Planning and Development Committee

 

Agenda

 

7 November 2018

 

 

Notice is hereby given, in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993 that a Planning and Development Committee meeting of ORANGE CITY COUNCIL will be held in the Council Chamber, Civic Centre, Byng Street, Orange on Wednesday, 7 November 2018.

 

 

Garry Styles

General Manager

 

For apologies please contact Administration on 6393 8218.

    

 


Planning and Development Committee                                          7 November 2018

Agenda

  

1                Introduction.. 3

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

2                General Reports. 5

2.1            Items Approved Under the Delegated Authority of Council 5

2.2            Development Application DA 405/2017(2) - 241 Ploughmans Lane. 11

2.3            Development Application DA 33/2018(1) - 4613 Mitchell Highway, Lucknow.. 45

2.4            Development Application DA 335/2018(1) - 185-193 Bathurst Road. 139

 


Planning and Development Committee                                          7 November 2018

 

1       Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendation

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

 


Planning and Development Committee                                          7 November 2018

 

 

2       General Reports

2.1     Items Approved Under the Delegated Authority of Council

RECORD NUMBER:       2018/2445

AUTHOR:                       Paul Johnston, Manager Development Assessments    

 

 

EXECUTIVE Summary

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

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan strategy “7.1 Preserve - Engage with the community to develop plans for growth and development that value the local environment”.

Financial Implications

Nil

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

 

Recommendation

That Council resolves to acknowledge the information provided in the report by the Manager Development Assessments on Items Approved Under the Delegated Authority of Council.

 

further considerations

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

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

 

Reference:

DA 113/2007(3)

Determination Date

5 October 2018

PR Number

PR6918

Applicant/s:

Kelly’s Rugby Hotel

Owner/s:

Rugby Properties Pty Limited

Location:

Lot 50 DP 817766 – 133 Lords Place, Orange

Proposal:

Modification of development consent - hotel (alterations and additions to existing hotel). The modification seeks to regularise the installation of windows/enclosure of part of the first floor verandah of the pub.

Value:

$280,000 (being the same value as the original development)

 

 

 

Reference:

DA 274/2014(2)

Determination Date

27 September 2018

PR Number

PR22640

Applicant/s:

Fawcett Ridge Pty Ltd

Owner/s:

Fawcett Ridge Pty Limited

Location:

Lot 502 DP 1122616 – 30-44 Edward Street

Proposal:

Modification of development consent – recreation facility (indoor) and business identification sign. The modification seeks to reduce the number of onsite car parking spaces required from 82 to 63.

Value:

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

 

Reference:

DA 148/2017(2)

Determination Date

9 October 2018

PR Number

PR25975

Applicant/s:

 

Owner/s:

Mrs WL Finlay

Location:

Lot 103 DP 1180866 – 5 Trappit Place, Orange

Proposal:

Modification of development consent – wholesale supplies

Value:

$680,000 (being the same value as the original development)

 

Reference:

DA 247/2017(2)

Determination Date

5 October 2018

PR Number

PR13530

Applicant/s:

Allied Group Pty Ltd

Owner/s:

Mr C Tseris

Location:

Lots 30 and 31 DP 246174, and Lot 33 DP 1055815 – Tarawell Crescent and Margaret Road, Orange

Proposal:

Modification of development consent – subdivision (30 lot residential). The modification involves increasing the lot yield by one, to 30 lots. The current approved development comprises 29 lots.

Value:

$0 (being the same value as the original development)

 

Reference:

DA 74/2018(2)

Determination Date

24 September 2018

PR Number

PR27835

Applicant/s:

Designs@m

Owner/s:

Mr RI and Mrs SE Kirkby

Location:

Lot 524 DP 1233683 – 29 Buckland Drive, Orange

Proposal:

Modification of development consent - dual occupancy and subdivision (two lot residential). The modification involves alterations to openings for the front (south) façade of Dwelling 1, with frontage to Young Street.

Value:

$420,000 (being the same value as the original development)

 


 

 

Reference:

DA 132/2018(2)

Determination Date

3 October 2018

PR Number

PR7466

Applicant/s:

Mrs PL McDonell

Owner/s:

Mrs PL McDonell

Location:

Lot 1 DP 150197 – 107 March Street, Orange

Proposal:

Modification of development consent - dwelling alterations and additions and demolition (garage and tree removal). The modification involves deleting a condition relating to window frame materials, deleting a condition requiring a dilapidation report of the adjoining property, and amending the approved exterior material of both the existing cottage and the extension from painted brickwork to face brick.

