor over the new toilets to allow for plant and services.

· Demolition of the central portion of roof (roof over the area of the deleted major tenancy - now the food court) and replacement with a new ‘butterfly’ and skylight over the food court.

· Alteration of fire egress pathway.

· Amendments to conditions (1), (4), (24), (27) and (29).

· Relocation of the main switch room to within the loading dock area.

Request to amend Conditions of Consent

Condition (1)

Condition (1) relates to the stamped approved plans. The applicant is seeking to have certain plan references deleted or amended. Council’s standard practice is to list the previous plans followed by listing the amending plans. This will be the practice adopted for the modified consent.

Condition (4)

Condition (4) relates to the security shutter at the front (Summer Street) entrance. It was not stated by the applicant at the time of the original application that the roller shutter was only to be activated in the event of a fire as part of the fire engineering of the building. Accordingly, Council staff found that the shutter was unnecessary and would result in an unsatisfactory intrusion upon an important streetscape (on the understanding that the shutter would be activated outside of opening hours). The following condition was therefore attached:

(4) This consent does not provide approval for the proposed security roller shutter located above the central entrance to the mall space from Summer Street, accordingly it shall be deleted from the proposal is only to be activated in fire mode.

Based upon information provided under this application to modify the consent, it is proposed by the applicant to amend the condition as follows (existing text to be deleted struck-out and new text shown bold):

(4) ~~This consent does not provide approval for~~ The proposed security roller shutter located above the central entrance to the mall space from Summer Street, ~~accordingly it shall be deleted from the proposal~~ is only to be activated in fire mode.

The reason provided by the applicant for the proposed condition is as follows:

The amendment to condition 4 is to ensure compliance with the Building Code of Australia requirement and to ensure the safety of occupants and the building in a fire event. The roller shutter will only be used in the event of a fire. See also annotation on Drawing DA-1006.

Council staff raise no objection to amending the subject condition based on the above information. It should be noted that the condition will be moved to the “Matters Ongoing” section of the approval, and a slight rewording of the proposed condition will occur to align with Council’s standard wording for conditions.

Condition (24)

Condition (24) relates to the location of the fire booster and sprinkler valve.

The relevant condition states:

(24) The proposed location of the fire hydrant booster system and the fire sprinkler booster system in Post Office lane is not approved. The fire hydrant booster system and the fire sprinkler booster system shall be wholly located within the subject building. If the fire hydrant booster system and the fire sprinkler booster system is relocated on the Summer Street façade, it shall be located within the western portion of the Summer Street façade. The external façade elements concealing the fire rated walls shall comprise the traditional black colour backed glass and the traditional bronze Modclad shopfront framing matching the same shopfront cladding required for the Summer Street heritage elevation. The fire hydrant booster system and the fire sprinkler booster system shall be designed in a manner that does not alter or affect the integrity of the existing awning over the Council footpath. The fire hydrant booster system and the fire sprinkler booster system shall be enclosed in an enclosure that is coloured black to match the surrounding colour backed glass. Plans shall be amended prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

The applicant is seeking an alternative location for the fire booster and fire sprinkler valve assembly to that which was required by the above condition. The applicant is now seeking this infrastructure to be located at the north-eastern corner of the building, with shopfront glazing above in both elevations (shown in the below figure within the blue box). The assembly will be located behind dark coloured cabinets, and shopfront glazing will be treated in the same manner as the other shopfronts, ie modclad framing.

Figure 3: proposed location of fire booster and sprinkler valve assembly

The applicant originally proposed this infrastructure integrated into the design of the structure in the laneway. Council staff did not consider this to be an appropriate location for a number of reasons; principally that the infrastructure enclosed the public space and the principle of placing private infrastructure with no net public benefit on public land not being appropriate.

As part of the dialogue that occurred during the assessment of the original application, the applicant provided two alternative locations. One at the western end of the northern elevation and the other where it is proposed now - at the north-eastern corner of the building.

The north-eastern corner option was discounted at the time as it resulted in only a very small amount of shopfront for the front tenancy (on the corner), and it was proposed in a way whereby it resulted in unacceptable visual impacts within the streetscape.

The two above-mentioned negative outcomes have now been resolved. The adjustment of the front tenancies means that tenancy NS12 on the corner has much more shopfront exposure to the laneway, even with the infrastructure located on the corner in Post Office Lane. Additionally, the design intent is far more positive now, with the shopfront glazing above the cabinet, dark coloured cabinets and the modclad framing around the shopfront glazing consistent with the remainder of shopfronts. Sections of the proposed assemblies are shown below in figure 4.

Figure 4: sections of fire hydrant booster and fire sprinkler booster valves

Notwithstanding the above, a condition is attached to ensure that the design intent is carried through to the final construction. The intent of the condition is to ensure that the openings and shopfront glazing are provided above the cabinets. The condition stipulates that solid fire walls are not permitted; and if fire walls are required to achieve compliance with the necessary standard it will be necessary to seek an alternative location for the infrastructure via a subsequent modification application. The condition also stipulates the material to be used for the shopfront framing (which is to be consistent with the other shopfronts within the respective elevation), and also deals with concealment of the vertically arranged pipework above the cabinets. Lastly, the condition stipulates the colour of the cabinets that will house the fire hydrant booster valve and fire sprinkler valve assemblies.

With the above described condition imposed, the proposed location of the above referenced fire safety infrastructure will be satisfactory from a heritage point of view.

Condition (27)

Condition (27) relates to the reinstatement of the original monitor roof-light. The condition currently states:

(27) The main roof-light has been rated as highly significant and shall be reinstated after sympathetic adaptation to meet current structural requirements as the major focal point highlighting the proposed mall and centrepiece of the development. The location of the roof-light within the roof shall be above the central mall space between NK2 and the entrance to the Major tenancy.

The use of face brick on the interior walls and piers in the public and retail areas of the building is not approved. The interior walls and piers of the mall space shall comprise a suitable combination of salvaged and new traditional pressed metal.

Modclad bronze finished framing system is to be utilised throughout for the shopfront framing. The 12 identified cast iron salvaged columns, and associated piers, bulkheads and pressed metal ceilings identified by the Heritage Consultant, are to be installed on each side of the mall in a layout capable of accommodating the contemporary retail shopfronts and suitable lighting. The elevations of the columns and the ceilings of the mall are to be designed using traditional extended boxed piers above the columns to meet the soffit, with traditional horizontal bulkheads to link each pair of columns with the general cladding using suitable salvaged and contemporary pressed metal reflecting and interpreting the former interior details.

The existing tessellated tiles (recently uncovered) within the building at the original entrance in Summer Street shall be investigated and re-used within the development where practicable.

Detailed plans and specifications showing the above requirements are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessments and Council’s Heritage Advisor prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

The applicant is seeking to have the first paragraph of the condition amended in the following way (deleted text struck out new words in bold text):

The main roof-light has been rated as highly significant and shall be reinstated after sympathetic adaptation to meet current structural requirements as the major focal point highlighting the proposed mall and centrepiece of the development. The location of the roof-light within the roof shall be above the central mall space between NS14 and NS15 ~~NK2 and the entrance to the Major tenancy~~...

The author of the heritage impact statements submits that:

the rewording responds to further investigation into the feasibility of reconstructing one of the existing rooflights into the approved mall space. The building currently contains seven rooflights, all detailed and finished in a similar way, however each of a different configuration. The intention is to construct the new skylight within the proportions of the approved Mall to match the existing roof lights, and also where possible to clad the interior of the roof light in salvaged material.

The proposed wording of the above condition has the effect of only specifying the location of a roof-light and removes any connection to the original roof-light, which was the main intent of the original condition and does not require the proposed roof-light to be designed in a manner that reproduces one of the existing roof-lights. The wording of the proposed condition could result in any type of roof-light structure being installed and a Private Certifier signing off on it.

Council staff accept that a reconstruction in a historically accurate manner of one of the existing roof-lights is acceptable. However, to ensure that this occurs in an acceptable manner, Council staff recommended alternative wording to Council’s previously imposed condition. As such Council staff recommend that the condition be worded as follows:

At least one of the original roof-lights shall be reconstructed* in a historically accurate manner within the new roof above the central mall space between NS14 and NS15. The design of the reconstructed roof-light shall be determined by undertaking a survey and preparation of detailed drawings of the selected existing roof-light to be reconstructed. The reconstructed roof-light shall be clearly shown on the roof plan, reflected ceiling plan along with a cross section plan of the roof-light and shall be submitted to Council’s Manager Development Assessments for approval prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. As part of the required approval process evidence shall be provided that demonstrates the reconstructed roof-light is a historically accurate reconstruction of one of the existing roof lights. Specifications and drawings shall also be provided clearly showing the extent of the original salvaged fabric that will be used as part of the reconstructed roof-light, the extent of the new materials and details and the extent of any new elements such as structure and lighting.

*for the avoidance of doubt the Burra Charter defines reconstruction as returning a place [in this case, the roof-light is taken to be a reference to a place] to a known earlier state and is distinguished from restoration by the introduction of new material.

The existing tessellated tiles (recently uncovered) within the building at the original entrance in Summer Street shall be investigated and re-used within the development where practicable.

Condition (29)

Condition (29) states:

(29) Three additional heritage interpretation display windows are to be provided within the east (Post Office Lane) elevation. They are to be located in the wall adjacent to the access ramp to the Post Office Lane structure at the southern side of the structure.

The condition had the effect of requiring six display windows (for heritage interpretation purposes) in total. As part of ongoing negotiations, the applicant’s heritage consultant and Councils Heritage Advisor have agreed upon an alternative display window design which effectively consolidates the six windows in a much larger single window. It is considered that the single larger window will provide opportunity for a much more meaningful interpretation display. As such, there is no objection to deleting the required condition.

The condition requiring a heritage interpretation plan to be prepared and implemented remains imposed; however it has been adjusted slightly to reflect the now single display window.

Additionally, there is a condition under the “Matters Ongoing” section of the approval regarding the use of the display window for heritage purposes only, and precluding general advertising from within the window. As with the above referenced condition, the subject condition references windows (plural), and the condition has been amended to reflect the single window.

MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION

Section 1.7 - Application of Part 7 of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 and Part 7A of the Fisheries Management Act 1994

Development Applications lodged on or after 25 February 2018

Section 1.7 of the EP&A Act 1979 identifies that Part 7 of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 and Part 7A of the Fisheries Management Act 1994 have effect in connection with terrestrial and aquatic environments.

Having regard to the relevant provisions and based on an inspection of the subject property, it is considered that the proposed development is not likely to significantly affect a threatened species.

A Biodiversity Development Assessment Report is not required in this instance.

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

Section 4.55 Modification of Consents - Generally

Section 4.55 (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 states:

A consent authority may…modify the consent if:

(a) it is satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development as the development for which consent was originally granted and before that consent as originally granted was modified (if at all), and

(b) it has consulted with the relevant Minister, public authority or approval body (within the meaning of Division 4.8) in respect of a condition imposed as a requirement of a concurrence to the consent or in accordance with the general terms of an approval proposed to be granted by the approval body and that Minister, authority or body has not, within 21 days after being consulted, objected to the modification of that consent, and

(c) it has notified the application in accordance with:

(i) the regulations, if the regulations so require, or

(ii) a development control plan, if the consent authority is a council that has made a development control plan that requires the notification or advertising of applications for modification of a development consent, and

(d) it has considered any submissions made concerning the proposed modification within the period prescribed by the regulations or provided by the development control plan, as the case may be.

Subsections (1) and (1A) do not apply to such a modification.

In repose to sub-clause (a), Council staff are satisfied that the development as modified is substantially the same development as the development for which consent was originally granted.

The applicant has provided the following qualitative and quantitative analysis of the development as modified against the original approval.

· There is no change to the height of or floor space of the built form;

· The approved use of the shopping centre as a commercial premises remains unchanged;

· The overall bulk and scale of the building envelope remains the same, albeit there is a change to a portion of the roof form over the proposed food court. However, this is internalised on the site and is below the 12m building height plane as demonstrated in DA-1014;

· There will be no change to the approved hours of or any operational matters;

· The increase of food and beverage tenancies does not bring rise to any adverse noise or traffic and parking impacts as they are not considered destination tenancies;

· The arrangement and operation of the site remains unchanged in terms of access, parking and the like;

· The overall design quality and integrity of the building reflects the existing approval, particularly as the proposed changes relate primarily to the changes to the layout of the retail centre, refinement of the Post Office Lane arrangement and design detail;

· There is no change in materials or fundamental changes to the external design or appearance. There are some minor changes to Post Office Lane including a minor extension to the awning, movement of the ramp and consolidation of a heritage interpretation panel.

· The proposal does not raise any inconsistencies with the conditions of consent and all consent conditions (with the exception of four minor changes to conditions) remain able to be satisfied.

· The structural and buildability solution is unchanged from the original consent and was the subject of detailed consideration and assessment.

· The heritage significance of the site as approved in the consent remains, primarily through the retention of the two facades. Any amendments are deemed acceptable by the project heritage consultant.

· The traffic and parking impacts of the development is unchanged.

Overall the substance of the development has not changed and accordingly the proposal is substantially the same as approved under DA 242/2017.

Council staff accept the above analysis and the proposed modified development is considered to be substantially the same development as the development for which consent was originally granted.

Pursuant to section 4.55(3) of the EPAA 1979:

In determining an application for modification of a consent under this section, the consent authority must take into consideration such of the matters referred to in section 4.15(1) as are of relevance to the development the subject of the application.

The relevant matters are considered below.

A section 4.15(1) evaluation is provided below.

Section 4.15

Section 4.15 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 s4.15(1)(a)(i)

Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011

The initial development was approved under the provisions of Orange LEP 2011, which remains the principle planning instrument applying to the land. The subject land is zoned B3 Commercial Core. The proposed development is defined as a commercial premises. The development remains consistent with the aims of the plan and the objectives of the zone. The development remains consistent with the previous assessment of the relevant LEP clauses (ie height of buildings, FSR etc), however it is necessary to undertake an assessment of the development against clause 5.10 - Heritage Conservation. An assessment of the development against clause 5.10 is provided below.

5.10 - Heritage Conservation

(1) Objectives

The objectives of this clause are as follows:

(a) to conserve the environmental heritage of Orange,

(b) to conserve the heritage significance of heritage items and heritage conservation areas, including associated fabric, settings and views,

(c) to conserve archaeological sites,

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

The development as modified is not inconsistent with the objectives of the clause.

(2) Requirement for Consent

Development consent is required for any of the following:

(a) demolishing or moving any of the following or altering the exterior of any of the following (including, in the case of a building, making changes to its detail, fabric, finish or appearance):

(i) a heritage item,

(ii) an Aboriginal object,

(iii) a building, work, relic or tree within a heritage conservation area,

(b) altering a heritage item that is a building by making structural changes to its interior or by making changes to anything inside the item that is specified in Schedule 5 in relation to the item,

(c) disturbing or excavating an archaeological site while knowing, or having reasonable cause to suspect, that the disturbance or excavation will or is likely to result in a relic being discovered, exposed, moved, damaged or destroyed,

(e) erecting a building on land:

(i) on which a heritage item is located or that is within a heritage conservation area, or

(ii) on which an Aboriginal object is located or that is within an Aboriginal place of heritage significance,

The development as modified includes works as described above. As such, consent is required.

(3) When Consent Not Required

However, development consent under this clause is not required if:

(a) the applicant has notified the consent authority of the proposed development and the consent authority has advised the applicant in writing before any work is carried out that it is satisfied that the proposed development:

(i) is of a minor nature or is for the maintenance of the heritage item, Aboriginal object, Aboriginal place of heritage significance or archaeological site or a building, work, relic, tree or place within the heritage conservation area, and

(ii) would not adversely affect the heritage significance of the heritage item, Aboriginal object, Aboriginal place, archaeological site or heritage conservation area, or

(b) the development is in a cemetery or burial ground and the proposed development:

(i) is the creation of a new grave or monument, or excavation or disturbance of land for the purpose of conserving or repairing monuments or grave markers, and

(ii) would not cause disturbance to human remains, relics, Aboriginal objects in the form of grave goods, or to an Aboriginal place of heritage significance, or

(c) the development is limited to the removal of a tree or other vegetation that the Council is satisfied is a risk to human life or property, or

(d) the development is exempt development.

The development is not considered minor, nor does it relate to maintenance of the heritage item. As such consent is required.

(4) 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 development as modified will not give rise to any unacceptable impacts upon the heritage significance of the item, adjoining items or the Conservation area. The main external elements that are being modified that have the potential to result in an impact upon the heritage significance include the relocated essential fire protection infrastructure, the extended outdoor structure in Post Office Lane and the demolition of the existing roof and construction of a new butterfly shaped roof over the food court. An assessment of these three elements is undertaken below.

Relocated fire protection infrastructure

An assessment of the proposed fire protection infrastructure is undertaken above, and relevant conditions are attached to ensure that what is constructed reflects what is proposed in the approved plans. Council staff hold concerns that it may be necessary to require fire rated walls above the booster and sprinkler valves in lieu of the proposed shopfront glazing as shown on the submitted plans, which would result in unacceptable heritage impacts. Accordingly, the relevant condition is worded in way whereby this is to be avoided. Additional conditions are attached to ensure that the shopfront glazing is consistent with the other shopfronts at the front of the site and the cabinets containing the infrastructure are a dark grey colour.

Extended structure in Post Office Lane

A condition was imposed at the time of the original consent that dealt with the design and presentation of the structure in Post Office Lane. The condition remains in place, but additional requirements are added to address the additional detail presented on the plans submitted with this application to modify the consent. The additional elements of the condition relate to the balustrade and the sunshade louvres on the outside of the structure.

Demolition of roof and construction of new ‘Butterfly’ shaped roof over the food court

The existing roof to be demolished was identified as being within a part of the building that had little to neutral heritage significance. As such there is no objection to the proposed demolition of that portion of the building. The new butterfly shaped roof is centrally positioned within the footprint of the building, and such will not be easily viewed from any public place. The new roof design will result in a wall projection within the roof form. To ensure that this presents acceptably and to mitigate the new roof form, a condition is recommended requiring that all new roof cladding material be a dark grey colour, and all wall projections within the roof form be the same colour as the roof cladding material and be a standing seam or similar product.

The proposed changes to the roof are considered acceptable.

(5) Heritage Assessment

The consent authority may, before granting consent to any development:

(a) on land on which a heritage item is located, or

(b) on land that is within a heritage conservation area, or

(c) on land that is within the vicinity of land referred to in paragraph (a) or (b),

require a heritage management document to be prepared that assesses the extent to which the carrying out of the proposed development would affect the heritage significance of the heritage item or heritage conservation area concerned.

A heritage impacts statement has been submitted in support of the proposed modification and is acceptable.

(6) Heritage Conservation Management Plans

The consent authority may require, after considering the heritage significance of a heritage item and the extent of change proposed to it, the submission of a heritage conservation management plan before granting consent under this clause.

A conservation management plan was not required under the original consent. There are no changes proposed under this application to modify the consent that would require a CMP to be prepared at this stage.

(7) Archaeological Sites

The consent authority must, before granting consent under this clause to the carrying out of development on an archaeological site (other than land listed on the State Heritage Register or to which an interim heritage order under the Heritage Act 1977 applies):

(a) notify the Heritage Council of its intention to grant consent, and

(b) take into consideration any response received from the Heritage Council within 28 days after the notice is sent.

The site is not a known archaeological site. Notwithstanding this, Council’s standard precautionary condition relating to unexpected finds of objects or artifacts remains imposed.

(8) Aboriginal Places of Heritage Significance

The consent authority must, before granting consent under this clause to the carrying out of development in an Aboriginal place of heritage significance:

(a) consider the effect of the proposed development on the heritage significance of the place and any Aboriginal object known or reasonably likely to be located at the place by means of an adequate investigation and assessment (which may involve consideration of a heritage impact statement), and

(b) notify the local Aboriginal communities, in writing or in such other manner as may be appropriate, about the application and take into consideration any response received within 28 days after the notice is sent.

The site is not a known Aboriginal Place of Heritage Significance. Notwithstanding this, Council’s standard precautionary condition relating to unexpected finds of objects or artifacts remains imposed.

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICIES

Stata Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure)

The application to modify the consent was referred to the RMS pursuant to clause 104 of the SEPP (Infrastructure). The RMS responded with no objections to the proposed modification.

The application was referred to Essential Energy pursuant to clause 45 of the SEPP (Infrastructure). Essential Energy raised no objections to the modification and reiterated their previous general requirements, which are already attached to the consent.

PROVISIONS OF ANY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENT THAT HAS BEEN PLACED ON EXHIBITION 4.15(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.

INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT

The proposed development is not integrated development.

PROVISIONS OF ANY DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN s4.15(1)(a)(iii)

Development Control Plan 2004

Development Control Plan 2004 (“the DCP”) applies to the subject land (Chapter 0 - OLEP 2011, Chapter 8 - Development in Business Zones, Chapter 13 - Heritage and Chapter 15 - Car Parking). An assessment of the proposed development against the relevant Planning Outcomes will be undertaken below.

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

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

The corresponding zone to zone 3a Regional Centre (Orange LEP 2000) is zone B3 Commercial Core (Orange LEP 2011). As such, Orange DCP 2004 - Chapter 8 - Development in Business Zones is the chapter of primary relevance to this proposal in addition to the other chapters listed above.

CHAPTER 8 - DEVELOPMENT IN BUSINESS ZONES

Planning Outcomes - Central Business District

· Buildings have a high level of urban design to contribute to the regional status of the City’s Central Business District with attention given to façade features, external materials, colour and advertising.

The above planning outcome was addressed in detail under the original assessment. In that assessment Council staff imposed detailed conditions around the reinstatement of important heritage fabric that had previously been removed from the Summer Street façade. The condition remains imposed which the applicant needs to address prior to the issuance of a Construction Certificate. However, the submitted plans demonstrate the detailed work the applicant has done thus far in meeting the terms of the condition. As can be seen in the below figure, the development will result in a substantial improvement of the building’s presentation within the street and will be a significant achievement for all parties concerned.

Figure 5: 3D render of proposed development

· Urban design demonstrates a clear reference to the CBD Strategic Action Plan.

An assessment of the development’s compliance with the CBD Strategic Action Plan was undertaken as part of the assessment of the original application. The development as modified will not fundamentally alter the urban design outcomes achieved under the original approval; if anything they have been improved through the altered common mall space which connects directly with the rest of the City Centre, and the increased activation within Post Office Lane is viewed as an improvement.

The development as modified remains consistent with the objectives outlined in the CBD Strategic Action Plan.

· Provision of adequate fire-safety measures and facilities for disabled persons (according to the BCA) are addressed at the application stage (relevant for all development but particularly important where converting residential buildings for business use).

This was addressed in detail is the original assessment.

· Land use complements the role of the CBD as a regional centre for commerce and services.

This was addressed as part of the original assessment of the application. The development as modified is commensurate in terms of land-use with the original approval. As such, the development as modified will continue to compliment the role of the CBD as a regional centre.

The proposed development is considered by Council staff to contribute positively to the function of the CBD and will strengthen the role of the CBD as a regional centre.

· The reinstatement of verandahs on posts over footpaths is encouraged.

This was addressed in detail in the original assessment. The development as modified does not affect that previous assessment.

· Car parking is provided to meet demand either as on-site parking areas or through contributions towards public parking in and adjacent to the CBD.

Car parking is addressed below under the heading “Chapter 15 - Car Parking”.

· Advertising comprise business identification signs in accordance with SEPP 64

No advertising is proposed as part of this application. A relevant condition is attached to reinforce this.

· Loading areas are provided for developments requiring access by large trucks in a manner that doesn’t reduce active frontages for important pedestrian pathways.

As mentioned below, the applicant is now proposing the main switch room adjacent to the existing loading dock. The applicant has provided swept paths demonstrating that the proposed structure does not impede the operation of the loading dock. Council’s Technical Services Division has not raised objection to the structure.

· Where possible, new buildings or external alterations in the CBD include an element of landscaping.

This was addressed under the original application. The development as modified does not involve landscaping, nor is any recommended.

CHAPTER 13 - HERITAGE

Planning Outcomes - Heritage Development

· Development relates to the significant features of heritage buildings on or near the site, as reflected in inventory sheets.

· Development conforms with recognised conservation principles.

· Conservation Management Plans are prepared for development having a significant effect on heritage sites.

A detailed assessment of the impact upon the heritage significance against recognised heritage conservation principles has been undertaken above under the heading “5.10 ‑ Heritage Conservation”.

CHAPTER 15 - CAR PARKING

Council’s DCP requires parking for shops and shopping centres in the CBD at the rate of 4.1 spaces per 100m² of gross leasable floor area (GLFA).

Development consent was granted on 16 July 1985 for the construction of the City Centre. In that assessment, the entire centre (including Grace Bros, the occupier of the tenancy the subject of this application at that time) required 432 car parking spaces onsite. In later amendments, the number of physical spaces was reduced to 421 and monetary contributions were paid at that time for the equivalent of eight spaces.

Various amendments have occurred within the shopping centre over time, with parking considered at the time of each assessment. As such, the site is compliant for parking under the existing situation.

As was the case under the original application, the reduction in gross leasable floor area results in a reduction in the parking demand for the overall shopping centre. The application to modify the consent further reduces the amount of leasable gross floor area owing to the food court area and additional common mall space. The site would be further in credit in terms of parking demand as a result of the proposed modified development.

The development is therefore considered satisfactory in regard to parking.

INFILL GUIDELINES

As mentioned above, the development as modified is not inconsistent with Council’s infill guidelines. The development essentially remains unchanged in terms of character, siting, and scale and form. Existing conditions that required the reinstatement of original façade elements, the internal design of the mall space, the reinstatement of the painted wall sign etc, all remain and will be addressed as part of the issuance of the Construction Certificate.

The demolition of the existing roof (previously retained under the original approval) and replacement with the complex butterfly profile roof will have limited impacts in terms of character, and scale and form. The proposed butterfly shaped portion of the roof over the food court is centrally located or, in other words, well set back from all sides of the building. As such, it will not be overly visible from any public place, and will not be visible from Summer Street.

The previously imposed condition relating to the design of the Post Office Lane structure has been augmented to include certain balustrade requirements as required by Council’s Heritage Advisor.

Fundamentally, the development as modified is considered acceptable in terms of Council’s Infill Guidelines.

SECTION 64 WATER AND SEWER HEADWORKS CHARGES

Under the approved layout Council’s Technical Services Division advised that as a result of the reduced retail floor area, the land benefited from 2 equivalent tenements (ETs) credits for water and sewer which were able to be utilised if future uses were of a type that generated section 64 charges over and above those that apply at the moment. An Advisory Note was attached instructing of such.

Based on the proposed design which anticipates a number of food tenancies, the above referenced water and sewer equivalent tenement credit is effectively absorbed and a demand of 1.4 ETs for both water and sewer is created, and therefore charges are required. A new condition is attached in this regard.

The Advisory Note has been deleted and a new condition inserted requiring the water and sewer charges to be paid prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

Any future development applications that involve food and drink premises will be assessed separately at the time of a DA for first use and fitout.

This assessment of the food premises within the food court only relates to Section 64 water and sewer headworks; separate development applications will still be required for all first use and fitouts for all tenancies.

PROVISIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE REGULATIONS s4.15(1)(a)(iv)

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

THE LIKELY IMPACTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT s4.15(1)(b)

Context and Setting

The subject land is described as an integral keystone in the functionality of the CBD for its connectivity to a major shopping centre and other parts of the CBD. The building is also a very visually prominent building in the streetscape due to its size, appearance and general character. The development as modified will not materially alter the functionality of the building. If anything, the revised internal configuration of tenancies improves the common circulation space as it now connects directly with the existing circulation paths within the City Centre, as opposed to the previous layout which meant the major tenancy (now deleted) acted as a thoroughfare from Summer Street to the existing City Centre. The lengthened structure in Post Office Lane is a consequence of the reshuffle of smaller tenancies and allows almost a doubling of shopfronts to the laneway. As mentioned throughout the report, Council staff consider the activation of Post Office Lane to be positive.

As a side note, Council staff are in negotiations (separate to the DA process) with the applicant to install improved lighting within the laneway to enhance the amenity and ambiance of the laneway. The idea of lighting within the laneway would be modelled on similar laneways in Sydney and Melbourne.

The development as modified remains appropriate in the context and setting.

Heritage Impacts

Heritage considerations are addressed above. The development as modified is not likely to result in any unacceptable heritage impacts.

Traffic, Parking and Access

The development as modified is unlikely to result in impacts relating to traffic, parking and access. The existing traffic movement and access points remain unchanged. Council’s Technical Service Division raised some concern in relation to the structure housing the main switch room within the loading dock area and the impact it may have on manoeuvring of vehicles within the loading dock area.

The applicant subsequently provided Council with swept paths demonstrating that an 8.8m and a 12.5m vehicle are able to negotiate the site. Thus the proposed main switch room is acceptable and will not impact on the operation of the existing loading dock.

The proposed modifications will have a neutral effect on the previously approved parking arrangements; and as mentioned above the increase in the amount of common mall space will further reduce the car parking demands generated by the development.

THE SUITABILITY OF THE SITE s4.15(1)(c)

The site remains suitable for the proposed modified development.

ANY SUBMISSIONS MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACT s4.15(1)(d)

The proposed development is defined as "advertised development" under the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations. The application was advertised for the prescribed period of 14 days, and at the end of that period four submissions were received.

Submission 1 - resident of 39 Kenna Street

The submission raises objection to the use of the “old Myer building” as a food court. The author of the submission further states that Council needs a department store rather than additional “eating places”.

Council staff comment

The NSW Planning system does not allow a consent authority to control the amount of a particular land-use within the City, nor does it provide for a consent authority to insist on a particular land-use being developed on private land. The proposed food premises are a permissible land-use within the commercial zone. The consent provides for commercial premises, it will be necessary for development applications to be lodged for the first use and fitout of each tenancy.

Submission 2 - anonymous

Submission 2 raises similar contentions to Submission 1, purporting the number of cafes within Orange to be 64 or more and that the building should be used to attack a big retailer such as JB Hifi.

The submission acknowledges Council undertaking to revitalise the CBD and states that the building could be a centrepiece within the CBD. The submission also notes that Post Office Lane is looking brighter since the murals have been installed.

Council Staff comment

Similar to the comments made in response to Submission 1, Council does not have a mechanism to control the saturation of a particular land-use in a particular part of the City; nor can Council dictate the type of land-use a developer develops on private land.

In relation to the comments about the revitalisation and the subject building being a focal point of the CBD, Council staff are confident that the outcomes achieved under the initial approval (such as the reinstated façade elements and the large historic painted wall sign) will go a long way to ensuring that the building is major focal point and a key contributor to the visual enhancement of this part of the CBD.

The comments regarding the painted wall murals in the laneway are noted, and Council staff are confident that the proposal to provide outdoor dining space in Post Office Lane will foster further activation, place making opportunities within the laneway and improve the overall social capital of the public space.

Submission 3 - resident of 243 March Street

The author in the first half of the submission objects to the proposed development and passes some irrelevant judgements on the applicant. In the second part of the submission the author objects to the use of the laneway. The author states that the use of the laneway for eating areas is now superfluous as the previous constraints have been overcome due to the now proposed food court. The author states that all of the food areas in Post Office Lane should be deleted, further stating that to do so would allow the display windows to be more visible.

Council Staff Comment

The comments in the first paragraph of the submission do not relate to an objection on planning grounds. The applicant of any DA has the legal right to modify a development consent as many times as they so choose, provided the development remains substantially the same development for which consent was originally granted. The comment from the author of the submission that “… Council should not be put to the expense of working on continued DAs” is irrelevant.

In relation to the comments around the use of the laneway, as was the position held by Council staff during the initial assessment, the activation of the laneway through the proposed use under a lease arrangement with Council is considered a positive contribution to the public space. The area will undergo a dramatic revitalisation and will become a part of the City that is a meeting place and a place that is used by the public.

It should also be noted (which was very clear in the initial report by Council staff) that one of the main reasons for the structure within Post Office Lane was to protect the important heritage fabric associated with the basement below street level in the north-eastern corner of the site. Deleting the outdoor eating area would require a complete redesign of those tenancies effected.

Submission 4 - resident of 21 Lawson Crescent

The submission essentially provides a useful discussion directly related to the proposed amendments of previously imposed conditions. The author of the submission suggests that altering conditions (1) and (4) (plan numbers and roller shutter) will have no effect on heritage impact. The author suggests that condition (24) (location of fire booster and sprinkler valve) will result in some intrusive streetscape impacts but accepts the proposed location as a reasonable compromise based on the level of significance of the building where the infrastructure is proposed.

The author also makes comment in relation to condition (27) (relating to the reinstated monitor roof-light), suggesting that if it is found that the roof-light is not capable of reinstatement, than it ought to be reconstructed in a way that replicates rather than reflects (as written within SoEE) the original fabric. The author also makes comment in relation to the consolidation of the six required heritage display windows (condition (29)) into a large singe window, stating that the amended approach is a “significant improvement and is welcomed”.

Council staff comment

The submitter’s comments in relation to conditions (1), (4), (24) and (29) are noted and do not require a response.

In relation to the comments made around condition (27) and the monitor roof-light, it is Council’s intention for this fabric to be reinstated in a historically accurate and authentic way. Council’s assessment of the proposed changes to condition (27) are considered above and the concerns of the submitter are addressed in the above assessment.

PUBLIC INTEREST s4.15(1)(e)

The proposed development is considered to be of moderate interest to the wider public due to the prominent location within the CBD, the use of public space and the previous public attention the development has received. Notwithstanding this, the proposed development to modify the consent will result in only localised 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 development as modified is permissible with the consent of Council. The development as modified complies with the relevant aims, objectives and provisions of Orange LEP 2011 (as amended) and DCP 2004. The assessment has been carried out in a manner that is consistent with the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and its associated Regulations. A section 4.15 assessment of the development indicates that the development is acceptable. Attached is a draft amended Notice of Approval outlining a range of conditions considered appropriate to ensure that the development as modified 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 amended Notice of Approval.

Attachments

1 Notice of Approval, D18/44468 ⇩

2 Plans, D18/44400 ⇩

3 Submissions, D18/44379 ⇩

Planning and Development Committee 4 September 2018

2.3 Development Application DA 242/2017(2) - 212-220 Summer Street and Post Office Lane

Attachment 1 Notice of Approval

ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

Development Application No DA 242/2017(2)

NA18/xxx Container PR11580

NOTICE OF DETERMINATION

OF A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

issued under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Section 4.18

Development Application
Applicant Name:	Alceon Group Pty Limited
Applicant Address:	C/- URBIS Pty Ltd Level 23, Tower 2, 201 Sussex Street SYDNEY NSW 2000
Owner’s Name:	Alceon Group Pty Limited and Orange City Council
Land to Be Developed:	Lot 564 DP 776383 - 212-220 Summer Street and Post Office Lane, Orange
Proposed Development:	Demolition (ground, first and second floors, and roof of existing retail tenancy), and Commercial Premises (alterations and additions including elevated outdoor dining area)

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

Determination made under Section 4.16
Made On:	4 September 2018
Determination:	CONSENT GRANTED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS DESCRIBED BELOW:

Consent to Operate From:	28 March 2018
Consent to Lapse On:	28 March 2023

Terms of Approval

The reasons for the imposition of conditions are:

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

(2) To maintain neighbourhood amenity and character.

(3) To ensure compliance with relevant statutory requirements.

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

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

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

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

Conditions

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

(a) Plans by Alleanza Architecture – project number 16319 – sheet numbers:

DA-0001 – issue 2 – dated 4 May 2017

DA-1001 – issue 2 – dated 4 May 2017

DA-1002 – issue 4 – dated 1 December 2017

DA-1003 – issue 5 – dated 1 December 2017

DA-1004 – issue 4 – dated 22 May 2017

DA-1005 – issue 7 – dated 1 December 2017

DA-1006 – issue 10 – dated 1 December 2017

DA-1007 – issue 4 – dated 11 October 2017

DA-1008 – issue 5 – dated 11 October 2017

DA-1009 – issue 6 – dated 1 December 2017

DA-1010 – issue 10 – dated 1 December 2017

DA-1011 – issue 8 – dated 1 December 2017

DA-1012 – issue 4 – dated 1 December 2017

DA-1013 – issue 3 – dated 1 December 2017

DA-1014 – issue 3 – dated 1 December 2017

DA-1020 – issue 4 – dated 1 December 2017

DA-1021 – issue 4 – dated 1 December 2017

DA-1022 – issue 5 – dated 1 December 2017

DA-1023 – issue 4 – dated 1 December 2017

DA-1024 – issue 4 – dated 1 December 2017

DA-1025 – issue 4 – dated 1 December 2017

DA-1026 – issue 2 – dated 1 December 2017

Amending plans: Plans by Christiansen O’Brien Architects:

DA-0000 - Issue S4.55 – dated 28 June 2018

DA-0001 - Issue S4.55 – dated 28 June 2018

DA-1001 - Issue S4.55 – dated 28 June 2018

DA-1002 - Issue S4.55 – dated 28 June 2018

DA-1003 - Issue S4.55 – dated 28 June 2018

DA-1004 - Issue S4.55 – dated 28 June 2018

DA-1005 - Issue S4.55 – dated 28 June 2018

DA-1006 - Issue S4.55 – dated 28 June 2018

DA-1007 - Issue S4.55 – dated 28 June 2018

DA-1008 - Issue S4.55 – dated 28 June 2018

DA-1009 - Issue S4.55 – dated 28 June 2018

DA-1010 - Issue S4.55 – dated 28 June 2018

DA-1011 - Issue S4.55 – dated 28 June 2018

DA-1012 - Issue S4.55 – dated 28 June 2018

DA-1013 - Issue S4.55 – dated 28 June 2018

DA-1014 - Issue S4.55 – dated 28 June 2018

DA-1020 - Issue S4.55 – dated 28 June 2018

DA-1021 - Issue S4.55 – dated 28 June 2018

DA-1022 - Issue S4.55 – dated 28 June 2018

DA-1023 - Issue S4.55 – dated 28 June 2018

DA-1024 - Issue S4.55 – dated 28 June 2018

DA-1025 - Issue S4.55 – dated 28 June 2018

DA-1026 - Issue S4.55 – dated 28 June 2018

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

(2) Separate development applications are to be made for the first use and fitouts of individual tenancies created under this consent.

(3) This consent does not provide approval for the erection of signage unless such signage is consistent with the exempt provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes). Separate development consent will be required for all signage that does not meet the abovementioned exempt provisions.

(4) (condition moved to “Matters for the Ongoing Performance and Operation of the Development: section below)

(5) This consent does not provide approval for the proposed under awning posts in Summer Street, accordingly the posts shall be deleted from the proposal.

(6) This consent does not provide approval of the planter boxes within Post Office Lane, accordingly the planter boxes shall be deleted from the proposal.

PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

(10) Eight Victorian period style urns shall be reinstated on top of the parapet directly above the respective pilasters. The type of urns selected shall be based on reference to the historic photograph contained in ‘Orange and District Illustrated’ Flynn and Leggo 1928 pg. 204. Details of the urns shall be submitted to, and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessments and Council’s Heritage Advisor prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

(11) The eight pilasters within the northern façade (Summer Street façade) shall be reinstated where previously removed above the suspended awning. The lengthened/reinstated pilasters shall replicate the design and materials shown in the historic photograph contained in ‘Orange and District Illustrated’ Flynn and Leggo 1928 pg. 204. Details of the lengthened/reinstated pilasters shall be submitted to, and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessments and Council’s Heritage Advisor prior to the issue of a construction Certificate.

(12) Eight pilaster capitals within the northern façade (Summer Street façade) shall be reinstated where previously removed. The reinstated pilaster capitals shall be based on reference to the historic photograph contained in ‘Orange and District Illustrated’ Flynn and Leggo 1928 pg. 204. Details of the pilaster capitals shall be submitted, to and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessments and Council’s Heritage Advisor prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

(13) The six (previously) arched windows that relate to the first floor to the east of the central arch (directly above the suspended awning) within the northern façade (Summer Street façade) shall be reinstated (including the decorative rendered moulding surrounds) where previously removed. The details of the reinstated arched windows on the first floor to the east of the central arch shall be designed based on reference to the historic photograph contained in ‘Orange and District Illustrated’ Flynn and Leggo 1928 pg. 204. Details of the subject windows shall be submitted to, and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessments and Council’s Heritage Advisor prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

(14) The seven double hung windows that relate to the first floor (directly above the suspended awning) to the west of the central arch within the northern façade (Summer Street façade) shall be reinstated, including the decorative rendered mounding surrounds. The details of the reinstated windows on the first floor to the west of the central arch shall be designed based on reference to the historic photograph contained in ‘Orange and District Illustrated’ Flynn and Leggo 1928 pg. 204. Details of the subject windows shall be submitted to, and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessments and Council’s Heritage Advisor prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

(15) The main central vaulted (arched) glazing within the northern façade (Summer Street façade) above the main central entrance shall be reinstated. The details of the reinstated main central vaulted (arched) glazing above the central entrance shall be designed based on reference to the historic photograph contained in ‘Orange and District Illustrated’ Flynn and Leggo 1928 pg. 204. Details of the subject glazing shall be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessments and Council’s Heritage Advisor prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

(16) The three uppermost windows in the western end of the northern (Summer Street) façade shall have new glazing installed that will be translucent to a level that is sufficient to obscure the frame of the portal structure behind. This detail shall be clearly shown on the plans submitted with the application for a construction certificate.

(17) The proposed 150mm square through-bolt wall plates in the northern (Summer Street) façade and eastern (Post Office Lane) façade shall be replaced with black coloured circular expressed steel bracket anchor plates. Details of the wall plate shall be clearly shown on the plans submitted with an application for a construction certificate.

(18) The positioning of the proposed pad footings located in the significant basement/cellar shall be relocated or adjusted in a way that ensures the pad footings do not impact upon, or cause damage to, the existing internal masonry walls within the basement/cellar. Amended plans showing the revised location of the subject footings shall be submitted with the application for a Construction Certificate.

(19) The new shopfronts within Summer Street and Post Office Lane shall be constructed using ‘Modclad’ bronze finished framing system. This detail shall be clearly shown on the plans submitted with the application for a Construction Certificate.

(20) A heritage interpretation plan shall be prepared for the subject site by a suitably qualified heritage consultant in accordance with NSW Heritage Council guidelines and standard heritage practices. The heritage interpretation plan shall provide such things as murals, memory boards, displays within the Post Office Lane display windows, interpretation signs relating to salvaged fabric etc. The interpretation plan shall include the allowance for occasional future access (by appointment only) of the basement/cellar. The heritage interpretation plan shall be submitted to Council’s Manager Development Assessments for approval prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

(21) In addition to the heritage interpretation plan, the ground floor above the basement /cellar shall include a clear transparent section of floor above the basement of at least 4m²in size and the basement shall be suitably illuminated from within the basement to allow the basement to be viewed from above. This is to occur within NS12. This detail shall be clearly shown on the plans submitted with an application for a construction certificate.

(22) A large painted wall sign interpreting the previous “Dalton Brothers” painted wall sign located on the upper portion of the eastern (Post Office Lane) façade shall be painted onto the building. The details of the painted wall sign shall be based on reference to historic photographs of the subject sign contained in ‘Orange and District Illustrated’ 1928, Flynn and Leggo. Details of the painted wall sign, including the size, livery, colour, font, location etc, shall be submitted to Council’s Manager Development Assessments prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. The painted wall sign shall be applied to the building using traditional techniques by suitably qualified and skilled tradespeople.

(23) A construction management plan shall be submitted to, and be approved by the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. The plan shall address such things as parking of construction worker vehicles, delivery arrangements, crane lift or concrete boom locations, dust mitigation, noise and vibration mitigation, rubbish and waste removal, complaints handling etc. The plan shall be adhered to for the duration of the demolition/construction phase of the development.

(24) The fire hydrant booster system and the fire sprinkler booster system shall be wholly located within the subject building. The façade elements above the fire hydrant booster system and the fire sprinkler booster system shall consist of openings with shopfront glazing as shown on the submitted plans, with traditional bronze Modclad shopfront framing matching the same shopfront cladding required for the Summer Street heritage elevation. A solid fire wall above the respective fire hydrant booster system and the fire sprinkler booster system is prohibited; if a solid fire wall is required to achieve the required standard, than an alternative location for the fire hydrant booster system and the fire sprinkler booster system shall be sought via an application to modify the consent. The fire hydrant booster system and the fire sprinkler booster system shall be designed in a manner that does not alter or affect the integrity of the existing awning over the Council footpath. The fire hydrant booster system and the fire sprinkler booster system shall be enclosed in an enclosure that is coloured black to match the surrounding approved subway tile. The vertical pipework above the cabinets feeding the water supply within the building shall be concealed within, or adjacent to the structural column in the north-eastern corner of the building in a way whereby the pipework is not visible through the shopfront glazing. Plans showing the above detail shall be submitted to Council’s Manager Development Assessments for approval prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

(25) The original openings (since bricked up / enclosed) within the earliest portion of the east (Post Office Lane) elevation shall be accurately identified. Once identified, a mechanism for interpreting the openings shall be devised either by removing the paint where the opening once was to expose unpainted brick work or recessing the brickwork in the location of the opening. The method of interpreting the openings should be determined by a suitably qualified heritage consultant. Details as to the preferred way of interpreting the former openings shall be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessments and Council’s Heritage Advisor prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

(26) A revised plan that shows the proposed external paint scheme adopting the same proposed colours shall be prepared that also incorporates the required façade reinstatements (vaulted window, reinstated windows, pilasters, pilaster capitals and urns) and shows appropriate colours of those elements also. Details shall be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessments and Councils Heritage Advisor prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

(27) At least one of the original roof-lights shall be reconstructed* in a historically accurate manner within the new roof above the central mall space between NS14 and NS15. The design of the reconstructed roof-light shall be determined by undertaking a survey and preparation of detailed drawings of the selected existing roof-light to be reconstructed. The reconstructed roof-light shall be clearly shown on the roof plan, reflected ceiling plan along with a cross section plan of the roof-light and shall be submitted to Council’s Manager Development Assessments for approval prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. As part of the required approval process evidence shall be provided that demonstrates the reconstructed roof-light is a historically accurate reconstruction of one of the existing roof lights. Specifications and drawings shall also be provided clearly showing the extent of the original salvaged fabric that will be used as part of the reconstructed roof-light, the extent of the new materials and details and the extent of any new elements such as structure and lighting.

*for the avoidance of doubt the Burra Charter defines reconstruction as returning a place [in this case, the roof-light is taken to be a reference to a place] to a known earlier state and is distinguished from restoration by the introduction of new material.

The existing tessellated tiles (recently uncovered) within the building at the original entrance in Summer Street shall be investigated and re-used within the development where practicable.

(28) The applicant shall submit amended drawings to Council’s Manager Development Assessments for approval that shows the outdoor dining pavilion to be located within Post Office Lane comprising an expressed black painted steel frame structure with black colour back traditional glass to conceal the deck down to the ground level, clear glass for the balustrades and a laminated grey tinted glass canopy with a decorative frosted interlayer. The louvres on the outside face of the structure above the balustrade shall be powder coated aluminium finished similar or equal to Dulux Eternity Star Pearl or Silver kinetic Pearl. Final details and finishes of the steel and glass structure shall be noted on the plans to be submitted with the application for a Construction Certificate. A Construction Certificate must not be issued until such time that details of the final building materials and finishes of the pavilion have been approved by Council’s Manager Developments Assessments.

(29) A heritage interpretation display window shall be provided within the east (Post Office Lane) elevation. The window shall be located in the wall adjacent to the access ramp to the Post Office Lane structure at the southern side of the structure.

(30) The two original timber goods pulleys shall be salvaged and relocated to a prominent location within the development site (internally within the building) in a way whereby their integrity is maintained and they can be appropriately interpreted. The items shall be situated as close as practicable to their original locations. Display as isolated objects is not considered a suitable form of interpretation and would be considered unacceptable. Plans showing the location of the two subject pulleys shall be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessments and Council’s Heritage Advisor prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

(31) The spiral staircase salvaged from the basement/cellar shall be relocated within a prominent location within the development site in a way whereby its integrity is maintained and it can be appropriately interpreted. The staircase shall be installed over two levels – ie between ground level and a small mezzanine level or similar. The item shall be situated as close as practicable to its original location (ie within tenancy NS12). The staircase shall be accessible by arrangement so that future understanding can be further developed. Display as an isolated object is not considered a suitable form of interpretation and would be considered unacceptable. Plans showing the location of the subject staircase shall be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessments and Council’s Heritage Advisor prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

(32) An approval under Section 68 of the Local Government Act is to be sought from Orange City Council, as the Water and Sewer Authority, for alterations to water and sewer. No plumbing and drainage is to commence until approval is granted.

(33) Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, the applicant is to obtain an approval under Section 68 of the Local Government Act for the temporary closure of any footpath or roadway. A pedestrian/vehicle management plan is to accompany the application. Details are to be provided of the protective hoardings, fences and lighting that are to be used during demolition, excavation and building works in accordance with the requirements of the Occupational Health & Safety Act 2000, Australian Standard AS3798-1996 (Guidelines on Earthworks for Commercial and Residential Developments) and the WorkCover Authority.

Note: On corner properties particular attention is to be given to the provision of adequate sight distances.

(34) A survey to determine the existence of any hazardous materials on the site is to be provided. Suitable arrangements are to be made to dispose of, or remediate any identified hazardous materials - including the notification of authorities and/or the obtaining of any required permits. Particular care and attention is to be paid to the disposal of any waste containing asbestos material.

(35) The existing sewer manhole located within the vicinity of Food Tenancy 03 shall be relocated wholly within the proposed service passage, raised to floor level and installed with a gas tight lid. Any new sewer manholes required as part of the sewer main diversion works shall also be located wholly within a service passage area, raised to floor level and installed with a gas tight lid. Engineering plans for modifications to the sewer main and manhole are to be submitted to Orange City Council for approval prior to issuing a Construction Certificate.

(36) Backflow Prevention Devices are to be installed to AS3500 and in accordance with Orange City Council Backflow Protection Guidelines. Details of the Backflow Prevention Devices are to be submitted to Orange City Council prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate.

(37) The existing water main and water services located within Post Office Lane shall be relocated clear of the proposed alfresco dining area and associated ramp. Engineering plans for modifications to the water main are to be submitted to Orange City Council for approval prior to issuing a Construction Certificate.

(37A) All new roof cladding to be installed upon the building shall be dark grey equal to Colorbond basalt or similar. The Colorbond wall cladding shown on the approved (amending) plans within the roof form shall be Colorbond basalt or similar in a standing seem or similar product. The plans submitted with an application for a construction certificate shall clearly show the above required material.

(37B) A Liquid Trade Waste Application is to be submitted to Orange City Council prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate. The application is to be in accordance with Orange City Council’s Liquid Trade Waste Policy. Engineering plans submitted as part of the application are to show details of all proposed liquid trade waste pre-treatment systems and their connection to sewer.

Where applicable, the applicant is to enter into a Liquid Trade Waste Service Agreement with Orange City Council in accordance with the Orange City Council Liquid Trade Waste Policy.

(37C) Payment of contributions for water, sewer and drainage works is required to be made at the contribution rate applicable at the time that the payment is made. The contributions are based on 1.4 ETs for water supply headworks and 1.4 ETs for sewerage headworks. A Certificate of Compliance, from Orange City Council in accordance with the Water Management Act 2000, will be issued upon payment of the contributions.

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

PRIOR TO WORKS COMMENCING

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

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

(40) A dilapidation report prepared by a suitably qualified engineer is to be submitted to Council addressing the current condition of the buildings that are adjoining the development site, and also the existing building that is to remain as part of this development.

This condition shall not apply in the event that access is refused by those property owners.

(41) The beneficiary of the consent shall complete a ‘Dial Before You Dig’ search of land within Post Office Lane and accurately locate ALL services within the location of the proposed Post Office Lane structure prior to works commencing. Should any existing services require augmentation, relocation, or the like; the proponent shall contact the relevant service provider directly to discuss the required works. Any adjustments to existing services is at the full cost of the proponent.

DURING CONSTRUCTION/SITEWORKS

(42) If Aboriginal objects, relics, or other historical items are located during development works, all works in the area of the identified object, relic or item shall cease, and the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH), representatives from the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council and Orange City Council shall be notified. Where required, further archaeological investigation shall be undertaken. Development works in the area of the find(s) may recommence if and when outlined by the management strategy, developed in consultation with and approved by the OEH or otherwise advised.

(43) In the event of an unexpected find during works such as (but not limited to) the presence of undocumented waste, odorous or stained soil, asbestos, structures such as underground storage tanks, slabs, or any contaminated or suspect material, all work on site must cease immediately. The beneficiary of the consent must discuss with Council the appropriate process that should be followed therein. Works on site must not resume unless the express permission of the Director Development Services, Orange City Council is obtained in writing.

(44) The applicant shall upgrade the heritage white way lighting system within the awning of the building (under awning lights) and incorporate it into the electrical supply of the building. Lighting of the shop front and adjacent footpath area shall meet a minimum design standard of P8 lighting category as per AS/NZS 1158.3.1:2005. The new light fittings within the awning shall match the existing style or alternatively, be appropriately recessed LED downlights.

(45) Large prints of earlier photographs of the subject building shall be affixed to the hoarding within Summer Street and Post Office Lane for the duration that the hoarding is in place. A separate approval from Council for the proposed hoarding is required under the Local Government Act.

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

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

(48) Building demolition is to be carried out in accordance with Australian Standard 2601:2001 - The Demolition of Structures and the requirements of Safe Work NSW.

(49) Asbestos containing building materials must be removed in accordance with the provisions of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 and any guidelines or Codes of Practice published by Safe Work NSW, and disposed of at a licenced landfill in accordance with the requirements of the NSW EPA.

(50) The existing heritage white way lighting (under awning lights) that are located in the awning of the building are currently connected to the street lighting grid that operates throughout the night. The applicant shall ensure that this lighting system is retained and not disconnected during works, unless alternative temporary lighting is provided over the Council footpath and also Post Office Lane. Such measures are to be maintained until such time as these lights are replaced with an upgraded lighting system required by this consent.

Any works involving the awning attached to the building and/or Council’s under awning lights, may only be undertaken following consultation with Council’s Electrician (telephone (02) 6393 8000).

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

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

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

(53) The existing 150mm diameter sewer main that crosses the site is to be accurately located. Where the main is positioned under any proposed building work, measures are to be taken in accordance with Orange City Council Policy - Building over and/or adjacent to sewers ST009.