Value:

$475,000 (being the same value as the original development)

 

Reference:

DA 184/2018(1)

Determination Date

20 September 2018

PR Number

PR11480

Applicant/s:

MCHP Architects Pty Ltd

Owner/s:

Trustees Roman Catholic Church

Location:

Lot 2 DP 518890, Lot 2 DP 71369, Lot 11 DP 1136660 and Lot 1 DP 909617 – 87-91 Summer Street, Orange

Proposal:

Service station (removal of existing underground tanks and dispensers, installation of new underground tanks and dispensers, and façade upgrade), category 1 remediation and business identification signage

Value:

$900,000

 

Reference:

DA 200/2018(1)

Determination Date

26 September 2018

PR Number

PR11392

Applicant/s:

Uniplan Group Pty Ltd

Owner/s:

Mr GJ Griffith and Ms SH Chrystall

Location:

Lots 238 and 239 DP 750387 – 285 Orchard Road, Springside

Proposal:

Secondary dwelling

Value:

$207,000

 

Reference:

DA 207/2018(1)

Determination Date

3 October 2018

PR Number

PR3554

Applicant/s:

PCR Building Services

Owner/s:

Ecclesall Pty Ltd

Location:

Lot 1 DP 783183 – 31 Dora Street, Orange

Proposal:

Dwelling (reconstruction of ornate parapet) and heritage interpretation signage

Value:

$39,000

 


 

 

Reference:

DA 222/2018(1)

Determination Date

17 October 2018

PR Number

PR2991

Applicant/s:

Azor Industries

Owner/s:

Azor Industries Pty Limited

Location:

Lot 78 DP 792268 – 3 Corporation Place, Orange

Proposal:

Industrial (additions and alterations)(new storage shed)

Value:

$165,000

 

Reference:

DA 260/2018(1)

Determination Date

15 October 2018

PR Number

PR18576

Applicant/s:

Future Build CPD

Owner/s:

Mr GW and Mrs SA Delaney

Location:

Lot 200 DP 1042614 – 583 Huntley Road, Huntley

Proposal:

Dual occupancy (attached)(alterations and additions to existing dwelling and additional dwelling)

Value:

$474,650

 

Reference:

DA 267/2018(1)

Determination Date

3 October 2018

PR Number

PR11573

Applicant/s:

Commonwealth Bank of Australia

Owner/s:

Numite Pty Limited

Location:

Lot 1 DP 708311 – 244-246 Summer Street, Orange

Proposal:

Office premises (alterations and additions)

Value:

$17,500

 

Reference:

DA 269/2018(1)

Determination Date

19 October 2018

PR Number

PR27945

Applicant/s:

Mr IY Zhang

Owner/s:

Mrs JM Zhang

Location:

Lot 2071 DP 1245489 – 27 William Maker Drive and 1 Stevenson Way, Orange

Proposal:

Multi dwelling housing (four dwellings) and subdivision (four lot Torrens)

Value:

$500,000

 

Reference:

DA 279/2018(1)

Determination Date

28 September 2018

PR Number

PR27954

Applicant/s:

Mr D Bouffler

Owner/s:

Mr DW Bouffler

Location:

Lot 216 DP 1238394 – 17 Stevenson Way, Orange

Proposal:

Dwelling house, subdivision (two lot residential) and dwelling house

Value:

$440,000

 


 

 

Reference:

DA 299/2018(1)

Determination Date

27 September 2018

PR Number

PR22640

Applicant/s:

Fawcett Ridge Pty Ltd

Owner/s:

Fawcett Ridge Pty Limited

Location:

Lot 502 DP 1122616 – 30-44 Edward Street, Orange

Proposal:

Change of use from vehicle sales or hire premises to depot

Value:

$0

 

Reference:

DA 314/2018(1)

Determination Date

17 October 2018

PR Number

PR25500

Applicant/s:

Mr B and Mrs LA Parianos

Owner/s:

Mr BA and Mrs LA Parianos

Location:

Lot 161 DP 1168341 – 135-137 Kite Street, Orange

Proposal:

Commercial premises (alterations and additions)

Value:

$110,000

 

Reference:

DA 324/2018(1)

Determination Date

21 September 2018

PR Number

PR6234

Applicant/s:

Source Architects Pty Ltd

Owner/s:

Petrinovic Family Pty Limited

Location:

Lot 1 Sec 46 DP 758817 – 1-7/122-124 Kite Street, Orange

Proposal:

Partial change of use from public administration building to office premises

Value:

$50,000

 

Reference:

DA 328/2018(1)

Determination Date

19 October 2018

PR Number

PR772

Applicant/s:

i2C Architects

Owner/s:

NNG Pty Limited

Location:

Lot 1 DP 606873 – 226 Anson Street, Orange

Proposal:

Shop (alterations and additions to create basement storage)

Value:

$250,000

 

TOTAL NET* VALUE OF ALL DEVELOPMENTS APPROVED IN THIS PERIOD:     $3,153,150.00

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

 

  


Planning and Development Committee                                          7 November 2018

 

 

2.2     Development Application DA 405/2017(2) - 241 Ploughmans Lane.

RECORD NUMBER:       2018/2720

AUTHOR:                       Summer Commins, Senior Planner    

 

 

EXECUTIVE Summary

Application lodged

15 August 2018

Applicant/s

Orange Evangelical Church Incorporated

Owner/s

Orange Evangelical Church Incorporated

Land description

Lot 9 DP 746439 - 241 Ploughmans Lane, Orange

Proposed land use

Place of Public Worship and Business Identification Sign

Value of proposed development

$3,000,000

Council's consent is sought to modify development consent DA 405/2017(1) for proposed place of public worship and business identification sign at Lot 9 DP 746439 – 241 Ploughmans Lane, Orange (refer locality below).