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF AN OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE

(54) All works required under conditions (10), (11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (17), (22), (25) and (29) shall be completed prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

(55) A pedestrian management plan shall be prepared for the existing loading area. The pedestrian management plan shall provide appropriate measures that ensure the safety of pedestrians in the vicinity of the loading area during times of loading and unloading of vehicles and the reversing manoeuvre of vehicles entering or exiting the loading area. Measures shall include such practices as temporary barricading and someone on the ground directing the movement of pedestrians. The pedestrian management plan shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority for approval prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate. Once approved the plan shall be implemented for the duration of the development.

(56) An archival recording of the building is to be undertaken for the development in accordance with the guidelines and standards prepared by the NSW Heritage Division and Council's "Guidelines for Photographic Recording of Heritage Buildings and Sites". The building shall be photographically recorded and surveyed during selective periods of both demolition and construction phases such that any significant elements that are discovered during the demolition and construction phases can be recorded. The archival photographs that have been recorded since Myer vacated must be included in the final document. Additionally, the archival record shall include a professionally prepared oral history related to former staff employed at the subject premises and members of the community. Input into the oral history should be obtained from members of the Orange and District Historical Society.

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

(58) The owner of the building/s must cause the Council to be given a Final Fire Safety Certificate on completion of the building in relation to essential fire or other safety measures included in the schedule attached to this approval.

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

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

(61) Certificates for testable Backflow Prevention Devices are to be submitted to Orange City Council by a plumber with backflow qualifications prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

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

MATTERS FOR THE ONGOING PERFORMANCE AND OPERATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT

(63) The heritage display window in Post Office Lane shall be used only for the purposes of heritage interpretation. The heritage display window shall NOT be used for the purposes of displaying advertising or the promotion of goods, or the like at any time.

(64) The under awning lighting of the building shall operate daily between dusk and dawn.

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

(66) The security roller shutter located above the central entrance to the mall space from Summer Street shall only be activated in fire mode (i.e. when the fire alarm is activated) and remain in the up position at all other times.

ADVISORY NOTES

(1) If the proposed development changes, there may be potential safety risks and it is recommended that Essential Energy is consulted for further comment.

(2) Any existing encumbrances in favour of Essential Energy (or its predecessors) noted on the title of the above property should be complied with.

(3) Prior to any demolition works being carried out, any existing electrical infrastructure that is connected will need to be disconnected. Refer to Essential Energy’s Contestable Works Team for requirements.

(4) Satisfactory arrangements are to be made with Essential Energy for the provision of power to the development. It is the Applicant’s responsibility to make the appropriate application with Essential Energy for the supply of electricity to the development, which may include the payment of fees and contributions.

(5) In addition, Essential Energy’s records indicate there is electricity infrastructure located within the property and within close proximity to the property. Any activities within these locations must be undertaken in accordance with the latest industry guideline currently known as ISSC 20 Guideline for the Management of Activities within Electricity Easements and Close to Infrastructure.

(6) Prior to carrying out any works, a “Dial Before You Dig” enquiry should be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of Part 5E (Protection of Underground Electricity Power Lines) of the Electricity Supply Act 1995 (NSW).

(7) Given there is electricity infrastructure in the area, it is the responsibility of the person/s completing any works around powerlines to understand their safety responsibilities. SafeWork NSW (www.safework.nsw.gov.au) has publications that provide guidance when working close to electricity infrastructure. These include the Code of Practice – Work near Underground Assets.

(8) (deleted)

Other Approvals

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

Nil

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

Nil

Right of Appeal

If you are dissatisfied with this decision, Section 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 gives you the right to appeal to the Land and Environment Court. Pursuant to Section 8.10, an applicant may only appeal within 6 months after the date the decision is notified.

*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 of the Conveyancing Act 1919 -* 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:	PAUL JOHNSTON - MANAGER DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENTS
Date:	5 September 2018

Planning and Development Committee 4 September 2018

2.4 Development Application DA 178/2018(1) - 386 Molong Road and Lot 6 Northern Distributor Road

RECORD NUMBER: 2018/1893

AUTHOR: Michael Glenn, Senior Planner

EXECUTIVE Summary

Application lodged	28 May 2018
Applicant/s	Mr G Thornberry
Owner/s	Mr GJ Thornberry
Land description	Lot 81 DP 1202584 - 386 Molong Road and Lot 6 DP 1065578 - Northern Distributor Road, Orange
Proposed land use	Subdivision (103 lots - comprising 96 residential lots, 6 open space lots and 1 residue lot)
Value of proposed development	Not applicable

Council's consent is sought for a subdivision of the subject land into 103 lots, comprising 6 open space lots and 96 residential lots ranging in size from 389m²to 6,178m², and a residual lot of 15,600m². There are two lots in the subdivision that, on the basis of their lot size and configuration, are intended as unit sites (proposed Lots 114 and 117).

Like all development applications, applications for subdivision must be assessed against the heads of consideration listed under Section 4.15 of the Act. For subdivisions this should include an assessment of land capability and permissibility of the future uses. The assessment of the proposed subdivision must assess the environmental constraints, infrastructure needs, zoning restrictions of the future uses (in a general sense) and make provision for infrastructure as required. The consent can only relate to the site itself, however infrastructure required on surrounding land can be required (and constructed) with the agreement of those surrounding landowners (however, such agreement does not form part of the consent).

The principal environmental issues for consideration in this application are:

1 The noise and odour impacts between the proposed subdivision and the sewer pump station located at the northern extremity of the site, and the security in the tenure of this structure and the infrastructure, as well as the arrangements for access to that piece of infrastructure;

2 The noise impacts on the subdivision arising from the Northern Distributor Road (NDR) and Molong Road;

3 The protection of the riparian corridors and ensuring that such corridors have sufficient width and ongoing management. These constraints require the setting aside of land and its ongoing conservation and management as per Department Of Primary Industries (Water) (DPI-Water) requirements; and

4 Possible aboriginal heritage on the site. This will, among other responses, require that the trees on the site be investigated as to whether any scar trees exist among the mix.

One particular element of this application necessitates a comment from the broader strategic perspective of Council as a planning authority, as a manager of public land and provider of public open space.

This relates to the proposed large amount of open space associated with the two watercourses which traverse the land in question and proposals put forward by the developer. On the one hand there are large areas of the site constrained by riparian corridors to the extent of requiring 35,848m² of corridors. However, Council’s section 7.11 acquisitions plan only provides for a maximum of 6,000m² to be acquired with compensation to provide pedestrian and cycle access through the site. The remainder of this land can either be retained in private ownership, or be dedicated to Council at no cost. Because the land is environmentally sensitive and is in generally poor condition, conditions are imposed that require some rehabilitation as an offset to the environmental risks posed by the proposed development. Conditions are imposed that require a minimum of 6,000m² to be provided to Council with appropriate compensation (and excluding the OSD basin). For the remaining land within the riparian corridors the land may be optionally dedicated to Council (for open space and environmental purposes) or be retained in private ownership, but subject to a plan of management that aims for consistency in the uses allowable under the zones that apply to the land, as well as no significant adverse environmental effect.

It is noted that the site includes an onsite detention basin. Compensation for this infrastructure under the Open Space Acquisitions Plan is not applicable as such infrastructure is not classified as open space. This piece of infrastructure is within the riparian zone of a waterway classified as Sensitive Waterway (under the LEP) and Key Fish Habitat (under the Fisheries Management Act 1994). As a result of these environmental constraints, it is considered necessary to require the proponent to develop this infrastructure as a constructed wetland or wet detention basin.

It is further noted that a noise buffer adjacent to the Northern Distributor Road is provided for in the section 7.11 acquisitions plan, but the amount of land for which compensation is applicable is limited to a maximum of 3,000m². This limit is separate to, and in addition to the 6,000m² applicable to the riparian corridors (mentioned above). The submitted plans show a total of 8,762m² of buffer land being set aside for noise buffering. Council is in the position of only offering compensation for a maximum of 3,000m². The remainder will necessarily need to be dedicated to Council at no cost, or as is the case for the riparian corridors, require the preparation of a Plan of Management to ensure their continued functionality as open space corridors and noise buffer.

Land not suitable within the development site directly as residential land (due to its environmental constraints and/or zoning) must have an alternative use envisioned and provided for within any consent issued by Council. Land excluded directly from use as residential land inevitably will tend to devolve to open space purposes.

The acquisitions plan (for open space) does not include any provisions to cover the Somerset Creek riparian corridor (the waterway that passes under the NDR). To an extent, the broad principals of the acquisitions plan have not been reflected in the infrastructure provided.

The open space network being developed in the adjoining Ribbon Gums Estate and the provision of an underpass adjacent to the creek and passing under the Northern Distributor Road suggests clear intent to develop Somerset Creek as a pedestrian and cycleway link to the remaining network. The riparian corridor of Somerset Creek is zoned RE1 Public Recreation to reflect these physical constraints and community aspirations

Conversely, the amount of open space for public and Council purposes is properly identified in the Development Contributions Plan. The additional open space proposed in this application is currently deemed in the Council adopted long range planning policies as not required for public and Council purposes, and can be held for conservation purposes privately as is vast amounts of land in NSW and in Orange.

Given the surplus nature of the land to the developer and the surplus nature of the land for public and Council purposes, it is held that were it is offered, it ought to be acquired by Council only to the extent allowed for under the contributions masterplan, and that any land in excess of that maximum set by the DCP should be at no compensation, like any other parcel of land not required by Council for a specific planning purpose under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act that a landowner wishes to divest.

It is recommended that Council supports the subject proposal subject to the conditions attached.

Figure 1: locality plan

RECENT LEGISLATIVE CHANGES

DECISION FRAMEWORK

Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 - The operation of the Act since March 2018 has also been amended so as to make it mandatory to consider the provisions of Part 7 of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 and Part 7A of the Fisheries Management Act 1994. The Act has many facets; most importantly it sets out the legislative framework and matters for consideration in the merit assessment of development applications. These matters are listed broadly under Section 4.15 of the Act, and are mandatory matters to consider in the determination of development proposals.

2017 Orange Development Contributions Plan - sets out the applicable contribution rates for new lots approved, and the applicable compensation rates for land acquisitions. For the subject site it includes an open space masterplan, specifying the amount of space (in square metres) that may be subject to compensation. A proportion of the open space is reserved for the NDR buffer, the remainder is set aside for the riparian corridors.

DIRECTOR’S COMMENT

This land package has historically gained subdivision approval for lots in the order of 1,000m². In response to a market need for a mixture of lot sizes, the applicant has sought a rezoning supported by Council to move to a new lot size mix and subdivision layout. The subdivision has been designed around constraints including the creek systems in place and the Northern Distributor Road and Molong Road. The application is supported by staff subject to consent conditions that respond to concerns around tree loss, waterway quality and habitat protection.

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

Financial Implications

Nil

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

Recommendation

That Council consents to development application DA 178/2018(1) for Subdivision (103 lots - comprising 96 residential lots, 6 open space lots and 1 residue lot) at Lot 81 DP 1202584 - 386 Molong Road and Lot 6 DP 1065578 - Northern Distributor Road, Orange pursuant to the conditions of consent in the attached Notice of Approval.

further considerations

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

THE APPLICATION/PROPOSAL

Council's consent is sought for a subdivision of the subject land into 103 lots, comprising 6 open space lots and 96 residential lots ranging in size from 389m²to 6178m² with a residual lot of 15,600m². The basic layout of the subdivision is shown in Figure 2 below:

Figure 2: proposed subdivision

It is also proposed to establish easements on which the sewer pump station is to be located. Easements across the creek are proposed to facilitate access to the development lot (Lot 61). No direct access from a road to Lot 61 is proposed. The proposed subdivision is to be provided with a single vehicular point off the NDR.

MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION

The Relevant Objectives

The proposed development as configured is an appropriate response to the demands of the various zone objectives of the LEP.

The riparian corridors with their (mostly) E2 (Environmental Conservation) zoning have objectives that seek to:

protect, manage and restore areas of high ecological, scientific, cultural or aesthetic values, and prevent development that could destroy, damage or otherwise have an adverse effect on those values.

Figure 3 - the subject property and the developing open space corridor network

to the north and south of the site

The principal environmental issues for consideration in this application are:

2 The noise impacts arising from the NDR and Molong Road

3 The protection of the riparian corridor that will require the setting aside of land and its ongoing conservation and management as per DPI Water (formerly NSW Office of Water) requirements.

Council needs to consider in its determination whether the condition of the riparian corridor as it currently exists is capable of absorbing the key threatening processes presented by the subdivision, or whether some level of rehabilitation will be required to avoid further deterioration of the environment.

With regards to the R1 (General Residential) zone the stated objectives of the zone are:

· 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.

Section 1.7 - Application of Part 7 of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 and Part 7A of the Fisheries Management Act 1994

Development Applications lodged on or after 25 February 2018

The subject site contains both terrestrial and riparian biodiversity and therefore is subject to detailed assessment under both the Biodiversity conservation Act and also the Fisheries management act 1994.

Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 - (Assessment and Approval Under the Planning Act)

The key test of the new Act as it applies to this application can be found at Sections 7.2 and 7.3.

Section 7.2 - Development or activity “likely to significantly affect threatened species”

A three part test is applicable under this section and is addressed as follows:

(a) it is likely to significantly affect threatened species or ecological communities, or their habitats, according to the test in section 7.3

The applicant has submitted supporting information in their submission to Council indicating that the tree stands on the site, whilst old growth and of appropriate species, are part of a generally isolated tree stand. Further these stands are not considered viable, and lack many of the structural elements of a Box Gum Grassy Woodland. There is some value in retaining some of the stand from an urban bushland perspective, primarily as a means of providing transitory shelter for juvenile species as they migrate away from other, larger bushland stands in the area that provide nursery and feeding opportunities for new hatchlings.

This issue was visited during the assessment of the last application of this site (DA 217/2014 for a 61 lot residential subdivision). At the time of determination of that application Council was advised:

In this case, the terrestrial elements of the site have some isolated tree stands associated with the Box Gum Grassy Woodland; however, the vegetation does not constitute a viable vegetation community and lacks connectivity. There are a total of 13 over-mature native species trees on the site outside the riparian areas of the site. These tree stands offer some habitat value as seed banks but do not fill the criteria or even have potential to fill the criteria of being a viable woodland area or vegetated corridor to other more substantial vegetation communities nearby.

(b) the development exceeds the biodiversity offsets scheme threshold if the biodiversity offsets scheme applies to the impacts of the development on biodiversity values

The Biodiversity Offsets Scheme (or BOS) threshold is an area test. If the area to be cleared, or otherwise affected exceeds an area provided for in the Regulations (which for this site is 2.0ha) the offsets scheme is triggered by the development. There is not 2ha of clearing contained in the subject application.

(c) it is carried out in a declared area of outstanding biodiversity value.

Areas of Outstanding Biodiversity Value (OBVs) are shown on mapping layers prepared, or being prepared by OEH. They are broadly equivalent to the Critical Habitat declarations of the previous legislation. The subject site is not an OBV.

Section 7.3 - Test for determining whether proposed development or activity is likely to significantly affect threatened species or ecological communities, or their habitats

(a) in the case of a threatened species, whether the proposed development or activity is likely to have an adverse effect on the life cycle of the species such that a viable local population of the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction,

The site has no known threatened species on the site, and in any event is considered unlikely to be able support a viable population of threatened species likely to develop on the site at some point in the future. The relative lack of connectivity of this site to surrounding bushland areas limits its ability to act in support of other bushland areas.

(b) in the case of an endangered ecological community or critically endangered ecological community, whether the proposed development or activity:

(i) is likely to have an adverse effect on the extent of the ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction, or

(ii) is likely to substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction,

As elsewhere stated in this report, it is considered the development site does not contain a viable BGGW EEC. It is accepted that the site does contain component elements of such EECs, and that from that standpoint the conservation of the remnant stands of timber on the site would be broadly beneficial (also, given the visual prominence of this timber stand, its conservation from an aesthetic standpoint is also supportable).

(c) in relation to the habitat of a threatened species or ecological community:

(i) the extent to which habitat is likely to be removed or modified as a result of the proposed development or activity, and

(ii) whether an area of habitat is likely to become fragmented or isolated from other areas of habitat as a result of the proposed development or activity, and

(iii) the importance of the habitat to be removed, modified, fragmented or isolated to the long-term survival of the species or ecological community in the locality,

It is considered that under the worst circumstances, the proposed development (or development that can logically be assumed or expected to occur after the subdivision) could result in the loss of up to nine terrestrial trees. The loss of these trees is an adverse effect in the sense that habitat generally would be diminished, there are also scenic benefits to be derived from the conservation of the small amounts of terrestrial biodiversity that exists on the site.

(d) whether the proposed development or activity is likely to have an adverse effect on any declared area of outstanding biodiversity value (either directly or indirectly),

The subject site is not located within any declared areas of outstanding biodiversity.

(e) whether the proposed development or activity is or is part of a key threatening process or is likely to increase the impact of a key threatening process.

The proposed development as submitted envisages some clearing of native vegetation which of itself is identified as a Key Threatening Process (KTP) under OEH guidelines. However, the applicant is agreeable to the retention of some of the old growth vegetation and replacement for those trees to be removed. Such arrangements in this case (due to the relative isolation of the terrestrial vegetation) is considered a satisfactory offset, such that no significant impact would arise as a result of the removals that are implied in the proposed subdivision.

Fisheries Management Act 1994 - Part 7A (Threatened Species Conservation) (FMA)

The objectives of this Part are as follows:

(a) to conserve biological diversity of fish and marine vegetation and promote ecologically sustainable development and activities,

(b) to prevent the extinction and promote the recovery of threatened species, populations and ecological communities of fish and marine vegetation,

(c) to protect the critical habitat of those threatened species, populations and ecological communities that are endangered,

(d) to eliminate or manage certain processes that threaten the survival or evolutionary development of threatened species, populations and ecological communities of fish and marine vegetation,

(e) to ensure that the impact of any action affecting threatened species, populations and ecological communities of fish and marine vegetation is properly assessed,

(f) to encourage the conservation of threatened species, populations and ecological communities of fish and marine vegetation by the adoption of measures involving co-operative management.

Council’s mapping layers classify the land in the following terms:

Figure 4:- key fish habitats and sensitive waterways

Where Key Fish Habitats are extant, Council must also have regard to conservation objectives of the FMA. Ploughmans Creek is identified as a Sensitive Waterway and is subject to assessment under Sensitive Waterways provisions contained in the LEP. Somerset Creek is not protected as either a Sensitive Waterway or as Key Fish Habitat, although it is obvious that the water quality of Somerset Creek will have an impact on Ploughmans Creek downstream of the junction of the two waterbodies.

Whilst derived from allied legislation (specifically the Water Management Act 2000 or WMA), the applicable riparian corridors (which vary according to the stream order classification) are relevant in broad terms to the success or adequacy of stream conservation. The higher the stream ordering of the waterway under the WMA (derived from the Strahler method of stream classification) the wider the required riparian corridor.

Stream Ordering and Riparian Corridors

The site is traversed by two separate waterbodies (Ploughmans and Somerset Creeks) that merge into a single higher order stream after this merge of the two streams (still known as Ploughmans Creek downstream of the junction).

Stream ordering is important because it affects the width of the riparian corridor adjacent and also impacts on the significance of streams as potential fisheries. The order ranking of a stream determines whether that stream is subject to the controlled activity provisions of the Water Management Act 2000. A 3rd Order stream or above requires a controlled activity permit and this, in turn, requires co-approval from the Department Of Primary Industries (Water) pursuant to the Integrated Development provisions of the Act. It is further noted that a development site affected by Key Fish Habitats (such as the subject property) is subject to Integrated Development Assessment by NSW Fisheries.

A stream provided with a complying riparian corridor should in most situations be considered as adequately protected in most development situations. Since 2012 stream ordering has been codified under the Strahler method, which essentially counts tributaries to establish the stream order being assessed, and includes the vegetation corridor (or VRZ). The width of the VRZ should be measured from the top of the highest bank on both sides of the watercourse.

Watercourse type	VRZ width (each side of watercourse)	Total RC width
1st order	10 m	20m + channel width
2nd order	20m	40m + channel width
3rd Order	30m	60m + channel width
4th Order or greater	40m	80m + channel width

Figure 5: recommended riparian corridor (RC) widths

The riparian corridor (RC) consists of the channel which comprises the bed and banks of the watercourse (to the highest bank) and the vegetated riparian zone (VRZ) adjoining the channel.

Figure 6:- the riparian corridor

The subject property has, on the basis of Strahler, a Category 2 stream (being the more eastern water body that runs into Ploughmans Creek. Ploughmans Creek is a Category 3 stream below the junction.

The new regulations make the primary determinant of stream order the responsibility of DPI Water. In this regard, the advice of DPI water (in 2015) for this site was as follows:

I refer to your enquiry regarding the Office of Water's determination of what order stream Ploughmans creek is on the subject development site. I have had a brief look and attached a map which identifies the stream order in accordance with the Strahler Stream Ordering System that the Office of Water uses.

You will note that Ploughmans Creek on the southern boundary is a 2nd order, once the unnamed 2nd order creek drops into Ploughmans Creek opposite Lot 208//1018862, it becomes a 3rd order.

A 20 m buffer from the high bank of the creek is required for the 2nd order and a 30 m buffer from the high bank of the creek for the 3rd order in accordance with the attached Office of Water guidelines for riparian corridors. There is some flexibility to vary the setbacks in some cases however this will of course have to also be in line with council's requirements.

These comments relate to establishing an appropriate riparian corridor based on the Department’s guidelines. Any activities within the riparian zone of a prescribed stream (of which Ploughmans Creek is one) triggers a need for a "controlled activity" assessment, and hence for this application an Integrated Development assessment. For the purposes of the environmental assessment of the proposal, the provision of complying riparian buffers in the proposal is indicative of adequate environmental protections. However, the riparian zones on the site are heavily degraded, due in part to an absence of riparian vegetation. It is considered appropriate that as a central element of the recovery of this locality, the applicant be required to prepare an appropriate landscape plan for the riparian zone. Given that these areas will also function as open space and pedestrian links to the rest of Council’s open space corridors (located to both the north and south of the site), it is further considered appropriate to impose a requirement for the landscape recovery plan to include provision for a 1.8m wide walking path to Council’s specification.

Key Threatening Processes (KTPs) for Riparian Land

A riparian corridor forms a transition zone between the land, also known as the terrestrial environment, and the river or watercourse or aquatic environment. Riparian corridors perform a range of important environmental functions such as:

· providing bed and bank stability and reducing bank and channel erosion

· protecting water quality by trapping sediment, nutrients and other contaminants

· providing diversity of habitat for terrestrial, riparian and aquatic plants (flora) and animals (fauna)

· providing connectivity between wildlife habitats

· conveying flood flows and controlling the direction of flood flows

· providing an interface or buffer between developments and waterways

· providing passive recreational uses.

The protection, restoration or rehabilitation of vegetated riparian corridors is important for maintaining or improving the water quality, stability (or geomorphic form) and ecological functions of a watercourse. It also has implications under the Fisheries Management Act and the protection of waterways as fish or aquatic habitats. It is further noted that the controlled activity aspects of the proposed development trigger a need for a co-approval from DPI Water. The co-approval conditions provided by DPI Water already address many of the potential harmful impacts that could arise from the subdivision.

Subdivision is identified of itself to incorporate Key Threatening Processes (KTPs), and the existing riparian corridors are unlikely to be sufficient to address those increased threats. The KTPs that can be attributed to the subdivision include the following:

· weed infestation

· fragmentation and lack of connectivity

· feral predation and feral infestation (such as Willow and European Carp)

· changes to stream hydraulics (either inundation or water deprivation)

· nutrient control and biological oxygen demand (BOD)

· water quality, particularly turbidity, but also toxic pollution from sprays, insecticides and the like

· erosion arising from concentration of flows.

The subject creek is known as a potential platypus habitat, and according to advice provided by officers of the Local Land Service (LLS), this riparian system could be expected to provide habitat for the following if its environmental health was restored to acceptable levels:

· Trout Cod

· Macquarie Perch

· Silver Perch

· Eel Tailed Catfish

· Purple Spotted Gudgeon

LLS advise that in their opinion: "the proposal would be likely to involve increased pressure/threats on the waterway (increased area of imperviousness etc)”. LLS suggests that the water balance and flow regime be maintained at pre-development levels through keeping water in the landscape. This will also avoid erosion and sediment issues. This will require development that uses “water sensitive urban design principles". These suggestions are already incorporated in the DPI Water co-approval General Terms Of Approval and certain conditions recommended by Council's Technical Services Division.

Appropriate responses to the potential KTPs posed by the proposed subdivision are considered to be adequately addressed in the co-approval conditions provided by DPI Water.

Condition Responses to Environmental Constraints and Opportunities

The above analysis leads to the draft consent containing the following conditions:

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

(x) The submission of a comprehensive landscape plan that is to the satisfaction of the Manager Development Assessments that incorporates the following elements:

· A comprehensive landscaping plan to screen the area around the pump station.

· The submission of a landscaping plan incorporating appropriate levels of earth mounding, native species selection, weed matting or weed suppression measures, plant density is to be submitted to Council for the noise buffer areas adjacent to the Northern Distributor Road and Molong Road (shown on the approved plans as Lots 164, 165 and 166). Plantings along the buffers are required to be generally native species except the corridor adjacent to Molong Road which shall be a species consistent with the Precinct Plans for landscaping in the vicinity of the roundabout intersecting the Northern Distributor Road and Molong Road.

· The submission of a comprehensive landscape recovery plan for the riparian corridors affecting the site, incorporating concrete pathways (which will be completed by Council, other works in the plan will be carried out by the applicant). Species selection shall be appropriate native species and at a density that is to the satisfaction of the Manager City Presentation.

(x) A plan of management for the riparian corridors adjacent to Ploughmans Creek and consistent with the E2 and RE1 zoning shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the Director Development Services and the Director Technical Services, establishing this area as an area of open space (accessible to the general public and maintained to a standard that satisfies council requirements for open space) and providing details on flood mitigation and ongoing management of this land. Alternatively, the land may be dedicated to Council at no charge to enable Council management for public purposes

PRIOR TO WORKS COMMENCING

(x) A minimum of three trees shall be retained and conserved on the open space Lots 141 and 164, which shall be modified in size and shape where necessary so that the property boundaries of these lots are not closer than 2m from the trees to be protected.

Trees to be removed from proposed Lots 145, 146, 147, 152 and 153 can be removed under this approval. The remnants of those trees shall be placed within the open space and/or riparian lots in a location that is to the satisfaction of the Manager City Presentation (Orange City Council). Replacements shall be planted (for the trees to be removed) at the rate of 5 replacements for each tree to be removed within the open space lot (or alternatively, native ground and midstorey covers at the rate of 35m² of dense plantings per tree to be removed). Replacement tree plantings shall be at a density not exceeding 1 tree per 35m² of available space.

(xx) Tree Protection zones are to be established for the existing over mature trees to be retained on the site, complying with the requirements of Australian Standard. No approval is granted for the removal of these trees under this consent.

ONGOING PERFORMANCE

(x) Landscaping required under this consent shall be fully maintained by the developer for a minimum period of two years after the issue of the subdivision certificate (if the land is transferred to Council’s control) or permanently if the land on which the landscaping is to be installed is retained in private ownership. The plan of management required under condition (xx) of this consent shall provide details on watering, weeding and replacement regimes to be carried out during the maintenance period.

Aboriginal Heritage

A search using the Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System (AHIMS) does not reveal any evidence of known aboriginal heritage or artifacts on the site. There is no obvious evidence of Aboriginal archaeology on the site after the completion of a site inspection by staff. The applicant’s statement of environmental effects does not identify any likely sources of aboriginal heritage on the site. Notwithstanding, as a greenfields site it is considered appropriate to impose precautionary conditions placing a responsibility on the client to stop work and seek the necessary section 90 (National Parks and Wildlife Act) Permits if such evidence is uncovered during the site preparation phases. The recommended condition to address this issue is:

(x) If Aboriginal objects, relics or other historical items or the like are located during development works, all works in the area of the identified object, relic or item shall cease and the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH), and representatives from the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council shall be notified. Where required, further archaeological investigation shall be undertaken. Development works in the area of the find(s) may recommence if and when outlined by the management strategy, developed in consultation with and approved by the OEH.

This provision already applies under that legislation; however, such provision can appropriately be applied as a condition of consent for clarity. Further, as one local Aboriginal group has made a claim that one of the existing trees is a scar tree, it is considered appropriate to impose a condition to address this possibility as well. The recommended condition to address this issue is:

(x) An archaeological report is required prior to the removal of any trees from the site to determine if any trees contain evidence of Aboriginal heritage. In the event that Aboriginal heritage is found on the site, the applicant shall seek the necessary permits to destroy the artifact pursuant to the provisions of section 90 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, or submit an amended plan that avoids the need to remove the artifact.

Section 4.15

Section 4.15 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 s4.15(1)(a)(i)

Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011

Part 1 - Preliminary

Clause 1.2 - Aims of Plan

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

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

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

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

(d) to manage rural land as an environmental resource that provides economic and social benefits for Orange,

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

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

In relation to (a), the proposed development will detract from or decrease the rural character of the locality, but will be consistent with and increase the residential character of the more urban areas nearby. The subject property is zoned R1 General Residential and E2 Environmental Conservation along the riparian corridor adjacent to Ploughmans Creek. Adjoining land to the north is substantially zoned rural, whilst land to the east, south and west is zoned residential. On the basis of zoning, the lot sizes and layout appear to be appropriate development for the site.

In acknowledgement of the competing demands of residential and rural residential character affecting the subject site, it is considered appropriate to impose a range of conditions aimed at achieving a better relationship with these competing characters. In summary, the conditions will:

1 Require all subdivision fencing adjoining rural land (to the north) to be rural style fencing (post and wire, no barbed wire).

2 Impose a Section 88B Restriction-as-to-User under the Conveyancing Act 1919 requiring such rural fencing to be retained and maintained, and prohibiting the replacement of such fencing except with like materials and the approval of Council and the adjoining owner (as per the general principals of the Dividing Fences Act).

With regard to (b), the proposed development does increase the stock of housing lots that, in some perspective, adds to the development opportunities of the City. Adding to the housing stock increases the potential for population growth that, in turn, suggests that the needs of the workforce will be met.

With regard to (c), the proposed development would not have any significant effect on the resources of the Orange City water supply.

With regard to (d), it is acknowledged that the current use of the site is mostly for grazing. Such activities have a limited contribution to the local economy, whilst the proximity of farming land close to the suburban areas of the City provides a degree of ambience and amenity for those properties. Conversion of the land to residential lots will subtract that land from the agricultural stock of land and make some areas closer to the City less connected to the rural surroundings of the City. Such effects are accepted as part of the normal expansion and increase in residential land stocks for the City.

With regard to (e), the proposed development does not include housing; however, it does increase the supply of residential allotments. This will produce the conditions needed to provide additional housing opportunities.

With regard to (f), it is recognised that the changes in zoning that occurred under LEP 2011 will result in some adverse effects on the surrounding landscape. However, within the context of the general provisions, the zoning, the other objectives of the LEP and the recognised primary view corridors and the like, it is considered that this is appropriate development for the site.

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 1.7 - Mapping

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

Land Zoning Map:	Land zoned R1 General Residential, Public Recreation RE1 and E2 Environmental Conservation
Lot Size Map:	Minimum Lot Size part 250 m² and part 500 m²
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:	Some high biodiversity sensitivity on the site
Groundwater Vulnerability Map:	Ground water vulnerable
Drinking Water Catchment Map:	Not within the drinking water catchment
Watercourse Map:	within or affecting a defined watercourse Listed sensitive waterway
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.

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 easements. There is, however, sewer related infrastructure (sewer mains and sewer pump station) constructed on the site. The application includes proposed easements for the existing sewer mains and sewer pump station on the site.

Figure 7: utilities mapping

Part 2 - Permitted or Prohibited Development

Clause 2.1 - Land Use Zones and Clause 2.3 - Zone Objectives and Land Use Table

Figure 8: extract of zoning Map 1

The subject site is principally located within the R1 General Residential zone. The Ploughmans Creek riparian zone is zoned E2 Environmental Management, whilst the Somerset Creek riparian corridor is zoned RE1 Public Recreation. The creek bed of Ploughmans Creek (to the top of the bank) is zoned RE1 Public Recreation, but in general this land is not part of the subject property. The creek itself does not form part of the subject property but its riparian zones do.

The proposed development is defined as a subdivision under OLEP 2011. Subdivision of land under LEP 2011 has the same meaning as defined in the Act. Pursuant to clause 4B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, subdivision of land means:

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

Subdivision of land is permissible in all the zones affecting the subject site (R1, RE1 and E2). Consent for subdivision is being sought as required under Clause 2.6.

Clause 2.3 of LEP 2011 references the Land Use Table and Objectives for each zone in LEP 2011. These objectives for zones applicable to the subject property are listed and commented upon as follows:

1 - Objectives of the R1 General Residential Zone

· 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.

In relation to the first and second objectives, the proposed development would provide additional lots on land on which housing stock within the City can be provided. It will provide these additional lots at a scale consistent with typical low and medium density development. In terms of lot yield and lot sizes, the proposed subdivision is consistent with the relevant controls. In relation to the third objective, the proposed subdivision would not impede the provision of other land to provide facilities and services should such a need ever arise in the future. In relation to the fourth objective, the subject site is within close proximity to routes used by public transport.

Further, the configuration of the proposed development with open space along the creek lines is consistent with the zone objectives in that it would facilitate the provision of walking and cycling opportunities to, through and from the site. In relation to the last objective, the proposed development has no effect. The proposed development is not inconsistent with the objectives of the zone.

2 - Objectives of the E2 Environmental Conservation Zone

· To protect, manage and restore areas of high ecological, scientific, cultural or aesthetic values.

· To prevent development that could destroy, damage or otherwise have an adverse effect on those values.

The E2 Environmental Conservation zone has a limited range of permissible land uses, which reflects the physical constraints that often affect such land. In urban situations the range of uses that are permissible are effectively restricting such land to public open space activities in most cases.

Achievement of the objectives contained in the first dot point is the responsibility of the landowner.

With regard to the second dot point, it is considered that as private land the range of permissible uses is limited in an urban context. It cannot, for example, be used as a component of residential development. As land in private ownership, but with no viable or realistic purpose, it is considered highly likely that the land might not be managed or maintained responsibly. This part of the riparian corridor land not purchased under the S94 plan shall either be dedicated to Council or alternatively incorporated into the residual Lot 139 and developed in accordance with a plan of management that is to the satisfaction of the Director Development Services and consistent with the E2 zoning.

3 - Objectives of the RE1 Public Recreation Zone

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

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

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

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

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

The land to which this zoning relates is principally the riparian corridor of Somerset Creek, and the intent of this zoning on this part of the site is self evident, in that it is intended to extend the open space and walking/cycling path links for the direct benefit of the proposed subdivision. The benefits, or needs for such extensions to the open space network should be cost neutral to Council as the need for such extension arises solely as a result of the demands generated by the subject development. It is considered possible to achieve the core objectives of the RE1 Public Recreation Land regardless of whether the land is retained in private ownership, or passed to the public authority.

Clause 2.6 - Subdivision - Consent Requirements

This clause triggers the need for development consent for the subdivision of land.

Part 4 - Principal Development Standards

Clause 4.1 - Minimum Subdivision Lot Size

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

In relation to this site, the map nominates two lot size restrictions, as shown in the following LEP mapping extract:

Figure 9: Minimum Lot Size Map

The proposed subdivision meets the minimum standards specified in the LEP with regards to lot sizes.

Part 5 - Miscellaneous Provisions

5.10 - Heritage Conservation

There is no heritage significance on the site from the point of view of European heritage. Although there is no known Aboriginal or archaeological significance recorded in AHIMS for this site, one of the local Aboriginal traditional owners is of the belief that a scar tree might exist on the site, and further claims that inadequate investigation into Aboriginal heritage on the site has been carried out.

(8) Aboriginal Places of Heritage Significance

The consent authority must, before granting consent under this clause to the carrying out of development in an Aboriginal place of heritage significance:

The AHIMS search failed to reveal any evidence of aboriginal heritage on this site. Neither has physical inspection revealed any such evidence. Notwithstanding there is a claim made following the exhibition of this application by one of the traditional owners that such conclusions are based on inadequate background research. To address this claim, it is considered appropriate to require that a report be prepared prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate to investigate further the existence of Aboriginal heritage on the site.

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 of the proposed development are limited to the extent of cutting and filling required for the construction of roads and the construction of stormwater management systems. The extent of disruption to the drainage of the site is considered to have a potential significant effect on the creek system due to adverse effect on the quality of runoff. Conditions are included to address the issue of erosion and sediment control and the quality of the runoff from the site. The proposed development is defined as Integrated Development under the Water Management Act 2000 and the Fisheries Management Act 1994. Council has sought advice from DPI Water and NSW Fisheries which are the relevant co-approval agencies. The co-approval agencies have both indicated in their responses to Council that they do not have any objections to the proposed development. The respective co-approval requirements are attached and the General Terms of Approval are incorporated into the consent.

The likely 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. As discussed above 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.

7.2 - Flood Planning

This clause applies to land identified on the Flood Planning Map as a Flood Planning Area and requires that, before any consent is issued, Council must be satisfied that the proposal:

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

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

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

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

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

The site is not identified as being affected by flood hazard on the Flood Hazard Mapping layer of the LEP; however, the site is nevertheless known to contain some level of hazard from flood near the creek areas of the site (which has been further confirmed by flood studies undertaken by the applicant during the recent rezoning process and submitted in the supporting information of this application). The findings of this study are reflected in the subdivision planning as shown on the submitted plans, which sets aside those areas of the site likely to be inundated by flood.

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.

With regard to (a) and (b), the proposed development is for subdivision of an existing two lot holding into various sized residential lots. The future development of the lots will likely consist of standard residential housing, with some multi dwelling houses also fed into the mix. Council has controls with respect to site coverage that will ensure that extensive parts of each allotment will have permeable spaces suitable for some onsite absorption of stormwater, however it is highly likely that future development will require some offsite stormwater discharges into the nearby creek systems. To prevent excessive storm surges, an onsite detention basin is proposed as part of the supporting infrastructure for the development. The stormwater management system will be designed to accommodate best practice water quality standards and water sensitive urban design principles. It is not anticipated that the proposed development will lead to future development unsuited to the capabilities of either onsite detention or the stormwater reticulation system.

With regard to (c), there will be some impacts arising with stormwater runoff for water quantity and water quality. Quantities can be expected to rise as hard surfaces like roads are installed. Flow rates into the creek system will need to be controlled to within certain specified limits to avoid events such as flash flooding during peak events. With regard to water quality, it is both possible and appropriate to require the onsite detention basin to be designed and constructed as a wetland or wet detention basin, incorporating reed bed filtration to maximise the quality of surface runoff. A condition requiring this outcome is included in the consent.

Council’s Assistant Development Engineer (ADE) advises that the stormwater management system will incorporate Gross Pollutant Traps (GPTs) to capture litter that has entered the stormwater system. Nutrient and particulate control is to be partially managed by natural settling in the detention basin, and the development of the OSD basin as a constructed wetland or wet detention basin will make it possible for natural reed filtration of waste water runoff.

7.4 - Terrestrial Biodiversity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This clause is only applicable to those parts of the site marked in red on the LEP mapping layers, but is generally applicable to all native species listed as “protected”. This is a quite different classification to the “threatened”, “vulnerable” and “endangered” threat classifications contained in the OEH Threatened Species Guidelines. The OEH guidelines are applicable across the stage, but only to species (and EECs) recorded as threatened or endangered in those guidelines; whilst the LEP clause applies to virtually all native species but only within those areas of the LEP that are mapped as affected by the clause (the so called “red blobs”).

The subject site is affected by this clause, to the extent shown in the Figure 10 below:

Figure 10: Terrestrial Biodiversity map

As can be seen, the affected areas on the site are wholly located within the Sensitive Waterways area that will be subject to a comprehensive rehabilitation plan. This is considered sufficient to ensure the ongoing conservation of any remaining habitat value on the site.

7.5 - Riparian Land and Watercourses

This clause seeks to preserve both water quality and riparian ecological health. The clause applies to land identified as a “Sensitive Waterway” on the Watercourse Map which is applicable to the entire length of ploughman s creek that abuts the subject land along its western side. Council must consider whether or not the proposal:

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

(i) the water quality and flows within a watercourse

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The proposal has been designed to incorporate appropriate riparian corridors to allow mitigation of the impacts as outlined above. In the event that the riparian corridors are retained as private land it will be necessary to link the open space lots to a parent lot for the purposes of care, control and management. The most logical lot for this amalgamation is considered to be the large development lot that is proposed.

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.

Clause 7.11 - Essential Services

Clause 7.11 applies and states:

Development consent must not be granted to development unless the consent authority is satisfied that any of the following services that are essential for the proposed development are available or that adequate arrangements have been made to make them available when required:

(a) the supply of water,

(b) the supply of electricity,

(c) the disposal and management of sewage,

(d) storm water drainage or on-site conservation,

(e) suitable road access.

In consideration of this clause, all utility services are available to the land and adequate for the proposal.

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICIES

State Environmental Planning Policy 55 Remediation of Land

State Environmental Planning Policy 55 - Remediation of Land (SEPP 55) requires that a consent authority must not consent to the carrying out of development of land unless it has considered whether the land is contaminated, is satisfied that the land is suitable in its contaminated state for the development that is proposed, and if the land requires remediation to be made suitable for the proposed development it is satisfied that the land will be remediated before the land is used for that purpose.

Furthermore, SEPP 55 requires that before determining an application to carry out development that would involve a change of use of land (specified in subclause 4), the consent authority must consider a preliminary investigation of the land concerned.

A search of records and available data suggests that the subject property has existed as grazing land since at least 1950. There are no signs of the site having been used for intensive plant agriculture, and no signs of sheep dips or spray drum disposal on the site. On this basis, the risks from contamination are considered to be virtually nil.

However, notwithstanding the above assessment it is recommended that a condition be attached to the Notice of Determination requiring soil sampling for analysing chemical residue to be undertaken for the residential allotments in a manner and frequency as determined by an appropriately qualified and experienced consultant, giving consideration to specific uses and onsite characteristics of the site. The results of the testing will be required to be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and are to demonstrate that the land is suitable for residential use prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate.

PROVISIONS OF ANY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENT THAT HAS BEEN PLACED ON EXHIBITION 4.15(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.

INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT

In this case the proposed development is Integrated Development under the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. In this case, co-approvals are required from DPI Water and DPI Fisheries.

Division 4.8 sets out the requirements for Integrated Development. The Act contains a schedule of allied legislation wherein if an approval or permit is required from another agency (referred to in the legislation as a co-approval body) an applicant can nominate the development to be processed as Integrated Development, and the consent issued by Council (the Consent Authority) must include any “General Terms of Approval” (GTAs). Time limits apply to the co-approval bodies as to how long they have to provide their GTAs to Council.

In this case, the GTAs have been provided and are incorporated into the consent for both co-approval bodies. They are incorporated into the consent as is required under the legislation. Council’s consent and the conditions being recommended in the Council assessment are not contrary to the Integrated Development assessments undertaken by the co-approval agencies.

PROVISIONS OF ANY DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN s4.15(1)(a)(iii)

Development Control Plan 2004

Development Control Plan 2004 (“the DCP”) applies to the subject land (Part 7). An assessment of the proposed development against the relevant Planning Outcomes will be undertaken below.

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

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

The subject property was initially zoned R2 Low Density Residential under Orange LEP 2011. An amendment to OLEP 2011 was however gazetted in 2018 which rezoned the land to be part R1 General Residential, part E2 Environmental Management and part RE1 Public Recreation. The equivalent zones of LEP 2000 to those now applied to the subject site are listed below:

LEP 2000	LEP 2011	Applicable DCP Chapters
Zone 2(a) – Urban Residential	R1 General Residential	2, 3 and 7
Zone (7) Water Supply Catchment	E2 Environmental Conservation	2, 3 and 4
Zone (6) Open Space & Recreation	RE1 Public Recreation	2, 3 and 11

PO 0.4-11 (Transport Routes) and PO 10.3-1 (Development Near Major Roads) are also applicable to the whole development.

CHAPTER 0 - INTERIM PROVISIONS

PO 0.4-11 - Transport Routes

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

It is considered that the retention of some of the existing trees on the site will have a small mitigating effect on the landscape. The implementation of a viable recovery plan for the riparian corridors and the landscaping along the transport lines will further help the future development of the site to “blend in”.

CHAPTER 2 - NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

PO 2.1-1 - Stormwater Quality

· Development is carried out in a manner that does not contribute to downstream erosion or sedimentation of waterways.

It is possible to design and install stormwater management and water quality systems in the post consent design phase. The development application establishes that satisfactory stormwater management solutions can be achieved for this site.

· Development complies with the Water and Soil Erosion Control requirements of the Development and Subdivision Code.

Council’s Technical Services Division is satisfied that compliant water, soil and erosion control can be provided for the development.

· Onsite detention is carried out in accordance with the Development and Subdivision Code for all developments comprising buildings with a site coverage greater than 50m2 or where site coverage exceeds the “percentage impervious” level listed in the Code applicable to that development.

The development of the onsite detention basin as a “wet detention system” or “constructed wetland” has environmental advantages that are possible to implement on this site. Given the classification of the waterway to which the basin will be connected has a high environmental value, it has obvious benefits from a water sensitive urban design and water quality management perspective, as well as inherent environmental bonuses to require the onsite detention system to be constructed as either a wet detention basin or constructed wetland, with reed planting and other natural filtration systems built into the basin for maximum environmental benefit. Council’s Technical Services Division has no objection to this approach.

· Where onsite detention is not appropriate, contributions are made towards retarding basins and/or GPTs and associated drainage under the Contribution Plan that applies to the land.

Some gross pollutant traps (GPTS) and on-site detention basins are to be provided on the site itself. It is feasible to do this for this proposal. The Notice of Approval includes relevant conditions to manage stormwater.

· Development in the vicinity of natural watercourses is positioned away from the waterway and includes measures to minimise the impact of the development on the waterway such as the establishment of creekside buffer zones and planting of native trees in a manner that enhances streambank stability.

Measures generally conforming to the requirements of this outcome are included as conditions of consent.

PO 2.1-2 – Groundwater Quality

· Development applications for development (excluding dwelling houses) that proposes to extract groundwater or involve on-site wastewater disposal identify potential risks to, and management of, groundwater resources

As indicated within this report, the proposed development incorporates complying buffers to the waterways that traverse the site. The proposed development incorporates an onsite detention basin that will also serve as a constructed waterway (or wet detention basin) to maximise the environmental benefits of surface runoff and apply the best water quality standards possible.

· Development is carried out in a manner that does not adversely affect groundwater resources

There are no aspects of the proposed development likely to adversely affect groundwater quality.

· Development considered by Council to have the potential to significantly affect groundwater quality incorporates a monitoring program and provides test results from a NATA-accredited laboratory to Council for review and for inclusion in the City SoE Reports.

The proposed development is considered to pose a very low risk to groundwater quality.

· Development that requires or proposes the use of groundwater demonstrates that the groundwater extraction will meet the requirements of DLWC, where necessary.

Not relevant to the submitted proposal.

PO 2.2-1 - Soil Resource Management

· Development complies with the Water and Soil Erosion Control requirements of the Development and Subdivision Code.

The proposed development as submitted appears to be generally consistent with the standards and outcomes of the Subdivision Code. Conditions are included in the consent that aim to ensure this as a certain outcome for the development.

· Sites affected by soil degradation are restored in accordance with management strategies to be submitted with development proposals.

The site is not suffering or listed as suffering from soil degradation.

· Agricultural practices apply conservation farming techniques particularly within the water supply catchments and in areas susceptible to significant erosion hazard.

Not relevant to this application.

· A geotechnical investigation is carried out by a NATA-accredited laboratory that identifies and classifies all new residential lots for dwelling houses in accordance with AS 2870-1996 Residential Slabs and Footings Construction

A condition requiring soil testing that will include soil classification to meet this requirement is included in the consent.

PO 2.3-1 - Vegetation Management

· Compliance with the Native Vegetation Conservation Act 1997.

The Native Vegetation Conservation Act 1997 has been replaced by the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016. The proposed development has been assessed against the tests contained in the new legislation, and subject to conditions is considered to conform to those legislative requirements.

· Development is designed and constructed in a way that minimises the impact on existing vegetation.

It is considered that, subject to some detail changes which are being imposed as conditions in the consent, the proposed development complies with this Planning Outcome.

· Particular attention is given to the effect of rural or urban residential release development on existing vegetation and scenic areas.

It is acknowledged that greenfields development tends to have a greater effect on vegetation and scenic areas around the City edges than infill development, and over recent years strong efforts have been made to mitigate such effects where significant vegetation may be affected. In this case there are only isolated vegetation stands on the site, but it is acknowledged that the riparian corridor should be viewed as a valuable resource that urgently requires conservation and revegetation. Conditions are included that will require revegetation of the riparian corridors by the applicant.

With respect to the terrestrial biodiversity on the site, it is noted that whilst some of the trees are able to be conserved, the majority will need to be removed. This is accepted in this case as the tree stands on the site are isolated and are generally not in good health. Conditions are included that will require their replacement at a rate of five replacements for every tree removed.

· Development applications indicate on plans the location of all significant trees affected by or in the vicinity of development.

The submitted plans include an ortho-photo indicating the position of trees on the site. This plan does not show which ones should be considered as significant, but the plan, when viewed in the context of a site inspection, provides enough detail on which to base an adequate assessment of significance.

· Applications demonstrate to Council’s satisfaction that all practical measures have been made to retain trees that contribute to and embellish the Orange landscape.

The application as submitted does not adequately demonstrate that all practical measures have been pursued to conserve trees on this site. However, conditions are embedded into the consent (that the applicant has broadly agreed to) that will result in the retention of a greater number of trees; and additionally, where trees are removed, replacements at the rate of five for each one removed. The determination of the application as currently recommended would result in the loss of 10 trees from the site, and the retention of 3, with five replacements for each tree to be removed. The consent also requires the design and implementation of a comprehensive rehabilitation plan for the riparian zones as well.

PO 2.4-1 - Flora and Fauna Management

· Where there is a likely impact of development on native habitats, that impact is addressed in the development application.

As indicated above, the likely impacts of the development on the biodiversity values of the site are incorporated and addressed in the conditions of consent.

· A Species Impact Statement is prepared for development that is likely to significantly affect habitats of threatened species. The statement is submitted with a development application and indicates how threatened species will be managed with the development.

Species Impact Statements are no longer relevant under the revised State legislation that underpins biodiversity management. Were the proposal being assessed under the previous legislation applicable to biodiversity, it would not require an SIS as the overall impacts can be managed without a further in-depth study.

· Development affecting all or part of significant water bodies or remnant woodland areas with the potential to comprise habitats of threatened species incorporates the protection and conservation of these areas where deemed reasonable by Council.

There are conditions embedded into the consent to reflect this planning outcome.

· Threatened species, populations and ecological communities are managed in conjunction with development in accordance with the Threatened Species Conservation Act (TSA).

The TSA is no longer relevant. It has been replaced by the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 for terrestrial biodiversity, whilst the FMA 1994 continues to be the relevant assessment tool for riparian systems.

CHAPTER 3 - GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

PO3.1-1 - Cumulative Impacts

· Applications for Development demonstrate how the development relates to the character and use of land in the vicinity.

There is a mixed character for the locality. General residential development exists to the south and land of a similar zoning to the subject land exists to the east and west of the site. Land to the north is rural in character. The creek lines at the western end of the site are a significant element of the landscape.

The minimum lot sizes applicable to this land are 250m² and 500m². The proposed development is compliant with that standard. It follows that future development on these sites is likely to be consistent with the objectives of the zone and compatible with the densities and built form already evident to the south of the site.

In relation to the lower density development located to the north of the site (2ha minimum lot sizes), the zoning of the site makes it inherent that future development will be of a different density to the rural land that adjoins the site. There will always be a certain level of disconnectedness between these two zones. It is considered that the proposed subdivision layout is likely to lead to development typical of the R1 zone and that such development will, to a degree, be mismatched with the rural or large lot land that adjoins it. However, such conflict is not likely to be more than, or unusual for such a zone interface.

An important issue to consider is the style of fencing to apply to the site boundaries and important public spaces within the site. It is considered that Colorbond fencing in this situation has little or no value in containing stock and has little connection to the former rural character of the site. It is noted that the site is located at an important entry junction to the City, visible from both Molong Road and the NDR. The adjoining land to the north and west is zoned R5 Large Lot Residential, with extensive grazing still evident on several of the neighbouring properties.

To address these various concerns, it is considered that planning restrictions on the styles of fencing are necessary. It is considered appropriate to impose the following conditions:

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A SUBDIVISION CERTIFICATE

(x) New Rural fencing consistent with the standards contained in Orange DCP 2004 shall be installed along the northern boundaries of Lots 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239 and 240; and the eastern boundaries of Lots 143, 150, 156, 157, 158, 203, 204, 205, 231, 232, 233, 234 and 240. The residue lot (Lot139) may only be fenced with rural fencing. A restriction as to User under the NSW Conveyancing Act 1919 shall be placed on the titles of each of the above identified lots indicating that the rural fencing along the dividing boundary can only be replaced with same until such time that the adjoining land is developed for residential purposes.

(x) A Restriction as to User under the NSW Conveyancing Act 1919 shall be placed on the titles of Proposed lots 107, 108, 114, 115, 219, 224 and 239 requiring all fencing along the boundary of those allotments where it adjoins the riparian corridor to be lapped and capped timber hardwood fencing.

(x) Prior to the issue of a subdivision certificate the applicant shall construct lapped and capped hardwood timber fencing with a minimum height of 1.8m and consistent with the recommendations of the Blackett Acoustic Consultant Report Number BA13802A Version A along the rear property boundary of proposed lots 101-107 inclusive and 139, 140, 142 and 143.

The proposed subdivision is intended to lead to further residential development, similar in scale and density to the existing development that exists to the south of the site. This suggests no change to the development patterns already occurring in the locality.

From the juxtaposition of the rural land to the north, the likely further development of the subject land as residential development will lead to erosion of rural landscapes and character. Given that the subdivision is consistent with zoning standards that are applicable; this is considered an acceptable change. In terms of environmental impacts, the direct impacts on issues such as water quality, biodiversity and scenic quality are all considered to be acceptable.