Figure 1 - locality plan

The original development was approved by the Planning and Development Committee at its meeting on 1 May 2018.


 

The approved development involves:

·    new site access via the road reserve to the west of the site, including intersection construction at Cargo Road and new public road;

·    construction of a purpose-built church building with floor area of 967m²;

·    construction of two (2) onsite car parks containing 112 spaces;

·    conversion of the existing dwelling house to ancillary church offices;

·    infilling of dams over the site; and

·    operating hours of 8am to 7pm Monday to Thursday, 8am to 10pm Friday and Saturday, and 9am to 7pm Sunday.

The approved site plan and building design are depicted below.

Figure 2 – approved site layout

Figure 3 – approved church building (east elevation)


 

Modification of the approved development is now proposed. The modified proposal seeks to amend conditions of consent to enable:

-    construction approval for offsite roadworks to be obtained separate to construction approval for the church building (various conditions);

-    ancillary office use of the existing dwelling prior to use and occupation of the place of worship (Condition 42);

-    operating hours of 7am to 10pm Sunday, and 8am to 10pm Monday to Saturday (Condition 50); and

-    clarification of the requirements associated with the acoustic assessment, acoustic commissioning report and operational noise emissions (various conditions).

The proposal comprises advertised development. At the completion of the public notice and exhibition period, one (1) submission was received. The issues raised in the submission relate to amenity impacts associated with interim office use and extended hours of operation.

A Section 4.15 assessment of the proposal indicates that the modified development is partly acceptable. No objection is raised to separate construction of road works, extension to hours of operation, and clarification on operational acoustic requirements. Proposed interim office-use is not permitted on the subject land zoning and is not supported.

An amended Notice of Approval is attached. The applicant has proposed amended wording to various conditions. Council officers have revised the conditions where appropriate to satisfy the intent of the proposed modification where supported.

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 COMMENT

This modification involves changes to approved hours, some engineering requirements and the requested use of the dwelling for an office. Staff have brokered a compromise in relation to hours of operation that is consistent with Council’s position on other places of worship in residential areas. Engineering conditions are supported. The use of the dwelling as an office is not permissible under OLEP 2011.

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 resolves to issue modified development consent DA 405/2017(1) for Place of Public Worship and Business Identification Sign at Lot 9 DP 746439 - 241 Ploughmans 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 PROPOSAL

The modified proposal seeks to amend conditions of consent to enable:

-    construction approval for offsite roadworks to be obtained separate to construction approval for the church building (various conditions);

-    ancillary office use of the existing dwelling prior to use and occupation of the place of worship (Condition 42);

-    operating hours of 7am to 10pm Sunday, and 8am to 10pm Monday to Saturday (Condition 50); and

-    clarification of the requirements associated with the acoustic assessment, acoustic commissioning report and operational noise emissions (various conditions).

The proponent for the modified development has requested specific wording for revised and additional conditions (refer Appendix B in the attached supporting information).

MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Section 4.55(2) Modification of Consents- Generally

Pursuant to this section:

(2)     A consent authority may, on application being made by the applicant or any other person entitled to act on a consent granted by the consent authority and subject to and in accordance with the regulations, 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.

(3)     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 consent authority must also take into consideration the reasons given by the consent authority for the grant of the consent that is sought to be modified.


 

In consideration of the requirements of Sections 4.55(2) and (3):

·    The development as modified is substantially the same as the development for which the consent was originally granted.

·    The development as modified does not effect a condition imposed as a requirement of concurrence by a Minister, public authority or approval body.

·    The modified development comprises advertised development pursuant to Clause 119 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000. Public notice and exhibition of the modified development was undertaken.

·    One (1) submission was received in response to public notice and exhibition of the modified development. The issues raised in the submission are outlined in the following sections of this report.

·    The relevant matters under Section 4.5(1) are addressed in the following sections of this report.

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

Pursuant to this section:

This Act has effect subject to the provisions of Part 7 of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 and Part 7A of the Fisheries Management Act 1994 that relate to the operation of this Act in connection with the terrestrial and aquatic environment

In consideration of this section, the proposed modified development does not alter the previous assessment.

PROVISIONS OF ANY ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENT s4.15(1)(a)(i)

Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011

The original development was assessed pursuant to Orange LEP 2011. The subject land is identified on the LEP maps as follows:

Land Zoning Map:

Land zoned R2 Low Density Residential

Lot Size Map:

Minimum lot size 850m2 – 2000m2

Heritage Map:

Not a heritage item or conservation area

Height of Buildings Map:

No building height limit

Floor Space Ratio Map:

No floor space limit

Terrestrial Biodiversity Map:

No biodiversity sensitivity on the site

Groundwater Vulnerability Map:

Groundwater vulnerable

Drinking Water Catchment Map:

Not within the drinking water catchment

Watercourse Map:

Land contains a defined watercourse (Ploughmans Creek)

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:

Land within a flood planning area (adjacent to watercourse)


 

The proposed modified development does not alter the previous assessment under that Plan.

State Environmental Planning Policy 55 - Remediation of Land

SEPP 55 was applicable to the original development. The modified development does not alter the previous assessment under the SEPP.