· Water conservation measures are implemented.

The opportunities for water conservation within this subdivision are limited, however the size and shape of the lots do not preclude or inhibit future initiatives by householders as new dwellings are constructed.

In addition, Orange City Council favours a centralised water re-use scheme for surface runoff. Under the scheme, water is collected and given limited cleaning treatment before being returned to the householders for use on gardens and for non-potable purposes. The proposed subdivision will be connected to that scheme (although not for water collection), with some of the works needed in that scheme being completed as part of this subdivision.

PO 3.2-1 - Scenic Landscape and Urban Areas

· Development incorporates landscaping that enhances the landscaped setting of the locality.

There is no provision for landscaping on the lots at this stage. It is impractical to require landscaping on the lots prior to the development for those lots being known.

With regard to street tree planting, Council's contributions plans will levy funds needed for on-street landscaping. Section 7.11 contributions for landscaping and open space will not extend to the revegetation of the riparian corridors in this case.

CHAPTER 4 - SPECIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS

PO4.1-1 - Sewage Disposal

Conditions are included requiring the provision of reticulated sewer throughout the new subdivision. Further protection of existing infrastructure assets (ie the pump station) is also addressed in the conditions of approval.

PO 4.4-1 - Contaminated Land

The land is considered unlikely to be contaminated. Notwithstanding, conditions are included requiring a full soil analysis to be undertaken prior to the release of the Subdivision Certificate.

PO 4.3-1 - Planning Outcomes - Land Shaping

· Applications include details on existing and proposed landform, watercourses and vegetation.

The proposed development as submitted does not include details on the extent of cut and fill to be undertaken. The site has an undulating land form with low to moderate slope. In terms of land form and slope it is considered to have similarities to the southern neighbour, now known as "Ribbon Gums" estate.

It can be expected that the works needed to carry out the subdivision will be considerable. Roads, sewer and water infrastructure will need to be constructed, and parts of the site will need to be levelled and filled. The consent will require implementation of erosion and sediment control measures and the design of a stormwater management system. These elements of the subdivision can all be expected to significantly alter the landform of the site.

In regards to land shaping, nearly all forms of residential subdivision require extensive land shaping to render the land suitable for standard residential development. Further, such changes will affect drainage patterns and the scenic appearance of a locality in fairly dramatic ways.

It does not follow, however, that such changes are prohibitively adverse in their overall effect, and such effects need to be weighed against the benefits of releasing further land for residential growth. In this regard, it is considered that the subject application is a satisfactory solution. The anticipated earthworks are expected to be significant, with scenic appearance and character expected to change substantially. However, such changes will not generate a significant or exceptional change to amenity or have a significant adverse effect on visual character.

· Applications are accompanied by a soil erosion control plan prior to and upon commencement of the work.

The application as submitted does not include an erosion and sediment control (ESC) plan. However, in common with other recent similar subdivision applications, conditions are included in the consent to address this issue.

· Landfilling comprises inert material only and does not include putrescible waste vegetation or other material that may decompose.

There are no details with regard to this planning outcome. It appears that the planning outcome seeks to avoid the placing of decomposing organic matter as part of any landfill on new subdivisions.

· Landfill is compacted to the required standard and evidence of compaction rates are provided upon completion of the work, or otherwise as directed by Council.

This issue can be more appropriately assessed during the construction phase of the subdivision.

CHAPTER 7 - DEVELOPMENT IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS

General

In the preamble of this chapter it is stated that the emphasis of the planning outcomes for residential development is for new development to positively contribute to the highly-valued character of the City. Achieving this requires that development recognises and addresses the features of each area, as well as the constraints and opportunities that arise for the site. This is particularly true for new subdivisions.

Subdivision Lot Sizes

The submitted plans indicate that the predominant lot sizes are in the range of 395m² to 800m². Lots between 350m² and 500m² are classified as “cottage lots” in the DCP. For cottage lot classification the DCP recommends that the lots:

….. indicate mandatory side building lines. Buildings constructed on the land are required to have an external wall situated on or adjacent to that line. Such building lines should be on the southern-most or western-most side boundary to optimise solar access.

The proposed lots between 350m² and 500m² should have indicative plans that demonstrate compliance is achievable. The submission does not include indicative plans with a complying setback incorporated. Several of the proposed lots (Lots 121 to 124) are unlikely to be capable of accommodating larger sized dwellings due to the poor width-to-depth ratio in the lot shape and orientation. It is considered that development with complying setbacks, open space and solar access will be possible, but some of the lots (particularly those mentioned above) will need to accept smaller dwellings as the final development in order to comply.

Dual Occupancy and Unit Sites

The DCP includes a requirement to identify at subdivision lots to be used for dual occupancy (and unit) sites as a matter for consideration. Whilst the applicant has not specifically identified any dual occupancy sites it should be acknowledged that the master plan that supported the rezoning of the land sort to provide the smaller lots in a planned manner to accommodate for that part of the market.

The submitted plans show two sites with enough area to allow substantial unit developments to occur. Development of these properties will be the subject of separate applications into the future. In theory any lot with site areas of 800m² or greater have the potential for dual occupancy development. However having said this those lots adjacent to the NDR which exceed 800m² have been deliberately designed to be larger to achieve a reasonable buffer to address noise impacts from the NDR. It is unlikely that Council would be in a position to support more intensive development within these lots given the proximity of the lots to the NDR. As discussed later in this report in order to address noise impacts it will be necessary for future property owners to submit an acoustic report with each application demonstrating compliance with the Industrial Noise Policy.

On a separate but related matter it is considered important that Council has some control over the density of development within those lots adjacent to the NDR into the future. In addition to the requirement for an acoustic report for each dwelling it is further recommended that limited building envelopes be placed on the titles of proposed lots 101-107 inclusive and lots 139,140,142 and 143 to limit the placement of buildings within these lots.

PO7.2-1 - Planning Outcomes for Urban Residential Subdivision

· Subdivision layouts in areas zoned Urban Residential prior to this plan are generally in accordance with the applicable plan maps in Appendix 1.

There is no applicable master plan to this site. However as part of the recent rezoning from R2 to R1, the applicant submitted concept plans for the future subdivision of the site. These were generally accepted, and it is noted that the plans now before Council under this development application are generally consistent with the rezoning concept plans.

· Lots are orientated to optimise energy-efficiency principles.

The energy efficiency principles of the DCP relate to orientation of boundaries along north‑south and east-west axes so as to encourage solar design of houses. Lots with frontages that face east or west are recommended to be wider in the DCP guidelines.

The proposed layout is relatively neutral with regard to the energy efficiency guidelines. Lots have a variety of sizes and orientations, but those with frontages facing east and west are somewhat wider, which assists in achieving better solar access for future development. All of the lots are quite large, which will also assist in achieving good levels of solar access.

· New roads are planned according to modified grid layouts with restrained use of cul-de-sac roads in new developments according to the UDAS Urban Form principles for Orange.

The proposed layout is consistent with this planning outcome

· Local open space is provided along creek corridors to create open space linkages for environmental conservation and social interaction. Release areas removed from creeks provide for open-space links incorporating substantial stands of native vegetation.

The proposed development as submitted to Council is consistent with this planning outcome in that adequate areas are set aside in the proposal to protect riparian areas. A likely outcome of this development application is that the riparian corridors will effectively be grafted into the open space network.

As discussed above, however, Council can only offer compensation on a very limited basis. It is possible that the E2 and RE1 land that comprises the riparian corridors may be dedicated to Council, since the only practical outcome for this land is as public recreation and/or environment management purposes, neither of which will be attractive to private ownership.

· Up to 25% of new subdivisions comprise small lots in dispersed locations.

There are a mix of lot sizes included in this proposed development, from as low as 395m² though to lots exceeding 800m². The proposed development is consistent with this outcome.

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

The lots proposed in this subdivision will be fully serviced with water, sewer and electricity before release of the Subdivision Certificate. Similarly, release of the Subdivision Certificate will be deferred pending the completion of roads and, where appropriate, kerb and gutter and footpaths within the subdivision. Access to piped gas is also feasible, but not an impediment to the release of the Subdivision Certificate.

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

The proposed development is consistent with the Code.

· Corner lots provide for a house to front one street.

The corner lots of the proposed subdivision can be developed in the manner specified under this outcome.

· Battleaxe lots provide an adequate accessway width for the number of dwellings proposed to be served in order to allow for vehicle and pedestrian access and location of services.

There are no battleaxe allotments proposed in this application.

· Lots proposed to be used specifically for dual occupancy or units in new residential areas are identified on development application plans to inform prospective purchasers of the mixed residential form of the area and measures are outlined on how prospective residents are to be informed of these identified sites prior to purchasing land.

None of the lots shown in the plans have been identified for dual occupancy or units, although it is considered obvious that at least two of the lots have been laid out with future unit developments in mind. It will be necessary to assess such applications as and when they arise. A more detailed assessment of this issue has been provided above.

Subdivision Layout

The DCP includes the above matter as a head of consideration and has some discussion contained therein. However, the specific planning outcomes have been addressed above. Additional discussion are included in the preamble of the DCP that are worthy of note in this particular assessment and retain relevance as a general discussion matter under the DCP.

The Department of Planning's Urban Design Advisory Service Publication on Urban Form uses Orange as a case study and concludes that:

…the city is well contained within a multiple of the original square mile grid and no significant subdivision has occurred along the roads into the city.

Major subdivisions have occurred around the periphery of the City, including developments abutting major arterial roads entering the City. The subject proposal is an example of residential development on the fringe of the City limits. There are issues such as isolation from amenities and services (including open space). For the fringe outer areas of the City containing these new subdivisions, the design approach has, up to this point, been to provide pedestrian linkages to improve amenity and connectivity to these outer localities.

The Urban Design Guidelines identify the following issues for future development (of which, the subject application is an example):

· The open space system along the creek lines are the most important features of the City's identity.

This issue is previously discussed in the Planning Outcomes for PO7.2-1.

The underpass under the NDR has been designed and constructed so that a pathway and/or cycleway can be provided under the road, thereby providing a continuation of the pathway and open space already provided.

Pedestrian access to the Somerset Park Creek system has obvious social and amenity advantages but is becoming increasingly expensive to provide and maintain. The riparian land that traverses this land forms a logical and beneficial link between the existing networks and likely future residential development on the northern side of the NDR. The pathway/cycleway construction in the underpass would enable connection to the Somerset Park Creek system that is proposed under this application.

CHAPTER 10 - SPECIAL USES AND ROAD ZONES

PO 10.3-1 - Development Near Major Roads

· Development on land fronting a major road or distributor road provides for quality design on the highway and/or distributor road through landscaping, building setbacks façade design external colours and siting

There is sufficient buffer space provided along the NDR and Molong Road so as to make it possible for good quality development to be applied.

· Residential buildings address noise impacts from adjacent roads to provide reasonable separation between the roads and residential land

Noise issues are addressed under the heading “Likely Impacts”.

CHAPTER 11 - LAND USED FOR OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION

PO 11.2-1 - Open Space Acquisition

· Land that is within the Open Space zone as public open space is acquired according to the land acquisition principles.

There is a limited acquisitions plan applicable to this site, outlining schematically the acquisition in terms of both spatial distribution and also in terms of the amounts to be dedicated. Further, the DCP states: “most land adjacent to creeks will be dedicated with the development of associated land for residential development”.

The proposed development indicates generally appropriate riparian buffers that logically should be dedicated to Council, but Council cannot demand such land to be dedicated when adequate compensation for that land is not available. It may transpire that the applicant dedicates the riparian corridors to Council, but such dedication should be on the basis of the land being relatively cost neutral.

Complicating the issue somewhat is the fact that Somerset Creek is now zoned RE1 Public Recreation. Whilst land zoned for this purpose can be held in private ownership the uses to which that land may be used must be consistent with the zone.

PO11.3-1 - Use of Public Open Space Land

· Land is used in accordance with the relevant adopted Plan of Management

A condition is included requiring the preparation of a suitable Plan of Management should the land remain in private ownership after subdivision. In the event that it is passed to Council ownership it will be necessary for Council to undertake this exercise.

DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS

Riparian Land and NDR Corridor Land

The Contributions Plan includes a conceptual acquisitions plan for the subject property. The plan divides the open space acquisition into those areas adjacent to Ploughmans Creek, and a separate allocation for noise buffering adjacent to the NDR and Molong Road. Area limits on what may be compensated are applicable, being a maximum of 6,000m² for part of the riparian corridor adjacent to Ploughmans Creek and 3,000m² for part of the road noise buffers adjacent to the NDR and Molong Road. Further, these separate areas under the plan are subject to differing compensation rates, being $35 per square metre for the (Ploughmans Creek) required land and $10 per square metre for the noise buffer land. The plan makes no allowance for the Somerset Creek riparian corridor or the “pocket park”; and no compensation is applicable for the onsite detention basin area or the sewer pump station.

The plan is unusual in that it prescribes or makes allowance for compensation for some of the land that forms the riparian corridors to ensure pedestrian and cycle access is provided. Generally, unless specifically included in the acquisitions plan for compensation, land that is within a riparian corridor is not subject to compensation. However, in this case the land is included in the compensation package and therefore some compensation is applicable.

The proposed development sets aside 35,848m² for riparian (which the applicant is obligated to provide under separate legislation) and 8,762m² for noise buffer land (physical constraints due to noise dictate that this amount of land be set aside, but not all of that land can be compensated). Additionally, two small pocket parks intended to provide recreation areas and partly protect some of the terrestrial biodiversity on the site comprising areas of 1,122m² and 903m² are also proposed. These areas are zoned R1 General Residential and not subject to compensation as it is not included in the acquisitions plan.

The land forming the roadside noise buffers is zoned R1 General Residential, however the potential of this land for residential development is heavily constrained by noise.

Figure 11: schematic acquisitions plan

The Contributions Plan covers a number of capital works programs, including footpath and cycleways construction, but not landscaping or environmental rehabilitation. Where rehabilitation work is required (such as for the subject application) this has to be achieved by application specific conditions.

The land to which the proposed subdivision relates has two starting allotments, but one is inappropriately located and too small to be considered as having any credit value. The proposed development proposes the creation of 97 lots suitable for residential purposes. Other lots for open space purposes (including the “pocket parks”, the OSD basins, the sewer pump station and the various open space lots) are excluded from the contributions calculations). Compensation for the positioning of the pump station has been previously agreed to and paid. The resulting net yield from the proposed subdivision is 96 additional lots.

Pursuant to Orange Development Contributions Plan 2017, the following contributions have been levied for the subject development and are attached as a condition of consent.

The payment of contributions as per the following shall be made to Council in accordance with Section 7.11 of the Act and Orange Development Contributions Plan 2017 (development in North West Urban Release Area) towards the provision of the following public facilities:

Open Space and Recreation	@ $3,922.87 x 96 additional lots	$376,595.52
Community and Cultural	@ $1,137.63 x 96 additional lots	$109,212.48
Roads and Cycleways	@ $5,178.06 x 96 additional lots	$497,093.76
Local Area Facilities	@ $6,372.57 x 96 additional lots	$611,766.72
Plan Preparation and Administration	@ $498.35 x 96 additional lots	$47,841.60
Subtotals		$1,642,510.08
Compensation for Internal Open Space	@ $10 per m² x 3,000m² @ $35 per m² x 6,000m²	-30,000.00 -210,000.00
TOTAL (subtotal less compensation):		$1,402,510.08

The contribution will be indexed quarterly in accordance with the Orange Development Contributions Plan 2017 (development in North West Urban Release Area).

With regard to open space contributions, the contributions levied for this application will provide funding for an extensive and ambitious program of projects. There are no funds available for acquisitions that do no form part of the acquisition plan.

Section 64 Water and Sewer Headwork Charges

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

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

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

THE LIKELY IMPACTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT s4.15(1)(b)

Traffic

The capacity of the road network in the vicinity of the site is sufficient to accommodate additional localised traffic generated by the development, or the likely additional traffic that future developments on the subdivided lots are likely to generate. Council’s Technical Services Division advises that the proposed road layout is satisfactory, allows adjoining land to be developed and is generally in accordance with the DCP.

Conditions are considered necessary and are included in the attached consent preventing access for the individual lots directly onto either the NDR or Molong Road.

Noise

There are two possible areas of noise conflict for the use of the site as a residential estate. Noise arises from the adjacent NDR and a further noise source arises from the operation of the sewer pump station located on the northern part of the site.

Noise Considerations from NDR

The applicant has undertaken a noise assessment as part of the submission to Council. This assessment has been referred to Council's Manager Building and Environment and he has advised as follows:

I have undertaken a review of the 2013 Study of Thornberry’s land and also Council’s NDR noise check (Leeds Pde & Anson St areas)

	Thornberry 2013	Council 2013	Road Noise Policy Target
Daytime LA_eq,15hr (7am – 10pm)	59	58-63	60
Night time LA_eq,9hr(10pm – 7am)	54	58-52	55

The Council study includes projections of traffic growth of 1.1% to 2028 which is standard growth.

As road noise is measured differently to normal environmental noise (ie over 9-15 hours, not 15 minutes) it actually takes a large increase in volumes to increase measured noise.

The assumptions in the 2013 study are similar to the 2015 Council study of the NDR, albeit from another site (but I would suggest a busier site)

As was identified in the 2013 study, without attenuation measures there would be some exceedance of the noise targets in the Road Noise Policy. This is not surprising and it is considered that typical noise attenuation measures such as architectural treatments and noise barriers should be sufficient to meet the noise criteria.

Future Development Applications for dwellings on the site would need to include a detailed acoustic assessment to investigate and determine the exact attenuation requirements.

This is a very conservative approach to noise management on this site, as the 2013 Study submitted with the application passes on the requirement for an assessment on all buildings in the subdivision, not just the first two rows of houses which are likely from experience to be the only ones that would require treatment. However, as this is what has been proposed by the applicant and it will provide good ‘insurance’ to the future occupants and also Council’s NDR, I have no objection to the proposal.

It is recommended that a condition of consent be applied to the development that requires the restriction of land through an 88b instrument that requires the detailed investigation of required attenuation measures prior to the approval of any house in the subdivision (as has been recommended in the Acoustic Assessment Report by Blackett Acoustics Report BA13802A dated September 2013):

(x) A Section 88B Restriction-as-to-User shall be imposed on all Lots within the subdivision. The section 88B restriction to user shall be written to favour Orange City Council and shall be included with the documents for the subdivision certificate. The restriction to user shall impose a requirement for any future dwelling house application on those lots to be provided with a Noise Assessment Report that would detail the design and location requirements for a dwelling house on the aforementioned allotments so as to comply with the relevant noise standards applicable at the time of lodgement of that application. The restriction as to user shall utilise plain English wording and have as its primary aim that future owners be aware there may be restrictions on these allotments in terms of location, height and building materials of houses, and provide protection from the noise effects of the Northern Distributor Road.

Sewer Pump Station

There is a sewer pump station located in the northern corner of the site. Whilst the land to which the infrastructure exists is likely to be dedicated to Council allowance has been made for this asset by the inclusion of a requirement to establish an easement that allows for its retention. Access to the Council asset will be via one of the internal roads within the subdivision. At the present time the right of that structure to be on the site does not appear to be protected by any formal easement, although there is some form of understanding as to its continued location on the site.

Councils Technical Services Division advises that it is intended to eventually relocate the pump station, however for the moment it would be preferred if the pump station were retained on the site.

It is considered that the following issues arise from the operation of the pump station

Noise

Council's Manager Building and Environment has provided the following comment:

A noise report dated 6 July 2012 was submitted with the Development Application for this subdivision. The noise report can be only used as a guide and may not represent actual noise levels from the sewer pump station. The reason for this is the type of emergency generator proposed to be used was unknown during the assessment and therefore the report highlighted the need for further acoustic reporting by the pump station operator once this is known (Council is the operator of the pump station). This therefore represents a slight risk to the operator of the pump station that assumptions only have been made and they will be required to ensure they achieve compliance with those assumptions once a specific generator is selected.

Assessment of general operation of the pump station noise was also considered with the consultant’s noise report. The report assumed a background noise of 32dB(A), which is considered reasonable for this area. Therefore a noise goal of 37dB(A) applies to the pump station. The SLR Report identifies the 37dB(A) contour extends 80-100m from the station if no noise mitigation works are carried out on the pump station.

Following the installation of mitigation measures, the SLR Report predicts that the 37 dB(A) contour would be reduced to a minor part of the three closest residential allotments (the equivalent lots for the current application being Lots 224, 225, 238 and 239). Provided dwellings are not located within the 37dB(A) contour without mitigation, I have no objection to the proposed subdivision.

Attached to the draft Notice of Determination is a condition of consent addressing this issue.

Odour Assessment of Sewer Pump Station

Review of the SLR Odour Impact Assessment dated 12 July 2012 has been undertaken. The report predicts that the maximum odour criterion would not be exceeded provided that mitigation works are undertaken to the pump station. It is of interest to note that the whole of the proposed residential subdivision will be the subject of some odour from the pump station. There is a risk to the pump station operator (Council) that, should any variance to the predicted odour levels occur (exceedance), odour complaints would arise.

It is recommended that a condition of consent be applied to the development that requires the remediation works identified in the SLR report to be undertaken prior to the commencement of the construction of any residential development on Lots 28-43 and Lot 57. Specifically these works are to include:

· sealing of the wet well cover;

· sealing of the concrete channel housing electrical cables to the pump house; and

· installation of buffers (vegetated) between residences and the pump station.

This work will necessarily need to be undertaken by Council. An alternative does exist for the pump station to be removed or relocated away from the site. Two conditions are considered necessary to address the issue. The first prevents the issue of Subdivision Certificates for the affected lots until the recommended works have been completed. The second condition withholds the release of the subdivision for Lots 36 and 37 until the pump station has been relocated.

Cumulative Impacts

The proliferation of low density residential development on the fringe of the City is a reflection of the urban growth of Orange, which is currently being achieved by an expansion of residential land into the surrounding lower density rural and non-urban land. A continuation of greenfield residential subdivisions satisfies the market demand but is likely to result in community isolation from transport facilities and services due to the increase in distance from employment areas and the CBD. Because of the distances, a continuation on motor vehicle reliance is likely to be reinforced by developments such as the subject application.

On the other hand, the development of a new estate creates opportunities for home ownership, improves housing stock quality from an aesthetic point of view and promotes economic activity in the building industry.

THE SUITABILITY OF THE SITE s4.15(1)(c)

The subject property has one significant natural feature, being the waterways that cross the site. These are adequately allowed for in the subdivision design.

The subject property will be significantly reliant on motor vehicles for access to most facilities and amenities, and this should be seen as a negative to the overall amenity and ambience that the site will generate. To achieve satisfactory levels of amenity it is considered highly desirable to provide pedestrian linkages to the open space network.

ANY SUBMISSIONS MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACT s4.15(1)(d)

The proposed development is defined as "advertised development" by reason of the Integrated Development provisions of the Act. The application was advertised for the prescribed period of 30 days, and at the end of that period the following submissions had been received:

J Riach - Molong Road

· I do not want people accessing the Agrestic Grocer site via the proposed walkway.

The objector is not the owner of the agrestic Grocer site, however he does live on an adjoining site.

There is a landscape concept plan (not forming part of the current proposal but forming part of the supporting documentation for the rezoning of the subject land) that shows potential for crossings and linkages of Ploughmans Creek. However, the proposed development does not specifically incorporate this provision, and it is noted that were such connections to be provided in the future, they would not specifically affect the objector’s land.

Very little (if any) weight can be given to the objection as the proposal to provide a creek crossing to the “Totally Local” site is a concept only.

Figure 12: Agrestic Grocer concept plan

Figure 13: linkage concept plan (indicative only) submitted in support of the DA

· The development must include security fencing (not just stock fencing) to prevent public access onto adjoining land.

The DCP contains provisions with respect to rural fencing on the shared northern and eastern boundaries. Fencing on the shared boundary with the NDR was not required for the Ribbon Gums estate and given the similar situation arising for this development, no requirement for fencing on this site along the NDR or Molong Road boundaries is considered necessary. Fencing is however required at the rear of those allotments that back onto the NDR.

For the shared boundary with those properties located to the west and northwest, including this objector, it is noted that the majority of the shared boundary will become part of the riparian corridor. It will be necessary for this land to be adequately fenced for both security and safety reasons. This will be investigated further once the landscaping and plans of management are worked out. In the past, for other landowners adjoining the riparian corridors in northwest Orange, it has been the landowner’s responsibility to fence their shared boundaries as appropriate.

· Pollution of the creek

The stormwater and surface runoff coming from the proposed development will include onsite detention including a constructed wetland or wet detention basin with reed banks installed and gross pollutant traps that will manage pollutants entering the creek to an acceptable standard. At the present time, as essentially rural land, there are few controls regarding the preservation of water quality. Conditions are recommended.

Nick King - Environmentally concerned Citizens Of Orange (ECCO)

· Open space -Supports the concepts of the Pocket Park and riparian corridors. Would prefer a constructed wetland in lieu of the OSD basin. Does not support the relative lack of larger open space areas within the subdivision and notes the relative isolation of the site to other such facilities within Orange.

The submission by ECCO has some merit, however the initiatives they suggest would place significant pressure on Council finances, for which no master planning has been done. There are special circumstances to support the setting aside of the riparian corridors, but no such special circumstances can be advanced to support the provision of additional recreational space within the new subdivision. The open space and recreational spaces provided in the Orange district are dictated and planned according to the provisions contained in the acquisitions component of the Contributions Plan. It is further noted that Orange residents do enjoy a high rate of open space per head of population compared to State averages.

· Tree retention - ECCO notes and supports the proposed tree retention but also point out that the submission is vague and non-specific as to how this might be achieved.

The conditions of consent are intended to address this shortcoming, by specifying the numbers of trees to be retained and requiring more specificity in the final plans before sign‑off of the Subdivision Certificate.

Wellington Valley Wiradjuri Aboriginal Corporation

· Wants a more extensive investigation of Aboriginal cultural heritage on the site

Searches of the OEH database (AHIMS) fail to reveal any recorded items of Aboriginal heritage or known sites in the locality. One claim made by this group is that there are scar trees on the site, however physical inspection of the visible trees fails to reveal evidence that they are present, and the estimated age of the trees (80-120 years) is such that they have only a very low probability of being scar trees.

Notwithstanding, two conditions are included requiring a further report to be submitted on this issue, and if any positive results arise from that investigation, for the prescribed processes contained in the NPWS act 1974 to be followed. This is understood to include a level of consultation with local indigenous groups.

Orange Region Water Security Alliance

· Should consider the initiatives contained in recent NSW legislation.

The submission references “Greener Places”, “Better Place Built” and “Local Character”. The proposed development would not act in a manner contrary to these draft policies.

· DA is deficient in open space tree preservation, riparian protection lot density and pedestrian connectivity.

These issues have some validity and conditions are included to address them in the consent.

The submission includes an extensive list of suggested policy changes that, whilst having merit, cannot be considered as direct objections to the current proposal. The current proposal must be assessed against those standards that are applicable at this time. The development needs to comply with those standards, or have conditions imposed that will result in compliance.

Cyril Smith

This long submission to Council makes the following observations:

· Defer the proposal until other agencies have a reasonable time to make a comment.