State Environmental Planning Policy 64 – Advertising and Signage

SEPP 64 was applicable to the original development. The modified proposal does not relate to approved signage, nor alter the previous assessment under the SEPP.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

The ISEPP was applicable to the original development (Division 17 Roads and Traffic). The modified proposal does not alter the previous assessment under the SEPP.

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 modified development.

DESIGNATED DEVELOPMENT

The modified development is not designated development.

INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT

The original development comprised Integrated Development pursuant to Section 4.46 of the EPAA 1979.

A Controlled Activity approval was granted by DPI Water (under Section 91 of the Water Management Act 2000) for works adjacent to Ploughmans Creek. The modified development does not relate to works relating to the Controlled Activity approval.

RMS concurrence was required and granted for intersection works on Cargo Road (under Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993). The modified development partly relates to separate offsite road construction, but will not alter intersection works contained in the original approval.

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

Development Control Plan 2004

The original development was assessed pursuant to the following chapters in DCP 2004:

·    Chapter 0 - Transitional Provisions

·    Chapter 2 - Natural Resource Management

·    Chapter 3 - General Considerations

·    Chapter 4 - Special Environmental Considerations


 

·    Chapter 5 - General Considerations for Zones and Development

·    Chapter 7 - Development in Residential Areas

·    Chapter 14 - Advertising

·    Chapter 15 - Car parking.

The proposed modified development remains generally consistent with the previous assessment under the DCP.

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

The modified development is not inconsistent with any provision prescribed by Regulation.

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

The impacts of the modified proposal are consistent with those considered for the original development, except as provided below.

Construction Approval

The modified proposal seeks to allow the commencement of offsite road works prior to issue of a Construction Certificate for the church building. The proponent has requested that various conditions be amended (Conditions 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 16, 17 and 19) and new conditions added (Conditions 3a, 3b and 3c) to reflect this arrangement.

Council’s Development Engineer raises no objection to the intent of this aspect of the modification. Conditions 32 and 33 will be amended (in lieu of the proponent’s alternative conditions) to allow for offsite road works to occur independent of the onsite works required for the church building.

Office Use

The modified proposal seeks to amend Condition 42 in relation to occupation of the buildings. Condition 42 states:

(42)   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.

It is proposed to modify this condition to allow office use of the converted dwelling prior to issue of an Occupation Certificate for the place of worship. The proponent requests that Condition 42 state:

(42)   No person is to use or occupy the approved place of worship without the issuing of an Occupation Certificate. This condition does not preclude the use of the existing dwelling or the purposes of offices prior to issue of an Occupation Certificate for the place of worship building.

The approved church office is ancillary to and associated with the place of worship. The proposed amended condition will allow use of the subject land for offices prior to occupation and operation of the place of worship. Prior to construction of the place of workshop (for an indeterminate period), the landuse will actually comprise ‘office premises.’ Office premises are not permitted in the R2 Low Density Residential zone pursuant to Orange LEP 2011. This aspect of the proposed modification cannot be supported.


 

Hours of Operation

The modified proposal seeks to amend Condition 50 relating to hours of operation. Condition 50 states:

(50)   The hours of operation of the development shall not exceed the following, without the prior approval of Council:

-    8am to 7pm Monday to Thursday

-    8am to 10pm Friday and Saturday

-    9am to 7pm Sunday.

Illumination of the building and parking areas shall not occur outside of the approved hours of operation.

The modified proposal seeks to amend Condition 50 as follows:

(50)   The hours of operation of the development shall not exceed the following, without the prior approval of Council:

a)      8 am to 10 pm Monday to Thursday

i         In relation to (a), between 8pm and 10pm, Monday to Thursday, no more than 40 persons may be on site.

ii        (a)(i) does not apply up to six times per year.

b)      8am to 10 pm Friday and Saturday

c)       7 am to 10 pm Sunday.

i         In relation to (c), between 9pm and 10pm, Sunday, no more than 20 persons may be on site.

Illumination of the building and parking areas shall not occur outside of the approved hours of operation.

The proposed hours of operation are considered to be reasonable due to the following:

·    An acoustic report was submitted in support of the modified development (GUZ Box Design + Audio dated 13 August 2018). The report concludes that noise generated by the development (from both within the building and external areas) will satisfy the adopted noise management levels during daytime (7am to 6pm) and evening (6pm to 10pm) periods pursuant to the Noise Policy for Industry (2017). Council’s Manager Building and Environment concurs with the findings of the amended acoustic report.

·    Conditions relating to acoustic measures are included on the Notice of Approval to ensure that the proposed development will comply with the Noise Policy for Industry (2017), the recommendations of the submitted acoustic report and operational noise emissions.

·    The proposed operating hours are reasonably consistent with other places of worship in residential zones. The places of worship at 46 Moonstone Drive (DA 286/2014(1)) and 211 Cargo Road (DA 274/2009(2)) involve general use of the sites between 6am and 8.30pm, albeit with smaller congregations.


 

·    A proposed 10.00pm finishing time for the modified proposal is considered reasonable due to the larger interface with opposing dwellings than is available at Moonstone Drive and Cargo Road. Limits on persons onsite during the evening periods on Monday-Thursday and Sunday will assist to lessen any potential impact on residential amenity for neighbours (by reason of vehicle movements, people congregating in the carpark, light spill etc).

·    Notwithstanding the ‘cover-all’ hours of operation proposed, the proponent advises that the place of worship will rarely operate to these hours. Indeed, the longstanding and existing operation of the subject church elsewhere in the City does not involve the proposed operating hours. In this regard, the proponent advises:

·    The amended condition is considered reasonable to enable preparation for worship services, undertaking of services and clean up etc to be carried out. Full congregations will not be onsite for the entire duration of approved hours of operation.

·    With regard to the operation of other places of worship in residential zones, Council has not received any complaints from residents adjoining places of worship. In Council’s experience, places of worship are indeed a complementary landuse and do not impact on residential amenity nearby to the site.

Condition 50 will be amended as proposed.

Acoustic Matters

Acoustic Assessment

The modified proposal seeks to amend Condition 7 in relation to hard landscaping (earth mounding) requirements. Condition 7 states in part:

(7)     A detailed landscape plan, compiled by a suitably qualified landscape architect shall be submitted for approval of Council’s Manager City Presentation prior to issue of a Construction Certificate. The landscape plan shall incorporate the following particulars:

·   Hard and soft landscaping including earth mounding to the northern end of each parking area


 

It is proposed that a solid barrier be provided at the northern end of the eastern car park only, in lieu of the earth mounding referred to in Condition 7. The modified proposal is consistent with the requirements of the revised noise assessment (Guz Box Design + Audio, 13 August 2018. The proponent requests that Condition 7 state (in part) as follows:

(7)     A detailed landscape plan, compiled by a suitably qualified landscape architect shall be submitted for approval of Council’s Manager City Presentation prior to issue of a Construction Certificate. The landscape plan shall incorporate the following particulars:

·   Hard and soft landscaping to the northern end of each parking area and a minimum 1.5m high sold acoustic barrier to the northern end of the eastern car parking area.

No objection is raised to amending Condition 7. Condition 7 will be amended on the modified Notice of Approval. It is noted that Condition 19 will also be amended to reference the updated acoustic assessment submitted with the modified proposal.

Commissioning Report

The modified proposal seeks to amend Condition 49 relating to the acoustic Commissioning Report.

Condition 49 states:

(49)   The applicant shall obtain a Commissioning Report from an appropriately qualified and experienced acoustic consultant which assesses actual noise emissions from all operations of the development within 3 months of the issue of an Occupation Certificate. Where the report requires additional noise attenuation works to be carried out, these works shall be undertaken within 28 days from the date of the Commissioning Report. 

The proponent submits that the condition should be amended to allow the report to be completed within such time frame ‘as agreed by Council’s Manager Development Assessments.’

Council’s Manager Building and Environment raises no objection to amending Condition 49 as generally proposed as it will allow the Commissioning Report to be undertaken when the place of worship is properly operational. This approach is consistent with Council’s recent practice for other non-residential uses in residential/sensitive areas. Condition 49 will be amended as follows:

(49)   The applicant shall obtain a Commissioning Report from an appropriately qualified and experienced acoustic consultant which assesses actual noise emissions from all operations of the development within 3 months of the issue of an Occupation Certificate or as otherwise agreed in writing by Council (but not more than six (6) months after occupation). Where the report requires additional noise attenuation works to be carried out, these works shall be undertaken within 28 days from the date of the Commissioning Report. 


 

Operational Noise Emissions

The modified proposal seeks to amend Condition 59 relating to operational noise emissions. Condition 59 states:

(59)   Emitted noise shall not exceed 5dB(A) above background sound level measured at the nearest affected residence.

The proponent submits that the condition is ‘imprecise’ and ‘requires a more specific and enforceable parameter.’ The proponent requests that Condition 59 state as follows:

(59)   Emitted noise shall not exceed 5dB(A)LAEQ15min above background sound level measured at the most effected point on or within an adjoining residential property.

Council’s Manager Building and Environment raises no objection to the amended condition. Condition 59 will be amended on the modified Notice of Approval.

Construction Approval

The modified proposal seeks to amend various conditions to clarify that further engineering and construction approval required in the Notice of Approval relates to the place of worship and not the offsite road works (Conditions 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 16, 17, 19, 48 and 49).

It is unnecessary to amend the Notice of Approval in this regard. References to submission requirements prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate apply to either offsite roadworks or onsite building and site works. Relevant conditions will apply to the appropriate component of the development, as determined by the Certifier.

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

There are no aspects of the site that are considered unsuitable 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 Regulations. The application was advertised for the prescribed period of 14 days and at the end of that period one (1) submission was received.

The submission expressed concerns that the modified development would adversely impact on residential amenity for the adjoining dwelling to the north by reason of:

·    alternative fencing treatment on the common boundary;

·    office use of the site;

·    intensified access via Ploughmans Lane; and

·    extended hours of operation.