The referral process to government co-approval bodies is codified in the Integrated Development Assessment legislation. There are prescribed referral times and processes, which Council has exceeded. The co-approval agencies are able to impose their own conditions that must be included in the consent, and would have the effect of overriding any Council conditions if the Council conditions acted in such a way as to contravene the General Terms of Approval issued by these government bodies.

· I feel that this proposal can achieve a more liveable residential area with a unique character with some further discussions.

The objector wants to apply draft guidelines and guidelines not currently adopted and/or not applicable to this site. It is infeasible to do this.

PUBLIC INTEREST s4.15(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 Orange LEP 2011 (as amended) and DCP 2004. A section 4.15 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, D18/44242 ⇩

2 Plans, D18/44143 ⇩

3 Submissions, D18/44134 ⇩

Planning and Development Committee 4 September 2018

2.4 Development Application DA 178/2018(1) - 386 Molong Road and Lot 6 Northern Distributor Road

Attachment 1 Notice of Approval

ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

Development Application No DA 178/2018(1)

NA18/ Container PR26723

NOTICE OF DETERMINATION

OF A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

issued under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Section 4.18

Development Application
Applicant Name:	Mr G Thornberry
Applicant Address:	C/- Roger Heath PO Box 2501 ORANGE NSW 2800
Owner’s Name:	Mr GJ Thornberry
Land to Be Developed:	Lot 81 DP 1202584 - 386 Molong Road and Lot 6 DP 1065578 - Northern Distributor Road, Orange
Proposed Development:	Subdivision (103 lots - comprising 96 residential lots, 6 open space lots and 1 residue lot)

Building Code of Australia building classification:	Not applicable

Determination made under Section 4.16
Made On:	4 September 2018
Determination:	CONSENT GRANTED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS DESCRIBED BELOW:

Consent to Operate From:	5 September 2018
Consent to Lapse On:	5 September 2023

Terms of Approval

The reasons for the imposition of conditions are:

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

(2) To maintain neighbourhood amenity and character.

(3) To ensure compliance with relevant statutory requirements.

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

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

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

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

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

Conditions

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

(a) Plans by Heath Consulting numbered 07_066 sheets DA01, DA02, DA03, DA04, DA05, DA06, DA07, DA08, DA09 Rev A, dated May 2018 (9 sheets)

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

as amended in accordance with any conditions of this consent.

PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS

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

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

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

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

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

(3) An amended design shall be submitted and approved by Council that incorporates a constructed wetland or wet detention basin, incorporating extensive wetlands reed beds and natural water filtration species. The size and capacities of the detention basin shall be amended as required to accommodate this change from the submitted design

(4) A comprehensive landscape plan shall be submitted and be approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessments that incorporates the following elements;

· Screening the area around the pump station.

· Landscaping incorporating appropriate levels of earth mounding, native species selection, weed matting or weed suppression measures, plant density is to be submitted to Council for the noise buffer areas adjacent to Northern Distributor Road and Molong Roads (shown on the approved plans as Lots 164, 165 and 166). Plantings along the buffers are required to be generally native species except the corridor adjacent to Molong Road which shall be a species consistent with the Precinct Plans held by Council for landscaping in the vicinity of the roundabout intersecting the Northern Distributor Road and Molong Road.

(5) A landscape recovery plan for the riparian corridors affecting the site shall be submitted to and be approved by Council’s Manager City Presentations. The landscape recovery plan shall provide for landscaping within the riparian corridor and incorporate concrete pathways (which will be completed by Council, other works in the plan will be carried out by the applicant). Species selection shall be appropriate native species and at a density that is to the satisfaction of the Manager City Presentation.

(6) A plan of management for the riparian corridors adjacent to Ploughmans Creek and consistent with the E2 and RE1 zoning shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the Director Development Services and the Director Technical Services, establishing this area as an area of open space (accessible to the general public and maintained to a standard that satisfies Council requirements for open space) and providing details on flood mitigation and ongoing management of this land. Alternatively, the land may be dedicated to Council at no charge to enable Council management for public purposes. Earthworks which impact on behaviour of flood flows may require a Floodworks Approval. The proponent should make contact with Water NSW (who administer these types of approvals) to determine approval requirements.

(7) The street lighting system shall comprise LED lighting and be designed having regard to the lighting controls contained within the Shiralee DCP (used as a guide in this instance). The applicant shall submit details of the street lighting system for approval prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

(8) An archaeological report is required prior to the removal of any trees from the site to determine if any trees contain evidence of aboriginal heritage. In the event that aboriginal heritage is found on the site, the applicant shall seek the necessary permits to destroy the artefact pursuant to the provisions of section 90 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, or submit an amended plan that avoids the need to remove the artifact

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

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

(11) The development’s stormwater design is to include stormwater detention within the development, designed to limit peak outflows from the land to the pre-existing natural outflows up to the 100 year ARI frequency, with sufficient allowance in overflow spillway design capacity to safely pass flows of lower frequency (that is, a rarer event) without damage to downstream developments. Where appropriate, the spillway design capacity is to be determined in accordance with the requirements of the Dam Safety Committee.

The design of the detention storage is to be undertaken using the ILSAX/DRAINS rainfall-runoff hydrologic model or an approved equivalent capable of assessing runoff volumes and their temporal distribution as well as peak flow rates. The model is to be used to calculate the flow rates for the existing and post-development conditions. The developed flows are to be routed through the proposed storage within the model so that the outflows obtained are no greater than the flows obtained for the pre-existing natural flows. A report detailing the results of the analysis, which includes:

· catchment plan showing sub-catchments under existing and developed conditions;

· schematic diagram of the catchment model showing sub areas and linkages;

· tabulation detailing the elevation, storage volume and discharge relationships; and

· tabulation for the range of frequencies analysed, the inflows, outflows and peak storage levels for both existing and developed conditions;

together with copies of the data files for the model and engineering design plans of the required drainage system are to be submitted to Orange City Council upon application for a Construction Certificate.

(12) Proposed lots are to be provided with interlot stormwater drainage, including those lots abutting public land, where the surface of the entire lot cannot be drained to the kerb and gutter at the lot frontage. A grated concrete stormwater pit is to be constructed within each lot provided with interlot stormwater drainage. Engineering plans for this drainage system are to be approved by Orange City Council or an Accredited Certifier (Categories B1, C3, C4, C6) prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate.

(13) Stormwater from the site is to be piped to the adjacent watercourse, where it is to be discharged through a standard headwall with appropriate scour protection and energy dissipater. Engineering plans of this required drainage system are to be approved by Orange City Council or by an Accredited Certifier (Categories B1, C3, C4, C6). Evidence of a Controlled Activity Approval from NRAR for work within 40 metres of the watercourse is to be provided prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate. Note: the engineering plans required by Council will need to be submitted to Department of Industry - Natural Resources Access Regulator to support the CAA application.

(14) A 150mm-diameter sewer main is to be constructed from Council’s existing mains to serve the proposed lots and the existing sewer rising main shall be relocated. Prior to a Construction Certificate being issued engineering plans for the sewerage system are to be submitted to and approved by Orange City Council.

(15) A water reticulation analysis is to be carried out by Orange City Council on any proposed water reticulation system for the development. Engineering plans are to be submitted to and approved by Orange City Council prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

The reticulation system is to be designed to supply a peak instantaneous demand by gravity of 0.15 L/s/tenement at a minimum residual head of 200kPa.

(16) All stormwater from the site is to be collected and piped to a stormwater treatment system located within the site.

The design and construction of the stormwater treatment system for the subject land shall ensure that the quality of stormwater leaving the developed site shall achieve the following stormwater quality targets:

· 90% reduction in the post development average annual gross pollutant (>5 millimetres) load.

· 85% reduction in the post development mean annual load of Total Suspended Solids (TSS);

· 65% reduction in the post development mean annual load of Total Phosphorus (TP);

· 45% reduction in the post development mean annual load of Total Nitrogen loads (TN).

The stormwater treatment system design shall be submitted to Orange City Council for approval by Councils Director – Technical Services. The design shall be undertaken using an accredited assessment tool (Music™ or other approved assessment tool) and shall include the abovementioned key indicators and copies of the electronic data files.

(17) Engineering plans providing complete details of the proposed intersection with the Northern Distributor Road shall be submitted to Orange City Council upon application for a Construction Certificate. These plans are to provide details of levels, cross falls of all pavements, sealing materials, drainage works, line marking and signage and are to be in accordance with Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code. Engineering plans for the intersection are to be approved by Orange City Council prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate.

PRIOR TO WORKS COMMENCING

(18) Tree Protection zones are to be established for the existing over mature trees located on Lots 141 and 164 complying with the requirements of AS 4970 – Protection Of trees On Development Sites. No approval is granted for the removal of these trees under this consent.

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

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

DURING CONSTRUCTION/SITEWORKS

(21) A minimum of three trees shall be retained and conserved on the open space Lot 141 and 164, which shall be modified in size and shape where necessary, so that the property boundaries of this lots are not closer than 2m from the trees to be protected.

Trees to be removed from proposed Lots 145, 146, 147, 152 and 153 can be removed under this approval. The remnants of those trees shall be placed within the open space and/or riparian lots in a location that is to the satisfaction of the Manager City Presentation (Orange City Council). Replacements shall be planted (for the trees to be removed), at the rate of 5 replacements for each tree to be removed within the open space lot (or alternatively, native ground and midstorey covers at the rate of 35m² of dense plantings per tree to be removed). Replacement tree plantings shall be at a density not exceeding 1 tree per 35m² of available space.

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

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

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

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

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

(26) Concrete footpaths, a minimum of 1.2 metres wide, are to be constructed on one side of all through streets and in cul-de-sacs where a pathway or public reserve is located at the cul-de-sac bowl.

Construction work is to be to the requirements and standards of the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code.

(27) All proposed residential lots adjacent to Somerset Creek, Ploughmans Creek and any drainage control lot shall have a minimum freeboard above the 1-in-100-year flood level in accordance with the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code and the Floodplain Risk Management Plan.

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

(29) Water and sewer services, including mains construction, sewer pumping station noise and odour abatement works, easements and all associated materials and works, are to be provided for the development at the cost of the developer.

(30) Council requires elastic rebound deflection testing carried out on road base material prior to the placement of any asphalt to determine maximum deflection in accordance with RMS Test Method T160 utilising the Benkelman Beam or equivalent.

(31) A temporary turning circle shall be provided at the termination of the 20m wide road providing access to Lot 164.

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A SUBDIVISION CERTIFICATE

(32) New Rural fencing consistent with the standards contained in Orange DCP 2004 shall be installed along the northern boundaries of Lots 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239 and 240; and the eastern boundaries of Lots 143, 150, 156, 157, 158, 203, 204, 205, 231, 232, 233, 234 and 240. A Restriction as to User under the NSW Conveyancing Act 1919 shall be placed on the titles of each of the above identified lots indicating that the rural fencing along the dividing boundary can only be replaced with same until such time that the adjoining land is developed for residential purposes.

(33) A Restriction as to User under the NSW Conveyancing Act 1919 shall be placed on the titles of Proposed lots 107, 108, 114, 115, 219, 224 and 239 requiring all fencing along the boundary of those allotments where it adjoins the riparian corridor to be lapped and capped timber hardwood fencing.

(34) Prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate the applicant shall construct lapped and capped hardwood timber fencing with a minimum height of 1.8m and consistent with the recommendations of the Blackett Acoustic Consultant Report Number BA13802A Version A along the rear property boundary of proposed lots 101-107 inclusive and 139, 140, 142 and 143.

(35) Building envelopes applied as Restrictions as to user under the NSW Conveyancing Act 1919, written with Council as having the power to alter or remove the restriction, shall be applied to lots 101 – 107 (inclusive) and lots 139,140, 142 and 143, as shown on the approved subdivision plan, prior to the issue of a subdivision certificate. The building envelopes must be located a minimum of;

· 10m from the southern boundary, and

· 4.5m from all street frontages, and

· 0.9m from side boundaries with other residential lots, and

· 2.0m from side boundaries with public open space lots (141 & 166)

The maximum area of each building envelope must not exceed 350m². The restriction shall not permit the erection of buildings outside of the building envelope. Council is to be nominated as the benefitted party.

(36) Lots 204. 205, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238 and 239, as depicted on the Drawing Number 07066-DA02 prepared by Heath Consulting dated May 2018 and submitted with the application shall not be released until and unless all mitigation recommendations as set out in the report titled "Appendix B -N01 Odour Assessment by SLR (referenced Report Number 610.11488, dated July 2012) have been fully implemented to the satisfaction of Council's Manager Development Assessments who shall also be advised accordingly.

(37) A noise goal of 37dB(A) applies to lots affected by noise from the pump station. To be suitable for dwelling construction, mitigation of background noise levels to below 37dB(A) is required. The release of a subdivision certificate for those allotments within the 37dB(A) contour generated from the pump station will not be issued until all measures to mitigate noise from the pump station have been implemented and a further noise report by a qualified Acoustics engineer has been provided corroborating the target noise levels have been achieved to the satisfaction of the Manager Building and Environment.

(38) The payment of contributions as per the following shall be made to Council in accordance with Section 7.11 of the Act and Orange Development Contributions Plan 2017 (development in North West Urban Release Area) towards the provision of the following public facilities:

Open Space and Recreation	@ $3,922.87 x 96 additional lots	$376,595.52
Community and Cultural	@ $1,137.63 x 96 additional lots	$109,212.48
Roads and Cycleways	@ $5,178.06 x 96 additional lots	$497,093.76
Local Area Facilities	@ $6,372.57 x 96 additional lots	$611,766.72
Plan Preparation and Administration	@ $498.35 x 96 additional lots	$47,841.60
Subtotals		$1,642,510.08
Compensation for Internal Open Space	@ $10 per m² x 3,000m² @ $35 per m² x 6,000m²	-30,000.00 -210,000.00
TOTAL (subtotal less compensation):		$1,402,510.08

The contribution will be indexed quarterly in accordance with the Orange Development Contributions Plan 2017 (development in North West Urban Release Area).

(39) Soil sampling for analysing chemical residue is to be carried out within the proposed Lots in a manner and frequency as determined by an appropriately qualified and experienced consultant giving consideration to previous specific uses and on-site characteristics of the site. A NATA registered laboratory is to carry out such testing. Reference is to be made to the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 and State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 - “Remediation of Land”. The results of the testing are to be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and are to demonstrate that the land is suitable for residential use, to enable a Subdivision Certificate to be issued.

(40) Application shall be made for a Subdivision Certificate under Section 6.3(1)(d) of the Act.

(41) Payment of contributions for water, sewer and drainage works is required to be made at the contribution rate applicable at the time that the payment is made. The contributions are based on 96 ETs for water supply headworks and 96 ETs for sewerage headworks. A Certificate of Compliance, from Orange City Council in accordance with the Water Management Act 2000, will be issued upon payment of the contributions.

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

(42) Evidence from a registered NATA laboratory is to be submitted prior to the issuing of a Subdivision Certificate stating that the filling of all dams and low-lying areas has been carried out in accordance with Australian Standard 3798-2007.

(43) Application is to be made to Telstra/NBN for infrastructure to be made available to each individual lot within the development. Either a Telecommunications Infrastructure Provisioning Confirmation or Certificate of Practical Completion is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority confirming that the specified lots have been declared ready for service prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate.

(44) A Notice of Arrangement from Essential Energy stating arrangements have been made for the provision of electricity supply to the development, is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate.

(45) A Restriction-as-to-User under section 88B of the NSW Conveyancing Act 1919 shall be registered on the Deed of Title on Lots 101 to 107, and 139, 140, 142 and 143 where vehicular access is to be denied to the Northern Distributor Road and Lot 164 where vehicular access is to be denied to the Northern Distributor Road and Mitchell Highway.

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

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

(48) A Certificate of Compliance, from a Qualified Engineer, stating that the stormwater detention basin comply with the approved engineering plans is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issuing of a Subdivision Certificate.

(49) A Maintenance Security Deposit, in accordance with the provisions and requirements of the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code, is to be provided to Orange City Council prior to the issuing of a Subdivision Certificate.

A Certificate of Compliance, from Orange City Council, certifying that the maintenance security deposit has been paid, is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issuing of a Subdivision Certificate.

(50) Where stormwater crosses land outside the lot it favours, an easement to drain water is to be created over the works. A Restriction-as-to-User under section 88B of the NSW Conveyancing Act 1919 is to be created on the title of the proposed Lots requiring that no structures are to be placed on the site, or landscaping or site works carried out on the site, in a manner that affects the continued operation of the interlot drainage system. The minimum width of the easement is to be as required in the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code.

(51) Prior to the issuing of a Subdivision Certificate, a Road Naming Application form is to be completed and submitted with a plan of the whole development defining the stage being released - including future road extensions.

(52) Certification from Orange City Council is required to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate stating that all works relating to connection of the development to Council assets, works on public land, works on public roads, stormwater, sewer and water reticulation mains and footpaths have been carried out in accordance with the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code and the foregoing conditions, and that Council will take ownership of the infrastructure assets.

(53) A subdivision Certificate with respect to Proposed Lot 239 shall not be released unless:

· the sewer pump station has been removed; or

· satisfactory mitigation works have been undertaken to the sewer pump station to reduce background noise levels to below 37dB(A); or

· a Restriction as to user pursuant to Section 88B of the NSW Conveyancing Act 1919 is imposed on the title of Lot 239 preventing use for residential purposes until the target noise level has been achieved to the satisfaction of Council.

(54) A Restriction-as-to-User under section 88B of the NSW Conveyancing Act 1919 shall be created on the title of proposed Lot 164 which states that:

Proposed Lot 164 may not be subdivided or further developed and may not be used for residential purposes unless the following works are carried out to the satisfaction of Orange City Council:

· All infrastructure services (water, sewer, stormwater drainage, gas, electricity, phone lines) as required by the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code are provided to Lot 164; and

· The developer of proposed Lot 164 is responsible for gaining access over adjoining land for services as necessary. Easements are to be created about all service mains within and outside the lots they serve; and

· Contributions are paid as required by the development contributions plan applicable at the time of development and Water and Sewer charges as required by Orange City Council in accordance with Division 5 of Part 2 of Chapter 6 of the Water Management act 2000; and

· The 20.0m wide access road is fully constructed over Somerset Creek in accordance with the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code.

(55) All landscaping requirements specified in the stamped approved plans shall be fully implemented to the satisfaction of Council’s Manager Development Assessments prior to the release of the Subdivision Certificate

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

MATTERS FOR THE ONGOING PERFORMANCE AND OPERATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT

(57) Landscaping required under this consent shall be fully maintained by the developer for a minimum period of two years after the issue of the Subdivision Certificate (if the land is transferred to Council’s control) or permanently if the land on which the landscaping is to be installed is retained in private ownership. The plan of management required under condition (5) of this consent shall provide details on watering, weeding and replacement regimes to be carried out during the maintenance period.

(58) If Aboriginal objects, relics or other historical items or the like are located during development works, all works in the area of the identified object, relic or item shall cease and the NSW Office of Environmental Heritage (OEH), and representatives from the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council shall be notified. Where required, further archaeological investigation shall be undertaken. Development works in the area of the find(s) may recommence if and when outlined by the management strategy, developed in consultation with and approved by the OEH.

(59) An easement in favour of Orange City Council over the sewer pump station infrastructure on the land shall be shown on the plan of subdivision. The terms of the easement shall be in accordance with Deed of Agreement dated 19 March 2015 between the owner of the land and Orange City Council.

GENERAL TERMS OF APPROVAL FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES – FISHERIES

· A permit under s.201 of the Fisheries Management Act 1994 for dredging and reclamation works associated with construction of proposed stormwater outlet structure in Ploughmans Creek must be obtained prior to commencement of the works at the site, unless the work has been authorised under the Crown Lands Act 1989 or an authority (e.g. Controlled Activity Approval) is obtained under the Water Management Act 2000 from DPI Water.

· Any construction works are carried out in accordance with all applicable requirements of The Blue Book: “Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction” (4^th Edition Landcom, 2004).

GENERAL TERMS OF APPROVAL FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY - NATURAL RESOURCES ACCESS REGULATOR

Design of works and structures
GT0009-00010	Before commencing any proposed controlled activity on waterfront land, an application must be submitted to Natural Resources Access Regulator, and obtained, for a controlled activity approval under the Water Management Act 2000.
GT0019-00003	Any proposed excavation on waterfront land must be undertaken in accordance with a plan submitted as part of a controlled activity approval, to be approved by Natural Resources Access Regulator.
Erosion and sediment controls
GT0014-00007	A. The consent holder must ensure that any proposed materials or cleared vegetation, which may: i. obstruct water flow, or ii. wash into the water body, or iii. cause damage to river banks, are not stored on waterfront land, unless in accordance with a plan held by Natural Resources Access Regulator as part of a controlled activity approval. B. When the carrying out of the controlled activity has been completed, surplus materials must be removed from waterfront land.

Plans, standards and guidelines
GT0002-00460	A. This General Terms of Approval (GTA) only applies to the proposed controlled activity described in the plans and associated documents found in Schedule 1, relating to Development Application 1782018 provided by Council to Natural Resources Access Regulator. B. Any amendments or modifications to the proposed controlled activity may render the GTA invalid. If the proposed controlled activity is amended or modified, Natural Resources Access Regulator, Dubbo Office, must be notified in writing to determine if any variations to the GTA will be required.
GT0005-00205	A. The application for a controlled activity approval must include the following plan(s):- site plan, map and/or surveys; riparian corridor map (amended to show correct stream order and buffer widths); detailed plans for detention basin and outlet structures; Stormwater Management Plan; Erosion and Sediment Control Plan; Vegetation Management Plan; and, Works Schedule. B. The plan(s) must be prepared in accordance with Natural Resources Access Regulator's guidelines located on the website www.industry.nsw.gov.au/water/licensing-trade/approvals/controlled-activities.
GT0010-00006	All documents submitted to Natural Resources Access Regulator as part of an application for a controlled activity approval must be prepared by a suitably qualified person.
GT0016-00003	The consent holder must inform Natural Resources Access Regulator in writing when any proposed controlled activity carried out under a controlled activity approval has been completed.

Other Approvals

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

Nil

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

Nil

Right of Appeal

*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 of the Conveyancing Act 1919* - 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:	PAUL JOHNSTON - MANAGER DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENTS
Date:	5 September 2018

Planning and Development Committee 4 September 2018

2.5 Development Application DA 206/2018(1) - 124, 136 and 148 Shiralee Road

RECORD NUMBER: 2018/2147

AUTHOR: Summer Commins, Senior Planner

EXECUTIVE Summary

Application lodged	8 June 2018
Applicant/s	Landorange Partnership
Owner/s	Mr RS and Mrs NR Burns, Fenlor Group Limited & Charms Development Pty Ltd and Mr KR and Mrs JA Kramer
Land description	Lots 92, 93 and 95 DP 750401 – 124, 136 & 148 Shiralee Road, Orange
Proposed land use	Subdivision (104 lots - comprising 103 residential lots and 1 open space lot) and Demolition (dwellings x two and outbuildings)
Value of proposed development	$0

Council's consent is sought for urban residential subdivision of land in the developing Shiralee urban village. The proposal relates to three existing rural-residential parcels described as Lots 92, 93 and 95 DP 75041, and known as 124, 136 and 148 Shiralee Road (refer Locality at Figure 1 below). The proposal involves subdivision of the three existing parcels to create 103 residential lots and 1 open space lot.

The residential lots will range in area between 310m² and 2,714m². The lots will be fully serviced to a residential standard with sewer, water, stormwater drainage, electricity, gas (subject to availability) and telecommunications. Rifle Range Road and Shiralee Road will be upgraded at the frontage of the proposed lots. Four (4) new roads will be constructed to service the proposed lots. Approval is also sought for the demolition of two existing dwellings and sheds on 124 and 136 Shiralee Road; and a shed on 148 Shiralee Road.

The existing dwelling at 148 Shiralee Road is a listed Local heritage item. The dwelling will be retained; however, it is considered that the proposed subdivision layout will have adverse effect on the significance of the heritage dwelling. The subdivision layout nearby to the dwelling will be slightly modified via conditions of consent to reduce the number of residential allotments by two to minimise the impacts. Future subdivision in the vicinity of the dwelling will be subject to separate approval and heritage consideration. The proponent is amenable to this arrangement.

The subject property is located within the developing Shiralee urban village. Development in the precinct is subject to the provisions contained in the Shiralee Development Control Plan 2015 (Shiralee DCP) and Shiralee Masterplan. The proposed subdivision generally accords with the Shiralee DCP and Masterplan, notwithstanding some minor variations. Departure from the Shiralee DCP is minor and within reasonable limit. The proposed subdivision is considered to be consistent with the aims and principles of the plan.

The proposed development comprises ‘advertised development’ pursuant to Orange Development Control Plan (DCP) 2004. Three (3) submissions were received at the close of the public notice and exhibition period. The issues raised have been addressed by conditions of consent.

The proposal has been evaluated pursuant to Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and is considered to be suitable. Approval of the application is recommended, subject to conditions of consent in the attached Notice of Approval.

Figure 1: locality plan

RECENT LEGISLATIVE CHANGES

DECISION FRAMEWORK

DIRECTOR’S COMMENT

This development application is a significant one within the Shiralee urban village and largely adheres to the intent of the Masterplan in the opinion of staff. Neighbours have been consulted via the notification and advertisement of the DA, and amendments have been made to the consent to largely accommodate their concerns. This development will add significantly and in a planned way to the housing stock in Orange.

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

Financial Implications

Nil

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

Recommendation

That Council consents to development application DA 206/2018(1) for Subdivision (102 lots - comprising 101 residential lots and 1 open space lot) and Demolition (dwellings x two and outbuildings) at Lots 92, 93 and 95 DP 750401 – 124, 136 and 148 Shiralee Road, Orange, pursuant to the conditions of consent in the attached Notice of Approval.

further considerations

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

THE PROPOSAL

Council's consent is sought for urban residential subdivision of land at 124, 136 and 148 Shiralee Road. The proposal involves staged subdivision of three existing parcels to create 103 residential lots and 1 open space lot.

The proposed residential lots will comprise a mix of Compact, Medium, Standard and Large lots, as described in the Shiralee DCP. The residential lots will range in area between 310m² and 2,714m². The lots will be fully serviced to a residential standard with sewer, water, stormwater drainage, electricity, gas (subject to availability) and telecommunications.

Shiralee Road will be upgraded to Collector Road standard at the frontage of the development site. Rifle Range Road will be upgraded to a Local Street standard at this site frontage. Four (4) new internal Local Streets will be constructed to service the proposed lots. Each proposed lot will have direct frontage and access to an existing or proposed public road.

Approval is also sought for the demolition of two existing dwellings and sheds on 124 and 136 Shiralee Road; and a shed on 148 Shiralee Road. The dwelling on the latter parcel will be retained.

The proposed subdivision layout is depicted below (refer Figure 2).

Figure 2: proposed subdivision layout

MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION

Section 1.7 - Application of Part 7 of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 and Part 7A of the Fisheries Management Act 1994

Having regard to the relevant provisions and based on an inspection of the subject property, it is considered that the proposed development is unlikely to significantly affect a threatened species. It is evident that the parcels have been highly modified by past agricultural practices and are unlikely to contain significant habitat or biodiversity value.

A Biodiversity Development Assessment Report is not required in support of the proposal.

Section 4.15

Section 4.15 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 s4.15(1)(a)(i)

Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011

Part 1 - Preliminary

Clause 1.2 - Aims of Plan

The particular aims of the LEP relevant to the application include:

(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,

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

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

The application is considered to be consistent with the above aims, as outlined in this report.