In consideration of these matters:

-    The modified proposal does not relate to perimeter fencing. Agreed fencing arrangements between the adjoining owners will not be altered by the modified development. Onsite earth mounding at the northern end of the eastern carpark will be amended to a 1.5m high solid acoustic barrier. This barrier, together with solid perimeter fencing, will suitably manage potential noise and light spill from the car park.


 

-    As outlined, office premises are not permitted in the R2 Low Density Residential zone. Use of the existing dwelling for the approved church office will only occur in conjunction with occupation and operation of the place of worship.

-    The modified proposal will not alter approved access arrangements. Condition 56 states that “site access via Ploughmans Lane is prohibited, other than in conjunction with a dwelling. All access to the site associated with the development shall be via the new road.”

-    As outlined above, Condition 50 will be amended to extend the hours of operation for the place of worship. The applicant has suitably demonstrated through an additional acoustic assessment report that the revised hours are reasonable so as to enable the place of worship to operate as generally intended, without adversely impacting on residential amenity nearby to the site.

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) 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 modified Notice of Approval.

 

Attachments

1          Modified Notice of Approval, D18/58293

2          Supporting Information, D18/57588

3          Submission, D18/58156

  


Planning and Development Committee                                                   7 November 2018

2.2                       Development Application DA 405/2017(2) - 241 Ploughmans Lane.

Attachment 1      Modified Notice of Approval

 

ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

 

Development Application No DA 405/2017(2)

 

NA18/                                                                 Container PR10141

 

NOTICE OF DETERMINATION

OF A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

(AS MODIFIED)

issued under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Section 4.18

 

Development Application

 

  Applicant Name:

Orange Evangelical Church Incorporated

  Applicant Address:

C/- Geolyse

PO Box 1963

ORANGE  NSW  2800

  Owner’s Name:

Orange Evangelical Church Incorporated

  Land to Be Developed:

Lot 9 DP 746439 - 241 Ploughmans Lane, Orange

  Proposed Development:

Place of Public Worship and Business Identification Sign

 

 

Building Code of Australia

 building classification:

 

To be determined by certifier (Class 9b)

 

 

Determination made under

  Section 4.16

 

  Made On:

7 November 2018

  Determination:

CONSENT GRANTED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS DESCRIBED BELOW:

 

 

Consent to Operate From:

2 May 2018

Consent to Lapse On:

2 May 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 minimise the impact of development on the environment.

 


 

 

 

Conditions

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

(a)      Drawings by Geolyse. Project No. 216145, Set 02E. Sheets A002, A003, A004, A005, A006, A007, A008, C001 (8 sheets)

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

(c)      General Terms of Approval issued by the Department of Primary Industries (Water) (Reference Number IDAS1103024) (attached).

as amended in accordance with any conditions of this consent.

 

 

PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

 

(4)      A Controlled Activity Approval under the Water Management Act 2000 shall be obtained from NSW Department of Primary Industries (Water) and submitted to Council prior to issue of a construction certificate. 

 

(5)      Full details of external colours and finishes of external materials shall be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessments prior to issue of a Construction Certificate.

 

(6)      Full details of proposed perimeter fencing shall be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessments prior to issue of a Construction Certificate.  Fencing shall be consistent with the Guidelines for Fences and Walls in Ploughmans Valley, pursuant to Orange Development Control Plan 2004 (PO7.7-5).

 

(7)      A detailed landscape plan, compiled by a suitably qualified landscape architect shall be submitted for approval of Council’s Manager City Presentation prior to issue of a Construction Certificate. The landscape plan shall incorporate the following particulars:

·    a detailed plant schedule identifying low maintenance ground covers through to specimen trees with mature height commensurate to the building

·    plantings to the site perimeter

·    plantings to the Cargo Road frontage consistent with Guidelines for Setbacks in Ploughmans Valley, pursuant to Orange Development Control Plan 2004 (PO7.7-4).

·    plantings to onsite car parking areas, particularly the most-western carpark at the site frontage to the new road

·    hard and soft landscaping to the northern end of each parking area and a minimum 1.5m high solid acoustic barrier to the northern end of the eastern car parking area.


 

(8)      The fitout of the food preparation and storage areas are to be installed in accordance with the requirements of Australian Standard 4674-2004 “Design and construction and fit-out of food premises” and Standard 3.2.3 “Food Premises and Equipment” of the Australian New Zealand Food Standards Code. Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, details of the fit-out of the kitchen are to be submitted to Council/accredited certifier for approval.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

(12)    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

·    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.

 

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

 

(14)    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, or alternatively into Councils piped stormwater drainage system on Cargo Road. 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).

 

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


 

(16)    A Liquid Trade Waste Application is to be submitted to Orange City Council prior to the issuing of a Construction (or Occupation) 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.

 

(17)    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 3 ETs for water supply headworks and 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.

 

(18)    The applicant shall provide the Principal Certifying Authority and Council with a report from a qualified Acoustic Consultant that certifies that all mechanical services and equipment proposed to be installed within the development will comply with the noise goals identified in the Environmental Noise Assessment Report by Guz Box Design + Audio Report dated 29 March 2017 and the NSW Noise Policy for Industry.

 

(19)    Prior to issue of a Construction Certificate for the place of worship building, plans of the development shall be amended to include the design, construction and operation requirements recommended within the Environmental Noise Assessment Report by Guz Box Design + Audio Reports dated 29 March 2017 and 13 August 2018.

 

 

PRIOR TO WORKS COMMENCING

 

(20)    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.

 

(21)    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.

 

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

 

 

DURING CONSTRUCTION/SITEWORKS

 

(23)    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.

 

(24)    Clean fill shall be utilised for all site earthworks.

 

(25)    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.

 

(26)    A Registered Surveyor’s certificate identifying the location of the building on the site must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority.


 

(27)    All construction works are to be strictly in accordance with the Reduced Levels (RLs) as shown on the approved plans.

 

(28)    All materials on site 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.

 

(29)    The fit-out of the food preparation and storage areas are to be installed in accordance with the requirements of Food Safety Standard 3.2.3 "Food Premises and Equipment" of the Australian New Zealand Food Standards Code and Australian Standard 4674-2004 "Design and construction and fit-out of food premises".

 

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

 

(31)    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.

 

(32)    A road is to be constructed from Cargo Road to the proposed entrance to the development. Construction work is to be to full urban road standard (9.0m wide kerb face to kerb face) in accordance with the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code and Geolyse plans numbered 216145 (as amended and approved by Orange City Council) or alternatively, arrangement is made for Orange City Council to construct the works on behalf of the applicant.

 

(33)    Half road width is to be constructed for the full frontage of the proposed development immediately north of the access driveway into the carpark in accordance with Geolyse plans numbered 216145 (as amended and approved by Orange City Council) or alternatively, arrangement is made for Orange City Council to construct the works on behalf of the applicant. This work is to 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 is to also be carried out.

 

(34)    The existing residence is to be connected to the proposed reticulated sewer. The contents of the existing septic tank are to be removed by a licensed contractor for disposal into Council’s sewer system. The septic tank is to 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 an Occupation Certificate.

 

(35)    The following Roads and Maritime Services conditions are to be satisfied as part of the development:

·    Prior to the issuance of an occupation certificate, a Channelised Right (CHR) turn treatment in accordance with Austroads Guide to Road Design, is to be provided in Cargo Road (MR237) at its intersection with the proposed public road. The intersection works are to be designed and constructed for a 60km/h speed zone and be able to accommodate the largest vehicle accessing the intersection.

·    Safe Intersection Sight Distance (SISD) requirements outlined in Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 4A and relevant Roads and Maritime supplements is to be provided in both directions at the vehicular access point servicing the proposed development and at the intersection of the proposed public road and Cargo Road.

·    No direct access to the site from Cargo Road is permitted.

 

 

·    Adequate turning circles, storage room and vertical clearances are to be provided in the site for the largest type of vehicle that will visit the site during construction and operation.

·    All activities including loading and unloading of goods associated with the development are to be carried out on site in the dedicated areas.

·    Outdoor Signage is to be in accordance with the Department of Planning and Environment’s Transport Corridor Outdoor Advertising and Signage Guidelines 2017, is not to flash, move or be objectionably glaring or luminous.

 

 

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF AN OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE

 

(36)    Onsite vehicle parking shall be provided on the land consistent with the approved plan, and in accordance with Council’s Development and Subdivision Code, prior to issue of an occupation certificate.

 

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

 

(38)    Perimeter fencing shall be established on the land consistent with the approved plan.

 

(39)    External colours and finishes for the completed building shall be consistent with the approved schedule.

 

(40)    There shall be no congregations on the site, prior to issue of an occupation certificate.

 

(41)    Occupation certificate/s for the development may be issued prior to completion of filling works of the dam at the Ploughmans Lane frontage.  A temporary fence shall be installed and maintained to the dam perimeter until filling works are completed to the satisfaction of Council’s Manager Development Assessments.  Fencing details shall be consistent with approved perimeter fencing.

 

(42)    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.

 

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

 

(44)    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.

 

(45)    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.

 

(46)    A Certificate of Compliance, from a Qualified Engineer, stating that the stormwater detention basin complies with the approved engineering plans is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issuing of an Occupation Certificate.

 

(47)    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.

 

(48)    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

 

(49)    The applicant shall obtain a Commissioning Report from an appropriately qualified and experienced acoustic consultant which assesses actual noise emissions from all operations of the development within 3 months of the issue of an Occupation Certificate or as otherwise agreed in writing by Council (but not more than six (6) months after occupation. Where the report requires additional noise attenuation works to be carried out, these works shall be undertaken within 28 days from the date of the Commissioning Report.

 

(50)    The hours of operation of the development shall not exceed the following, without the prior approval of Council:

(a)      8am to 10pm Monday to Thursday

(i)       in relation to (a), between 8pm and 10pm, Monday to Thursday, no more than 40 persons may be on site.

(ii)      (a)(i) does not apply up to six times per year.

(b)      8am to 10pm Friday and Saturday

(c)      7am to 10pm Sunday.

(i)       In relation to (c), between 9pm and 10pm, Sunday, no more than 20 persons may be on site.

Illumination of the building and parking areas shall not occur outside of the approved hours of operation.