Clause 1.6 - Consent Authority

Clause 1.6 is applicable and states:

The consent authority for the purposes of this Plan is (subject to the Act) the Council.

Clause 1.7 - Mapping

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

Land Zoning Map:	R1 General Residential; B1 Neighbourhood Centre; and RE1 Public Recreation
Lot Size Map:	Minimum lot size 200m² (B); 400m² (F); and 700m² (Q)
Heritage Map:	A Local heritage item (I285 - Dwelling)
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:	Groundwater 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
Flood Planning Map:	Not within a flood planning area

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

Clause 1.9A - Suspension of Covenants, Agreements and Instruments

Clause 1.9A is applicable and states in part:

(1) For the purpose of enabling development on land in any zone to be carried out in accordance with this Plan or with a consent granted under the Act, any agreement, covenant or other similar instrument that restricts the carrying out of that development does not apply to the extent necessary to serve that purpose.

(2) This clause does not apply:

(a) to a covenant imposed by the Council or that the Council requires to be imposed, or

(b) to any prescribed instrument within the meaning of section 183A of the Crown Lands Act 1989, or

(c) to any conservation agreement within the meaning of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, or

(d) to any Trust agreement within the meaning of the Nature Conservation Trust Act 2001, or

(e) to any property vegetation plan within the meaning of the Native Vegetation Act 2003, or

(f) to any biobanking agreement within the meaning of Part 7A of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995, or

(g) to any planning agreement within the meaning of Division 6 of Part 4 of the Act.

Council staff are not aware of the title of the subject property being affected by any of the foregoing covenants, instruments, agreements or plans.

Part 2 - Permitted or Prohibited Development

Clause 2.1 Land Use Zones

The development site is zoned R1 General Residential, B1 Neighbourhood Centre and RE1 Public Recreation (refer Figure 3):

Figure 3: Zoning Map - Orange LEP 2011

The proposed development is defined as “subdivision” and “demolition.”

Pursuant to Section 6.2 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979:

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

Subdivision of land is permitted with consent pursuant to Clause 2.6 (refer below).

Pursuant to Section 1.5 of the EPAA 1979, development includes:

(e) the demolition of a building or work.

Demolition is permitted with consent pursuant to Clause 2.7 (refer below).

Clause 2.3 - Zone Objectives

The objectives for land zoned R1 General Residential are:

· 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 consistent with the relevant R1 zone objectives. The proposal involves the creation of a mix of residential lots that will enable development of a variety of housing types and densities.

The objectives for land zoned B1 Neighbourhood Centre are:

· To provide a range of retail, business, entertainment and community uses that service the needs of people who live in, work in and visit the local area.

· To encourage employment opportunities in accessible locations.

· To maximise public transport patronage and encourage walking and cycling.

· To ensure that retail, business and community uses in North Orange and South Orange will not detract from the role of the CBD as the primary business centre within the City.

The B1 zone objectives do not relevantly relate to the proposed subdivision.

The objectives for land zoned RE1 Public Recreation are:

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

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

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

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

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

The proposed subdivision involves the creation of an open space lot within land zoned RE1. The development will provide land for open space or recreational purposes, consistent with the RE1 zone objectives.

Clause 2.6 - Subdivision - Consent Requirements

Clause 2.6 is applicable and states:

(1) Land to which this Plan applies may be subdivided but only with development consent.

Consent is sought for Torrens subdivision of the subject land in accordance with this clause.

Clause 2.7 - Demolition Requires Development Consent

Clause 2.7 applies and states:

The demolition of a building or work may be carried out only with development consent.

The proposal involves demolition of dwellings and outbuildings over the development site in accordance with this clause.

Part 3 - Exempt and Complying Development

The application is not exempt or complying development.

Part 4 - Principal Development Standards

Clause 4.1 - Minimum Subdivision Lot Size

Clause 4.1 is applicable and states in part:

(3) The size of any lot resulting from a subdivision of land to which this clause applies is not to be less than the minimum size shown on the Lot Size Map in relation to that land.

Pursuant to the Lot Size Map (refer below), the development site is subject to three minimum lot sizes:

· 200m² in those areas identified as Minimum Lot Size B

· 400m² in those areas identified as Minimum Lot Size F

· 700m² in those areas identified as Minimum Lot Size Q

Figure 4: Minimum Lot Size Map - Orange LEP 2011

The lots proposed in the subdivision comply with the prescribed minimum lot sizes in Clause 4.1.

Part 5 - Miscellaneous Provisions

Clause 5.10 Heritage Conservation

The development site contains a Local heritage item, namely I285 Dwelling at 148 Shiralee Road. The dwelling is to be retained, however demolition of an outbuilding on this parcel is proposed.

Figure 5: - heritage item at 148 Shiralee Road

The Orange Heritage Inventory provides the following Statement of Significance for the dwelling:

The large brick Inter-War residence retains the original character including the distinctive roof form, projecting gables and verandah and complements the streetscape.

Pursuant to Clause 5.10(4):

The proposed subdivision layout adjacent to the heritage item is shown below (refer Figure 6). The item will be excised on a parcel of 760m².

Figure 6: proposed subdivision layout over heritage item

The proposed Shiralee DCP Masterplan provides for a subdivision layout as depicted below (refer Figures 7 and 8).

Figure 7: Shiralee DCP Masterplan subdivision layout (prepared by applicant)

Figure 8: Shiralee DCP Masterplan subdivision layout

It is noted that the Shiralee DCP Masterplan (at Part 2.0 Desired Future Character) seeks to:

· Conserve and protect historic items and their settings; and

· Conserve, maintain and enhance existing views and vistas to buildings and places of historic and aesthetic significance.

As shown above, the proposed lot layout is contrary to the DCP Masterplan layout above, which provides for a generous curtilage for the heritage item. Furthermore, the lot layout does not accord with the Shiralee Structure Plan which provides for a Mixed Use Village Centre over this site. It is noted, however, that the proposed lot sizes adjacent to the heritage item comply with the minimum lot sizes under Orange LEP 2011 (ie 200m² in this location).

In the form proposed it is considered that the subdivision layout may have adverse effect on the significance of the heritage item due to the following:

· The curtilage to the south is considered inadequate to provide reasonable visual separation between the heritage dwelling and future adjoining dwellings.

· The existing landscaped setting associated with the heritage dwelling will be affected.

· Views of the dwelling may be impacted when travelling north along Shiralee Road due to the proposed proximity of future dwellings on proposed Lots 102 and 103.

· Civil and construction works may impact on the integrity of the dwelling.

· The appreciation of the heritage dwelling in the developing urban setting may be eroded.

The DA is silent in respect of the impact of the development on the significance of the heritage item. Based on the foregoing assessment by Council officers and in the absence of counter consideration by the proponent, a condition is included on the attached Notice of Approval that development consent is not granted for proposed Lots 102 and 103. Future subdivision of the land adjacent to the heritage item may be considered at future DA stage in conjunction with detailed heritage assessment. The proponent is amenable to this arrangement.

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

Clause 7.1 - Earthworks

Clause 7.1 is applicable and states in part:

(3) Before granting development consent for earthworks, the consent authority must consider the following matters:

(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).

Earthworks will be required in conjunction with civil and construction works required to create the proposed lots. It is considered that the required earthworks are unlikely to disrupt or have a detrimental effect on the existing drainage patterns and soil stability of the area, nor detrimentally affect a future use or redevelopment of the land, nor detrimentally affect the amenity of adjoining properties, nor disturb any relics.

Clause 7.3 - Stormwater Management

Clause 7.3 is applicable. This clause states in part:

(3) Development consent must not be granted to development on land to which this clause applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that the development:

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

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

In consideration of Clause 7.3, Council’s Development Engineer has advised:

The applicant will be required to contribute to the provision of an off-site stormwater detention system for the development (through Section 94 Contributions). Drainage for Stages 3 and 4 may require drainage easements over adjoining land prior to the commencement of works. A stormwater detention basin will be located immediately to the south and the development is required to discharge stormwater to this point.

Clause 7.6 - Groundwater Vulnerability

The subject land is identified as Groundwater Vulnerable on the Groundwater Vulnerability Map and Clause 7.6 applies. This clause states in part:

(3) Before determining a development application for development on land to which this clause applies, the consent authority must consider:

In consideration of Clause 7.6, the proposed development is unlikely to cause groundwater contamination or effect groundwater dependent ecosystems. Urban residential subdivision does not involve processes or activities that would impact on groundwater resources. The subject lands will be serviced by reticulated sewer, as required by conditions of consent.

Clause 7.11 - Essential Services

Clause 7.11 is applicable. This clause states:

(a) the supply of water

(b) the supply of electricity

(c) the disposal and management of sewage

(d) storm water drainage or on-site conservation

(e) suitable road access.

In consideration of this clause, the listed utility services are available to the land and adequate for the proposed subdivision. Conditions are included on the attached Notice of Approval requiring extension, augmentation and/or upgrading of urban utility services to the standards required to service the proposed urban lots.

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICIES

State Environmental Planning Policy 55 - Remediation of Land

State Environmental Planning Policy 55 - Remediation of Land (SEPP 55) is applicable and states in part:

Clause 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.

In consideration of the requirements of SEPP 55, the subject land has been used for a Table 1 purpose (ie agriculture/orcharding) to the Contaminated Land Planning Guidelines. A Preliminary Geotechnical and Contamination Investigation was submitted in support of the proposal (Envirowest Consulting February 2018). The investigation provides the following contamination conclusions and recommendations:

The investigation area [development site] has previously been an orchard. The majority of trees have been removed and the investigation area is currently a rural-residential landuse.

The levels of all substances analysed in the soil samples were not detected or at environmental background levels, and below the adopted residential landuse thresholds. Additional contamination testing… is required to validate the proposed change of use to residential.

Lot 93 consisted of what is expected to be a packing shed and pickers hut. A number of orchard trees were located to the east of the packing shed. Trees that were located to the west of the shed have been removed. The pickers hut appears to be of Asbestos Containing Material construction. Most of the pesticide mixing for the orchard is expected to have occurred in this area. A spray unit was identified adjacent to the packing shed.

Based on the findings of the Contamination investigation, a condition is included on the attached Notice of Approval requiring contamination clearance for the proposed lots prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate.

PROVISIONS OF ANY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENT THAT HAS BEEN PLACED ON EXHIBITION 4.15(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.

INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT

The proposed development is not integrated development.

PROVISIONS OF ANY DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN s4.15(1)(a)(iii)

Orange Development Control Plan 2004

Orange DCP 2004 is applies to the subject land. Chapters of the DCP relevant to the proposed subdivision include:

· Chapter 2 - Natural Resource Management

· Chapter 3 - General Considerations

· Chapter 4 - Special Environmental Considerations

· Chapter 5 - General Considerations for Zones and Development.

The relevant matters were considered in the foregoing assessment under Orange LEP 2011. The proposal will satisfy the relevant planning outcomes and guidelines contained in DCP 2004.

SHIRALEE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN 2015

Shiralee DCP is applicable to the proposal. The objectives of the DCP are:

· To guide the urban expansion of Shiralee, south of the existing Orange urban area

· To promote a high quality urban environment with a diversity of housing and recreational opportunities

· To encourage alternative modes of transport and healthy lifestyles

· To reduce traffic congestion by providing for the day to day needs of residents within the precinct.

As outlined in the following assessment of relevant controls, the proposed subdivision will reasonably satisfy the objectives of the Shiralee DCP. Part 1.8 Exceptional Circumstances allows some variation to the plan, provided that the proposal meets or exceeds the listed aims and principles. It is accepted that minor variations to the Masterplan will result as development proceeds in the urban village.

2.0 Desired Future Character

2.4 Subdivision

Controls:

· All subdivision applications are to be accompanied by a preliminary investigation to identify any past or present uses that have potential to contaminate the land and a preliminary assessment of any known contamination. If the results are positive, or if Council so directs, the application is to undertake a more detailed investigation.

As outlined in the foregoing sections of this report, preliminary contamination investigation was undertaken in support of the proposed subdivision. The investigation determined that substances detected were below the adopted residential landuse thresholds. Notwithstanding, additional contamination testing is required to validate the proposed change of use to residential. A condition is included on the attached Notice of Approval requiring contamination clearance for the proposed lots prior to issue of a Subdivision Certificate.

· Subdivision is to be consistent generally in accordance with the Masterplan design and intent per the DCP. Legislative requirements and DCP written controls take precedence over the Masterplan.

The Shiralee Masterplan for the development sites is depicted below (refer Figure 9).

Figure 9: Shiralee Masterplan Area F

The proposed subdivision layout in relation to the Masterplan is shown below (refer Figure 10).

Figure 10: proposed subdivision layout in relation to Masterplan layout

The proposed subdivision layout generally accords with the Masterplan in respect of lot size, shape and orientation. The proposal departs from the Masterplan as follows:

· Road D curves to the south in order to provide connection to and practical future subdivision of the adjoining eastern parcel. Land to the immediate east of the subject land has been recently developed for a group home by the NSW Department of Family and Community Services contrary to advice provided by Council.

· Road B is included to provide a north-south link between proposed Roads A and D.

· Road A is wholly located within the proposed subdivision and residential lots adjoin the southern boundary of the development site. As a matter arising, the proposed layout will result in Standard Lots in the proposed subdivision opposing Large Lots and open space lots on the adjoining land to the south. Fencing treatment should provide an appropriate visual and functional transition between densities. A condition is included on the attached Notice of Approval requiring an 88B Instrument to be created on the titles of lots adjacent to the southern boundary requiring rural fencing to be erected and maintained.

· Additional lots are proposed adjacent to the heritage dwelling at the corner of Shiralee Road and Rifle Range Road. As outlined above, the proposed layout in the vicinity of the item is considered to adversely impact on the significance of the heritage item and is not supported at this time.

Council’s Development Engineer advises that ‘the proposed road layout is satisfactory; the variation to the road layout has been discussed between the applicant and Council’s Technical Services.’ The proposed internal roads will not impact on road connections with adjoining lands and are considered to be appropriate.

· Lot sizes are to be consistent with or greater than the adopted minimum lot size for the land under the LEP zoning map.

As outlined in the foregoing sections of this report, the development site is subject to three minimum lot sizes: 200m², 400m² and 700m². The proposed lots comply with the prescribed minimum lot sizes on the LEP Lot Size Map.

· Where an oversized lot is proposed (substantially greater than the adopted minimum lot size), plans are to nominate a building envelope.

Proposed Lots 128 and 163 comprise Standard Lots but exceed the adopted minimum lot size of 850m² (Lot 128 has an area of 992m² and Lot 163 comprises a site area of 1,092m²). Building envelopes for the lots are not nominated on the proposed subdivision plan. A condition is included on the attached Notice of Approval requiring building envelopes to be included on the final plan.

The proposed subdivision incorporates a Large Lot - proposed Lot 197 with an area of 1,831m². This parcel is a development lot which may be the subject of separate application for multi-dwelling housing and community title subdivision. It is considered that a building envelope is not required on the subject development lot.

· Building envelopes on oversized lots are to be positioned in a manner that clearly enables future subdivision of the lot to a pattern consistent with the masterplan layout and adopted minimum lot size for the land.

Refer assessment above.

· Except for corner lots and where indicated otherwise on the Large Lot Classification Table, all residential lots are to have a width to depth ratio of between 1:4 and 1:2.75 with the shorter boundary being the street frontage.

· Residential corner lots are to have greater width with a ratio of between 1:3.25 and 1:2.5 to allow more opportunity for the subsequent dwelling to address both frontages.

A DCP Ratio Compliance Table was submitted in support of the proposal. The table demonstrates that 37% of the proposed lots comply with the ratios prescribed in the DCP. The proponent submits, however, that the proposed lots do not generally match the typical lot dimensions nominated for the particular DCP lot typologies. On this basis, compliance with the prescribed width-to-depth ratios will be more difficult to achieve.

The proposed lots are sited to achieve a north-south or east-west long orientation which will maximise solar design opportunities. Furthermore, the proposed lots will allow appropriate presentation of future dwellings on the lots to public roads. The intent of the width-to-depth ratio is thereby satisfied.

· Roads identified for Bus Routes:

- Intersections where the bus route turns are to be designed to accommodate full size coaches.

- At nominated bus stop locations the road reserve is to be increased by an addition of 0.5m to allow for passenger congregation and future street furniture. The front building setbacks of affected lots may be reduced by 0.25m to help preserve the pattern and rhythm of development.

Council’s Development Engineer advises that the proposed road layout is satisfactory and generally in accordance with the Shiralee DCP.

2.5 Lot Typologies

Controls:

· Lot typologies and minimum sizes are to be consistent with the Masterplan, DCP and LEP zoning maps.

An extract of the Shiralee Structure Plan and Housing Densities Map is shown below (refer Figure 11). The structure plan provides for a mix of Standard, Medium and Compact Lots over the subject land, together with a Mixed Use Village Centre at the corner of Shiralee and Rifle Range Roads.

Figure 11: Shiralee Structure Plan and Housing Densities

The proposed subdivision layout lot typologies in relation to the Structure Plan is depicted below (refer Figure 12).

Figure 12: proposed subdivision layout lot typologies in relation to Masterplan layout

As demonstrated above, the proposed lot typologies accord with the Structure Plan, except for the following departures:

· The layout includes one Large Lot (Lot 197 with an area of 1,831m²) in the south‑eastern corner of the development site. This parcel is a development lot which may be the subject of separate application for multi-dwelling housing and community subdivision. The Large Lot/development lot is considered to be well‑located for future multi-dwelling housing adjacent to Compact Lots to the north and Large Lots and open space to the south and east. The proposed Large Lot satisfies the intent for same prescribed in the DCP, and is considered a reasonable departure from the DCP Masterplan and Structure Plan.

· Residential lots are proposed in the nominated Mixed Use Village Centre at the corner of Shiralee and Rifle Range Roads. As outlined previously, the lot layout is considered to adversely affect the significance of the heritage dwelling on the land, and is contrary to the intended commercial use of this part of the site.

The proposed lot sizes are consistent with the lot ranges prescribed for Standard, Medium and Compact Lots as follows:

Lot Typology	Required Lot Size Range	Proposed Lot Range	Lots in Subdivision
Standard Lots	700-850m²	700-812m²	67
Medium Lots	400-550m²	408-520m²	23
Compact	200-350m²	310-338m²	7
Oversized Lots*			5

*Oversized lots were considered in the foregoing assessment

· Any subdivision which creates more than three lots must not have any oversized lots. Oversized lots are lots that do not fit within the designated categories.

As outlined in the foregoing assessment, proposed Lots 128 and 163 comprise Standard Lots but exceed the adopted minimum lot size of 850m² (Lot 128 has an area of 992m² and Lot 163 comprises a site area of 1,092m²).

The oversized lots are a consequence of the need to vary the proposed internal road layout (Road D) to accommodate road connections to, and future subdivision of the adjoining land to the east, known as 22 Rifle Range Road. This land has been recently developed for a group home by the NSW Department of Family and Community Services. The modified road layout and oversized Lots 128 and 163 will allow for future subdivision of part 22 Rifle Range Road, generally in accordance with the Shiralee DCP and Masterplan. There is no objection to the oversized lots and the departure to the DCP as a consequence. Building envelopes for Lots 128 and 163 will be shown on the final plan, sited to ensure a high standard of residential amenity for the subject and adjoining lots in the subdivision.

· Specific requirements for large lots within the Precinct are to be consistent with Large Lot Classification Diagram and Large Lot Classification Table.

As outlined previously, the proposed subdivision layout includes one Large Lot, which represents a departure from the Shiralee DCP and Masterplan for the development site. As such, the DCP Large Lot Classification Diagram and Table does not contain requirements for this proposal. Proposed Large Lot 197 is a development lot which may be the subject of separate application for multi-dwelling housing and community subdivision. The Large Lot/ development lot is considered well-located for future multi-dwelling housing adjacent to compact lots to the north and public open space to the south and east.

· Where subdivision involves the creation of a lot greater than the maximum for the lot typology, a building envelope is to be established on the title of the new lot [consistent with prescribed dimensions].

As considered in the foregoing assessment, a condition is included on the attached Notice of Approval requiring building envelopes to be shown on proposed oversized Lots 128 and 163, consistent with DCP prescribed dimensions.

· The building envelope is to be positioned consistent with the front and rear setbacks otherwise specified for the lot typology in this DCP.

A condition is included on the attached Notice of Approval requiring the building envelopes on proposed oversized Lots 128 and 163 to be sited consistent with DCP prescribed setbacks for Standard Lot typology.

· All lots must have a direct street frontage to ensure good access and property amenity.

All proposed lots will have direct street frontage and access to an existing or proposed public road.

· Corner lots are to achieve high quality street frontages on the primary and secondary street.

The proposed subdivision layout is considered suitable to achieve high quality street frontage to primary and secondary boundaries.

· All compact, medium and standard lots need to achieve a solar orientation where the long axis of the lot is:

- For north-south oriented lots between 20^o west of north of 30^o east or north, or

- For east-west oriented lots between 20^o north of east or 30^o south of east.

The proposed lots will comply with the requirements for solar orientation.

3.0 Local Infrastructure

3.1 Infrastructure Provisions

Controls:

· Clause 7.11 of Orange LEP 2011 establishes that development is required to be provided with essential services…

· Provision of essential local infrastructure is at the developers cost and in line with the Shiralee Development Contributions Plan

· The design and placement of local infrastructure is to be in accordance with the relevant authorities requirements

· All power lines are to be located underground

As outlined in the foregoing assessment, utility services are available to the land and adequate for the proposed subdivision, subject to extension, augmentation, upgrading and developer contributions. Conditions are included on the attached Notice of Approval to satisfy the requirements of Part 3.1.

3.2 Ground Levels and Excavation

Controls:

· Cut and fill is to be minimised with cut materials used onsite as either fill for buildings or used to even out landforms.

· Any cut is to be supported by a retaining wall or battered at a gradient of less than 1:4, provided that gradient is achievable entirely within the site boundaries.

· The design of any retaining wall greater than 600mm must be accompanied by a statement from an engineer attesting that the design is fit for purpose.

· Excavation for the purposes of development must not exceed a maximum depth measured from ground level (existing) of:

- If located not more than 2m from any boundary:1m

- If located more than 2m from any boundary: 2m

· Notwithstanding the above, excavation must not be more than 1m below ground level (existing) if the land is within 40m of a waterbody (natural)…

· Filling, for the purpose of erecting a dwelling must not exceed 1m above ground level (existing).

· All excavation and/or filling that exceeds 600mm in depth/height must be contained by either:

- A retaining wall or other form of structural support that does not extend more than 1.5m from:

o External walls of the dwelling house,

o Decking connected to the dwelling house, or

o Principal private open space of the dwelling house,

o An unprotected sloping embankment or batter that does not extend from the dwelling house, decking or principal private open space by more than 3m, in which case the toe of the embankment or batter must be more than 1m away from a side or rear boundary.

· To facilitate assessment detailed engineering plans for retaining walls are to be supplied where the wall is intended to retain more than 600mm or more of material.
Note: for this clause “Principal Private Open Space” means courtyard space of up to 30m2 that is located behind the main building alignment and is in close proximity to the living and entertaining spaces of the dwelling house.

Earthworks will be required in conjunction with civil and construction works required to create the proposed lots and new and upgraded roads. The extent of excavation and filling will be determined at engineering design stage. Notwithstanding, it is considered that the required earthworks are unlikely to disrupt or have a detrimental effect on the existing drainage patterns and soil stability of the area, nor detrimentally affect a future use or redevelopment of the land, nor detrimentally affect the amenity of adjoining properties, nor or disturb any relics.

3.3 Public Domain

Controls:

· Land identified for the RE1 Public Recreation Zone is to be dedicated to Council as public open space upon subdivision of the parent lot.

· Compensation for the dedicated land is to be in accordance with the relevant Section 94 Development Contribution Plan.

Proposed open space Lot 204 will be dedicated to Council at registration of the parent parcel, with appropriate compensation consistent with the Shiralee Development Contributions Plan.

· Footpath dining in the Village Centre is encouraged, although access on the footpath must be maintained and consideration must be given to access for the vision impaired and those in wheelchairs.

· Outdoor dining furniture and signage must be approved by Orange City Council and provide a positive visual aesthetic to the streetscape.

The proposed subdivision does not relate to built form within a Village Centre, and the above controls are not applicable.

· Ensure reasonable pedestrian/wheelchair/pram crossing ability is designed into the road and median to ensure access into the heart of the village.

The proposed subdivision does not relate to built form within a Village Centre. Bike paths and footpaths will be provided across the subdivision. Council’s Development Engineer is satisfied with the proposed road layout.

3.4 Staging

Controls:

· The Rifle Range Exclusion Zone may not be subdivided or otherwise developed until the rifle range has been decommissioned…

· The Hawke Dam Lane exclusion zone may not be subdivided or otherwise developed until the dam has been decommissioned…

The development site is not located within the Rifle Range or Hawke Dam Lane exclusion zones.

3.5 Lighting

Controls:

· All lights are to use energy efficient LED luminaries or equivalent…

· Street lighting is to be designed to meet the current Australian Standards AS / NZS 1158 series

· Enhanced levels of lighting are to be installed at major recreation pedestrian / cycle link crossings and at pedestrian crossings

· Street trees and street lights are to be staggered so that footpaths maintain sufficient light levels.

Conditions are included on the attached Notice of Approval to satisfy the above controls relating to lighting across the subdivision.

5.0 Residential Buildings

Part 5 contains provisions for dwellings, including:

· Building form and layout;

· Building typology, design and dwelling mix;

· Solar access;

· Reflectivity;

· Privacy; and

· Universal design.

In order to ensure residential development on the proposed lots consistent with the Shiralee DCP, a condition is included on the attached Notice of Approval requiring registration of an 88B Restriction-as-to-User for each residential lot, requiring development consistent with the Part 5 DCP standards.

7.0 Public Domain

7.1 Passive and Active Recreation Network

Controls:

· Open spaces and streets facing open spaces must be provided according to the Masterplan

The proposed subdivision layout includes an open space lot (Lot 204) to the southeast of the development site, consistent with the Shiralee DCP and Masterplan.

· Where a property adjoins a park or other public space that is not a street or road, any residential development of that property:

- Must provide at least two windows from habitable rooms to face the public space. The windows are to be a minimum 2.5m² in size

- May not place the side or rear walls of sheds and outbuildings any closer than 2.5m from the boundary with the public space

· Properties adjoining a public park or other public space are encouraged to include a pedestrian gate along the boundary.

Proposed Lot 197 will comprise an oversized/development lot and adjoin open space Lot 204. Multi-dwelling housing on Lot 197 will be the subject of separate development application and approval. Compliance with the above controls will be considered at that stage.

7.2 Landscape

Controls:

· Open spaces and streets facing open spaces must be provided according to the Masterplan

· Eco link streets are to have an understory planting layer of native species including shrubs, groundcovers and grasses of maximum mature height of 1.5m with planting plans to be submitted for approval by Council.

· Streets with medians are to have an understory planting layer of species responding to the tree planting within the median, including shrubs, groundcovers and grasses of generally maximum mature height of 1.5m and of 1m within 5m of an intersection.

· Footpath verges within residential areas are to be planted with cool climate turf species, as approved by Council.

· Footpath verges and tree planting zones within the village centre, may be planted with robust groundcover and grass species in keeping with a high quality street environment and as approved by Council.

· A developer shall construct all footpaths, turf all verges and provide all road infrastructure planting prior to sale of building blocks.

· Orange City Council will plant all street trees.

· Maximum verge cross-fall from property boundary to kerb is to be 2%.

· Longitudinal gradient of verge is to match the gradient of the adjacent kerb. Retaining walls are to be provided along property boundaries accordingly.

A landscaping plan was not submitted in support of the proposed subdivision. Conditions are included on the attached Notice of Approval requiring preparation and implementation of a landscaping plan consistent with the requirements of Part 7.2.

7.4 Street Tree Strategy

Controls:

· A minimum of one tree per lot for compact lots, two trees for standard lots and three trees for larger lots, at even spacings along the street.

· Street tree plantings are to be consistent with the Street Tree Strategy Diagram, Species List and Planting Detail and as approved by Council.

· Residential street verges are t be turfed with Council approved species except where Council requires groundcover planting.

A landscaping plan was not submitted in support of the proposed development. Conditions are included on the attached Notice of Approval requiring preparation and implementation of a landscaping plan incorporating street trees consistent with the requirements of Part 7.4.

8.0 Environmental Management

8.3 Stormwater and Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD)

Controls:

· A comprehensive site-wide WSUD strategy is implemented for Shiralee.

· Streets and public spaces incorporate best practice WSUD elements including swales, rain gardens and detention/retention basins.

· WSUD elements are to incorporate native planting.

The proposed subdivision may be designed to comply with the above controls. Conditions are included on the attached Notice of Approval to satisfy the requirements of Part 8.3.

9.0 Movement Networks

9.2 Pedestrian and Bicycle Network and Associated Facilities

Controls:

· A comprehensive site-wide WSUD strategy is implemented for Shiralee.

· A cycle network is to be implemented in accordance with Figure 64. Cycle Network and be designed in accordance with Austroads Standards and RMS Guidelines.

· Footpaths to be provided on both sides of the street consistent with the street sections in Appendix C.

· Safe road crossings (e.g. marked crossings) are to be provided according to 9.4 Street Network Access Controls. Also refer indicative intersection treatments, Figures 75 and 76.

· Universal access to be provided throughout the precinct in accordance to AS.1428.1.

· On-road cycle routes are to be clearly line marked and sign posted.

· Any development that is assessed as requiring an on-site parking area or at least 5 spaces shall also be required to provide bicycle parking.

· Bicycle parking is to be provided at the ratio of 1 bicycle space per 15 car parking spaces (or part thereof).

· All bicycle spaces are to be provided with a fixed rack or other feature to facilitate chain locking the bicycle.

· Bicycle spaces are to be positioned so as to avoid conflict with car and service vehicle circulation.

· Bicycle spaces are to be clearly delineated from other parking areas by means of lane marking and/or signage.

The proposed subdivision may be designed to comply with the above controls. Conditions are included on the attached Notice of Approval to satisfy the requirements of Part 9.2.

9.3 Public Transport Network

Controls:

· Bus routes and stops are to be positioned in accordance with Figure 67 - Bus Network.

· All bus stops must have a shelter that includes: seating with arm rests and lighting.

· Bus shelters are to be positioned on either side of the street at all stops indicated on Figure 67 - Bus Network.

· Pedestrian crossings must be provided within 30m of all stops.

· Continuous accessible paving must be provided from the shelter to pedestrian crossing.21.

Shiralee Road is identified as a primary bus route in the Shiralee DCP and Masterplan. Council’s Development Engineer is satisfied with the proposed road layout. Conditions are included on the attached Notice of Approval in relation to upgrading of Shiralee Road at the frontage of the development site.

9.4 Street Network and Access

Controls:

· Other than where specified in the Masterplan there are to be no cul-de-sacs or no‑thru roads.

· Where new roads are aligned along existing property boundaries the first property to develop is to include stage one of the shared road including any central median reserve.

· All streets indicated on the Masterplan are to be designed and constructed in accordance with the relevant street typology diagram.

· Intersections are to be designed to maximise ease of movement for pedestrians and cyclists and to slow vehicular traffic. Indicative intersection treatments for four way and ‘T’ intersections are shown in Figure 75 and 76. Indicative Intersection Treatments.

· Traffic calming measures will be implemented in suitable locations to reduce vehicle speeds. Traffic calming measures include passive measures such as intersection narrowing, minimising width of road pavements, designation of slow speed streets and use of rumble strips at pedestrian crossing points and intersections.

· The principles of water sensitive urban design are to be incorporated in the road network for any new streets.

· Driveway crossovers are to be a maximum of 3m wide and are not to be constructed within 6m of an intersection. Crossover pavement is to match the adjacent footpath material.

· Garages and carports on corner lots are to be accessed from the longer street frontage and the crossover is to be aligned adjacent to the boundary furthest from the intersection.

· Marked Crossings, Refuge Islands and/or traffic signals are to be provided at street intersections on:

- Collector Streets

- the Southern Feeder Road, and

- Intersections of the ‘off road shared cycle and pedestrian path’.

· Two stage roads:

- On development of the first stage of a two stage road, the design shall include a buffer strip alongside the neighbours existing boundary. This strip is to be created as a Torrens lot and vested with Council to ensure Council can maintain control over access arrangements.

- On development of the second stage of a two stage road, Council will convert the buffer strip from a lot to a road reserve to enable the construction of turning bays as part of the development.

The following comments are provided in consideration of the proposed street network across the subdivision:

- The proposed subdivision road layout does not comprise cul-de-sacs or no-thru roads.

- The proposal does not involve shared roads along property boundaries. All proposed roads will be wholly located within the development site. It is noted that the Shiralee Masterplan aligns proposed Road A along the southern boundary, with road construction required to be shared by the proponent and the adjoining owner to the south. The proposed departure from the DCP is of benefit to the adjoining property owner, with construction of Road A to be the full responsibility of the proponent. The adjoining landowner to the south raised no objection to the proposed road location.

· As discussed above road No Road D curves to the south in order to provide connection to and practical future subdivision of the adjoining eastern parcel. Land to the immediate east of the subject land has been recently developed for a group home by the NSW Department of Family and Community Services contrary to advice provided by Council.

- The proposed internal roads will be designed and constructed consistent with the Shiralee DCP and Masterplan controls. Council’s Development Engineer advises that ‘the proposed road layout is satisfactory and generally in accordance with the Shiralee DCP.’

- Conditions are included on the attached Notice of Approval to satisfy the requirements of Part 9.4.

9.5 Traffic Management

Controls:

· Other than where specified in the Masterplan there are to be no cul-de-sacs or no‑thru roads.

· Key intersections shown on the management plan are to be designed to Council’s requirements.

· Intersections along nominated bus routes are to be designed to accommodate the turning arc of coach buses.

· Marked crossings, refuge islands and/or traffic signals are to be provided at street intersections on: Collector streets, the Southern Feeder Road and intersections of the off road shared cycle and pedestrian path. This will improve pedestrian and bicycle safety.

· All streets except for Collectors and the Southern Feeder Road are to have a maximum 40km per hour speed limit.

· All street kerbs are to be upright not roll kerbs. Broken upright kerbs should be used where required for WSUD function.

As outlined in the foregoing sections of this report, Council’s Development Engineer advises that ‘the proposed road layout is satisfactory and generally in accordance with the Shiralee DCP.’ The variations to the road layout have been discussed above and are supported. Conditions are included on the attached Notice of Approval to satisfy the design requirements of Part 9.5.

SECTION 7.11 - DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS

In accordance with Section 7.11 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Orange Development Contributions Plan 2017 (Shiralee Release Area) a contribution towards the provision of the following public facilities is required:

Open Space and Recreation	@ $2,682.73 x 98 additional lots	262,907.54
Community and Cultural	@ $777.99 x 98 additional lots	76,243.02
Roads and Traffic Management	@ $3,541.12 x 98 additional lots	347,029.76
Local Area Facilities	@ $12,415.64 x 98 additional lots	1,216,732.72
Plan Preparation & Administration	@ $582.52 x 98 additional lots	57,086.96
Subtotal		1,960,000
Less compensation for open space	@$30 x 4617.5m2	-138,525
TOTAL		$1,821,475

Compensation for proposed open space has been provided for in the above calculations. The contribution will be indexed quarterly in accordance with the Orange Development Contributions Plan 2017 (Shiralee Release Area). A condition is included on the attached Notice of Approval requiring payment of the contributions prior to issue of a Subdivision Certificate.

SECTION 64 (LOCAL GOVERNMENTT ACT) - WATER AND SEWER HEADWORKS CHARGES

Section 64 water and sewer headworks charges are also applicable to the proposal. Such charges are calculated at the time of release of a Subdivision Certificate for the development. Conditions are included on the attached Notice of Approval to this effect.

PROVISIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE REGULATIONS s4.15(1)(a)(iv)

Demolition of a Building (clause 92)

The proposal involves demolition of existing dwellings and outbuildings over the site. Conditions are included on the attached Notice of Approval requiring demolition consistent with applicable standards, and appropriate waste management.

Fire Safety Considerations (clause 93)

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

Council’s Environmental Health and Building Inspector has included a condition on the attached Notice of Approval requiring that remaining buildings within the proposed lots satisfy the Building Code of Australia in relation to distances of walls from boundaries.

Buildings to be Upgraded (clause 94)

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

BASIX Commitments (clause 97A)

BASIX is not applicable to the proposed subdivision.

THE LIKELY IMPACTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT s4.15(1)(b)

The likely impacts of the development have been considered in the foregoing assessment under Orange LEP 2011, Orange DCP 2004 and Shiralee DCP 2015. The assessment demonstrates that while the proposed subdivision departs somewhat from the specific development controls of the Shiralee DCP, it is generally in accordance with the intent of the document. It is considered that the likely impacts of the proposed development are acceptable and can be adequately managed via conditions of consent in the attached Notice of Approval.

THE SUITABILITY OF THE SITE s4.15(1)(c)

The foregoing assessment demonstrates that the subject land is suitable for the proposed development:

· The development site is contained within the developing Shiralee urban village.

· The proposed subdivision is a permitted landuse in the zones.

· The proposed lots are of appropriate area and dimensions for future residential development, consistent with the Shiralee DCP and Masterplan (subject to further DA).

· All utility services are available and adequate subject to augmentation, extension and upgrading.

· The local road network is suitable subject to upgrading of existing roads and new roads.

· The land is not subject to known natural hazards.

· The contamination status of the land is below adopted residential landuse thresholds.

· The site has no particular environmental values.

· The European and indigenous values of the land will not be impacted.

ANY SUBMISSIONS MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACT s4.15(1)(d)

The proposed development does not comprise advertised development pursuant to DCP 2004-5.3. Notwithstanding, public notice and exhibition of the application was undertaken as the proposal is considered to be of interest to the community. At the completion of the exhibition period (29 June – 13 July 2018), three submissions had been received. The issues raised in the submissions are outlined below.

Submission from NSW Department of Industry - Crown Lands and Water Division

The Department raised no objection to the proposed development, subject to the following:

· Development drainage, overflow or contaminated waste shall not negatively impact on Crown Land.

· Materials shall not be dumped or stored on Crown land.

· Pollution control measures be provided for the duration of the works; the control measures shall not be located on Crown land.

· The works shall not contribute to the spread of noxious weeds.

· Soil and erosion controls shall be installed.

· The Department shall be advised of sedimentation events that flow onto Crown land.

· The consent of the Crown will be required for the installation of infrastructure required for the subdivision on Crown land, and appropriate easements negotiated.

Conditions are included on the attached Notice of Approval to address the concerns of the Department of Industry. It is noted that the submission from Crown Land was made as landowner of adjoining property. Crown Land concurrence is not required for the proposed development.

In relation to the last dot point, the proponent has advised that favourable negotiations are underway with NSW Department of Industry – Crown Lands and Water Division in relation to the required sewer easement through adjoining Crown land to service the proposed subdivision.

Submission from Wellington Valley Wiradjuri Aboriginal Corporation (WVWAC)

The submission from WVWAC expressed: ‘severe concerns and objections’ to the proposed development. It is submitted that: ‘the development area… has multiple Registered Aboriginal sites within it including “The Springs” and the “Rifle Range” which is some of the area used to originally relocate Aboriginal People from all over as a Resettlement Site…’ The submission requested that further investigation be undertaken to identify archaeological deposits over the site.

The Springs and Rifle Range are located nearby to the development site, but are not located on the site. An Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System (AHIMS) search was undertaken over the development site. The search identified that no Aboriginal sites or places are recorded or have been declared on or near the subject land. On this basis, the site is not known to have particular Aboriginal cultural heritage. A condition is included on the attached Notice of Approval requiring works to cease and investigation be undertaken should objects or relics be identified during construction.

Submission from Mr Peter Sharkey, 55 Rifle Range Road

The submission from Mr Sharkey expressed concerns in relation to construction activities being undertaken on Sundays, and the impacts of the proposal on groundwater.

A condition is included on the attached Notice of Approval limiting construction work to Monday to Saturday (inclusive) during daytime hours. As outlined in this report, the proposal will be connected to reticulated sewer and stormwater and will not adversely impact on groundwater resources.

PUBLIC INTEREST s4.15(1)(e)

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 Orange LEP 2011 (as amended), DCP 2004 and Shiralee DCP 2015. A section 4.15 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, D18/44440 ⇩

2 Plans, IC18/11229 ⇩

3 Submissions, D18/43973 ⇩

Planning and Development Committee 4 September 2018

2.5 Development Application DA 206/2018(1) - 124, 136 and 148 Shiralee Road

Attachment 1 Notice of Approval

ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

Development Application No DA 206/2018(1)

NA18/ Container PR12746

NOTICE OF DETERMINATION

OF A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

issued under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Section 4.18

Development Application
Applicant Name:	Landorange Partnership
Applicant Address:	1 Borrodell Drive ORANGE NSW 2800
Owner’s Name:	Mr RS and Mrs NR Burns, Fenlor Group Limited & Charms Development Pty Ltd and Mr KR and Mrs JA Kramer
Land to Be Developed:	Lots 92, 93 and 95 DP 750401 – 124, 136 and 148 Shiralee Road, Orange
Proposed Development:	Subdivision (102 lots - comprising 101 residential lots and 1 open space lot) and Demolition (dwellings x two and outbuildings)

Building Code of Australia building classification:	Not applicable

Determination made under Section 4.16
Made On:	4 September 2018
Determination:	CONSENT GRANTED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS DESCRIBED BELOW:

Consent to Operate From:	5 September 2018
Consent to Lapse On:	5 September 2023

Terms of Approval

The reasons for the imposition of conditions are:

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

(2) To maintain neighbourhood amenity and character.

(3) To ensure compliance with relevant statutory requirements.

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

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

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

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

Conditions

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

(a) Plan/s numbered Drawings by Health Consulting Engineers - Job No 18_022 – Drawing Nos: 18022-DA04 (Rev A), 18022-DA04A (Rev A), 18022-DA05 (Rev A), 18022‑DA05A (Rev A), 18022-DA06 (Rev A) (5 sheets)

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

as amended in accordance with any conditions of this consent.

(2) Development consent is not granted for proposed Lots 102 and 103. Further subdivision in the vicinity of the listed Heritage Item shall be subject to separate development consent and heritage impact assessment.

PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

(5) A detailed landscaping plan shall be submitted for approval of Council’s Manager Development Assessments prior to issue of a Construction Certificate. The landscaping plan shall be consistent with Part 7.2 Landscape and Part 7.4 Street Tree Strategy of Shiralee Development Control Plan 2015.

(6) The street lighting system shall comprise LED lighting and be consistent with Part 3.5 Lighting of Shiralee Development Control Plan 2015. Details of the street lighting system shall be submitted for approval prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

(7) The applicant is to submit a waste management plan that describes the nature of wastes to be removed, the wastes to be recycled and the destination of all wastes. All wastes from the demolition and construction phases of this project are to be deposited at a licensed or approved waste disposal site.

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

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

(10) Proposed lots are to be provided with interlot stormwater drainage, including those lots abutting public land, where the surface of the entire lot cannot be drained to the kerb and gutter at the lot frontage. A grated concrete stormwater pit is to be constructed within each lot provided with interlot stormwater drainage. Engineering plans for this drainage system are to be approved by Orange City Council or an Accredited Certifier (Categories B1, C3, C4, C6) prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate.

(11) Stormwater from the site is to be piped to the location of the future stormwater detention basin, where it is to be discharged through a standard headwall with appropriate scour protection and at a level to suit the future basin. Engineering plans of this required drainage system are to be approved by Orange City Council or by an Accredited Certifier (Categories B1, C3, C4, C6) and a licence from the Department of Planning Infrastructure and Natural Resources for any work within 40 metres of a watercourse is to be submitted prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate.

(12) A minimum 150mm-diameter sewer main is to be constructed from Council’s existing main to serve the proposed lots. Prior to a Construction Certificate being issued engineering plans for this sewerage system are to be submitted to and approved by Orange City Council.

(13) A water reticulation analysis is to be carried out by Orange City Council on any proposed water reticulation system for the development. Engineering plans are to be submitted to and approved by Orange City Council prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

The reticulation system is to be designed to supply a peak instantaneous demand by gravity of 0.15 L/s/tenement at a minimum residual head of 200kPa.

(14) Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate evidence of the registration of any required easements and rights of way over adjoining properties for the provision of services and access shall be provided to the Principal Certifier.

PRIOR TO WORKS COMMENCING

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

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

DURING CONSTRUCTION/SITEWORKS

(17) If Aboriginal objects, relics, or other historical items or the like are located during development works, all works in the area of the identified object, relic or item shall cease, and the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH), and representatives from the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council shall be notified. Where required, further archaeological investigation shall be undertaken. Development works in the area of the find(s) may recommence if and when outlined by the management strategy, developed in consultation with and approved by the OEH.

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

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

(20) Asbestos containing building materials must be removed in accordance with the provisions of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 and any guidelines or Codes of Practice published by Safe Work NSW, and disposed of at a licenced landfill in accordance with the requirements of the NSW EPA.

(21) Building demolition is to be carried out in accordance with Australian Standard 2601:2001 - The Demolition of Structures and the requirements of Safe Work NSW.

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

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

(24) Rifle Range Road shall be constructed as half road width for the full frontage of the proposed development as part of stage 4. This work shall include road pavement and pavement surfacing to the centreline, kerb and gutter construction and earth-formed footpath on the development side of the road. Boxing out and pavement construction of the roadway on the opposite side of the development shall also be carried out. The 7.2m verge on Rifle Range Road shall be constructed on the development side of the road in accordance with Council drawing TP00040 (as amended).

Shiralee Road shall be constructed as part road width for the full frontage of the proposed development. This work shall include an earth-formed footpath on the development side of the road to suit the future road levels. Works are to be generally in accordance with Council drawing R00446 (as amended). Individual properties shall be provided with temporary bitumen sealed gravel driveways to suit the future road levels should Shiralee Road construction be delayed. Shiralee Road shall be constructed to Rifle Range Road as part of stage 4.

Roads A, B, C and D shall be constructed as a 19.0m Local Street 2, and Road A shall be constructed as a 15.5m Park Edge Street where it adjoins Lot 204. Roads A and D construction shall include paved thresholds at the intersections with Shiralee Road. All roads shall be constructed full width and designed in accordance with Council drawing TP00040 (as amended).

(25) A heavy-duty concrete kerb and gutter layback and footpath crossing is to be constructed for the existing dwelling on proposed Lot 101 as part of stage 4. The driveway is to be shown on the plan submitted with the Construction Certificate application. The works are to be carried out to the requirements of the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code.

(26) Concrete pathways are to be constructed to the widths and standards stated in the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code, the Shiralee DCP and Council drawing TP00040 (as amended).

(27) All proposed residential lots adjacent to overland stormwater flow paths shall have a minimum freeboard above the 1-in-100-year flood level in accordance with the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code and the Floodplain Risk Management Plan.

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

(29) Water and sewer services, including mains construction, pumping station construction, easements and all associated materials and works, are to be provided for the development at the full cost of the developer.

(31) A temporary gravel turning circle shall be provided at the termination of each stage of the subdivision.

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A SUBDIVISION CERTIFICATE

(32) In accordance with Section 7.11 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Orange Development Contributions Plan 2017 (Shiralee Release Area) a contribution towards the provision of the following public facilities is required:

Open Space and Recreation	@ $2,682.73 x 98 additional lots	262,907.54
Community and Cultural	@ $777.99 x 98 additional lots	76,243.02
Roads and Traffic Management	@ $3,541.12 x 98 additional lots	347,029.76
Local Area Facilities	@ $12,415.64 x 98 additional lots	1,216,732.72
Plan Preparation & Administration	@ $582.52 x 98 additional lots	57,086.96
Subtotal		1,960,000
Less compensation for open space	@$30 x 4617.5m²	-138,525
TOTAL		$1,821,475

The contribution will be indexed quarterly in accordance with the Orange Development Contributions Plan 2017 (Shiralee Release Area).

(33) Soil sampling for analysing chemical residue is to be carried out within the proposed Lots in a manner and frequency as determined by an appropriately qualified and experienced consultant giving consideration to previous specific uses and on-site characteristics of the site. A NATA registered laboratory is to carry out such testing. Reference is to be made to the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 and State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 - “Remediation of Land”. The results of the testing are to be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and are to demonstrate that the land is suitable for residential use, to enable a Subdivision Certificate to be issued.

(34) The applicant shall erect rural style fencing, consistent with the Rural Fencing Guidelines, as described in Part 6.5 of Orange Development Control Plan 2004 along the rear boundary of Lots 185-196 (inclusive). A Restriction-as-to-User under section 88B of the Conveyancing Act 1919 shall be registered on the titles of proposed Lots 185-196 (inclusive) adjacent to the southern boundary of the development site, specifying that the rural style fencing may only be replaced with same, consistent with the Rural Fencing Guidelines, as described in Part 6.5 of Orange Development Control Plan 2004.

(35) A Restriction-as-to-User under Section 88B of the NSW Conveyancing Act 1919 shall applied to each of the approved lots for all stages of the development to reflect the requirements of the Shiralee Masterplan as it relates to building setbacks and garage presentation of future buildings. Building setbacks for future development of the approved lots shall comply to the requirements of the Shiralee DCP (Appendix B) for Lot typology that is applicable to that lot. Garages may not occupy more than 50% of the building frontages. The terms of this restriction are to be submitted to the Manager Development Assessments for approval prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate.

(36) The maximum site coverage ratios allowed for each type of lot under the Shiralee Masterplan are:

· 60% for compact lots

· 45% for medium lots

· 35% for standard lots

A Restriction-as-to-User under Section 88B of the NSW Conveyancing Act 1919 consistent with the above shall be applied to each of the approved lots for all stages of the development to reflect these requirements of the Shiralee Masterplan.

(37) Building envelopes shall be shown on the final subdivision plan for proposed Lots 128 and 163. The envelopes shall be sited consistent with the prescribed setbacks for Standard Lot typology in the Shiralee Development Control Plan 2015.

(38) Landscaping shall be completed in accordance with the approved landscape plan and maintained in good condition delivered as such prior to release of the Subdivision Certificate. Thereafter, landscaping is required to be maintained in good order during the construction period for buildings at all times by the future landowners and their builders.

(39) Prior to the issuing of the Subdivision Certificate, a Surveyor’s Certificate or written statement is to be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority, stating that any remaining buildings within the boundaries of the proposed lots comply with the Building Code of Australia in respect to the distances of walls from boundaries.

(40) Application shall be made for a Subdivision Certificate under Section 6.3(1)(d) of the Act.

(41) Payment of contributions for water, sewer and drainage works is required to be made at the contribution rate applicable at the time that the payment is made. The contributions are based on 101 ETs for water supply headworks and 101 ETs for sewerage headworks in light of the requirements of Condition 2 of this consent. A Certificate of Compliance, from Orange City Council in accordance with the Water Management Act 2000, will be issued upon payment of the contributions.

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

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

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

(47) A Maintenance Security Deposit, in accordance with the provisions and requirements of the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code, is to be provided to Orange City Council prior to the issuing of a Subdivision Certificate.

(48) The existing dwelling on proposed Lot 101 shall be connected to the sewer prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate for stage 3.

The contents of the existing septic tanks on Lot 92 DP 750401, Lot 93 DP 750401 and Lot 95 DP 750401 are to be removed by a licensed contractor for disposal into Council’s sewer system. The septic tanks shall be excavated and disposed of at a licensed landfill and the absorption trench is to be drained and the voids limed and backfilled with clean compacted material.

Evidence of such work is to be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issuing of a Subdivision Certificate for stage 1 (Lots 93 and 95), and stage 3 (Lot 92).

(49) Where stormwater crosses land outside the lot it favours, an easement to drain water is to be created over the works. A Restriction-as-to-User under section 88B of the NSW Conveyancing Act 1919 is to be created on the title of the burdened Lot requiring that no structures are to be placed on the site, or landscaping or site works carried out on the site, in a manner that affects the continued operation of the interlot drainage system. The minimum width of the easement is to be as required in the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code.

(50) Prior to the issuing of a Subdivision Certificate, a Road Naming Application form is to be completed and submitted with a plan of the whole development defining the stage being released - including future road extensions.

(51) Certification from Orange City Council is required to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate stating that all works relating to connection of the development to Council assets, works on public land, works on public roads, stormwater, sewer and water reticulation mains and footpaths have been carried out in accordance with the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code and the foregoing conditions, and that Council will take ownership of the infrastructure assets.

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

Other Approvals

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

Nil

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

Nil

Right of Appeal

*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 of the Conveyancing Act 1919* - 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:	PAUL JOHNSTON - MANAGER DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENTS
Date:	5 September 2018

Reference:	DA 18/2015(2)	Determination Date	25 July 2018
PR Number	PR11551
Applicant/s:	Mr N Baig
Owner/s:	Ali Husain Pty Limited
Location:	Lot 12 DP 582844 – 302-304 Summer Street, Orange
Proposal:	Modification of development consent – food and drink premises (fitout and internal stairs). The modification alters Condition (19) of the current consent to allow trading to 3am on Friday mornings through to Sunday mornings inclusive. Council has previously modified the consent to allow trading to 3am on a temporary basis and that temporary period has now lapsed.
Value:	$50,000 (being the same value as the original development)

Reference:	DA 196/2018(1)	Determination Date	14 August 2018
PR Number	PR28002
Applicant/s:	Contemporary Homes Pty Ltd
Owner/s:	Divlist Pty Limited and Mikell Investments Pty Ltd
Location:	Lot 106 DP 1240393 – 16 Jasper Street, Orange
Proposal:	Dual occupancy and subdivision (two lot residential)
Value:	$440,000

Reference:	DA 201/2018(1)	Determination Date	13 August 2018
PR Number	PR21524
Applicant/s:	Catholic Healthcare Limited
Owner/s:	Catholic Healthcare Limited
Location:	Lot 11 DP 1101831 – 85-89 Clinton Street, Orange
Proposal:	Community facility (change of use)
Value:	$13,000

Reference:	DA 215/2018(1)	Determination Date	3 August 2018
PR Number	PR18416
Applicant/s:	Newlyn Canobolas Pty Ltd
Owner/s:	Newlyn Canobolas Pty Ltd
Location:	Lot 101 DP 1037341 – 60 Lords Place, Orange
Proposal:	General industry (additions to existing industrial building)
Value:	$20,000