 

(51)    The kitchen and break-out space / café shall be ancillary to the place of public worship. Further development consent is required for separate commercial use of the kitchen and break-out space / café.

 

(52)    Outdoor lighting shall be sited and designed to comply with Australian Standard 4282-1997 Control of the obtrusive effects of outdoor lighting.  Ancillary light fittings installed to the exterior of the buildings and within the parking areas shall be shielded or mounted in a position to minimise glare to adjoining properties.

 

(53)    Worship and pastoral activities shall be wholly located within the approved buildings and outdoor play areas.  Congregational activities shall not occur on the northern side of the administration building.

 

(54)    The approved pylon sign shall have a maximum height of 2m, with signage panels to be of suitable proportions.

Advertising content to the pylon sign shall comprise “business identification” as defined in Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011:

‘Business identification sign’ means a sign:

(a)      that indicates:

(i)       the name of the person or business, and

(ii)      the nature of the business carried on by the person at the premises or place at which the sign is displayed, and

(b)      that may include the address of the premises or place and a logo or other symbol that identifies the business,

but that does not contain any advertising relating to a person who does not carry on business at the premises or place.

The approved pylon sign shall be consistent with Transport Corridor Outdoor Advertising and Signage Guidelines (NSW Department of Environment and Planning 2017) (refer conditions from Roads and Maritime Services).

Illumination of the approved pylon sign is not permitted.


 

(55)    A separate development application shall be submitted to and approved by Council prior to the erection of any additional advertising structures or signs of a type that do not meet the exempt development provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008.

 

(56)    Site access via Ploughmans Lane is prohibited, other than in conjunction with a dwelling.   All access to the site associated with the development shall be via the new road.

 

(57)    Amplifiers shall not to be used outside of the building at any time.

 

(58)    Conditions from Roads and Maritime Services:

1        Adequate turning circles, storage room and vertical clearances are to be provided on the site for the largest type of vehicle that will visit the site during construction and operation.

2        All activities including loading and unloading of good associated with the development are to be carried out onsite in the dedicated areas.

3        Outdoor signage is to be in accordance with the Department of Planning and Environment’s Transport Corridor Outdoor Advertising and Signage Guidelines 2017, is not to flash, move or be objectionably glaring or luminous.

 

(59)    Emitted noise shall not exceed 5dB(A)AEQ15min above background sound level measured at the most affected point on or within an adjoining residential property boundary.

 

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

 

 

 

 

Other Approvals

 

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

 

Nil

 

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

 

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the General Terms of Approval issued by the Department of Primary Industries (Water) (Reference Number IDAS1103024) (attached).

 

 

 

 

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:

 

8 November 2018

 


Planning and Development Committee                                                             7 November 2018

2.2                       Development Application DA 405/2017(2) - 241 Ploughmans Lane.

Attachment 2      Supporting Information

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                             7 November 2018

2.2                       Development Application DA 405/2017(2) - 241 Ploughmans Lane.

Attachment 3      Submission

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                          7 November 2018

 

 

2.3     Development Application DA 33/2018(1) - 4613 Mitchell Highway, Lucknow

RECORD NUMBER:       2018/2630

AUTHOR:                       Michael Glenn, Senior Planner    

 

 

EXECUTIVE Summary

Application lodged

12 February 2018

Applicant/s

Brothers Three Pty Ltd

Owner/s

Brothers Three Pty Ltd

Land description

Lot 101 DP 1053642 - 4613 Mitchell Highway, Lucknow

Proposed land use

Demolition (existing service station), Service Station (includes sales building, fuel dispensing canopy, underground fuel tanks, 24/7 operation), and Business and Site Identification Signs

Value of proposed development

$1,395,000

This matter was deferred from the Planning and Development Committee meeting of 17 October 2018 to allow further investigation of the vehicular access arrangements and the implications of the RMS concurrence requirements on surrounding landowners. The results of the investigation reveal no significant impact on access/egress for any adjoining landowner to the development site.

Council's consent is sought for the demolition of an existing service station and construction of a service station with small convenience store and signs on the subject property. The application is seeking approval to operate on a 24 hour basis. The application has been referred to Council because unresolved submissions have been received for the application.

This application has been delayed because amendments were required to address RMS issues, and also to address heritage and streetscape considerations. The subject property is located on a classified road, requiring the concurrence of the RMS for the proposal. The RMS has now provided its concurrence, subject to a vehicle size limit of 12.5m (equating to a large rigid vehicle) for vehicles other than the delivery vehicle.

The amended proposal lacks effective landscaping, and there are also potential conflicts between pedestrians using the footway and vehicles that tend to park on a concreted verge outside the property. It is reasonable to require the removal of this concreted verge (which does not meet Council’s footpath standards and has not been constructed by Council), and replace it with a footpath that does meet Council’s standards; as well as provide handrails along the boundary and a landscape strip at the edge of the verge, which steps down in a cutting to the level of the highway. The landscaping will assist in maintaining the village character and improving amenity adjacent to the site.

The application involves the removal of the existing underground fuel storage tanks and their replacement with new tanks. Whilst soil testing conducted to this point shows no signs of broad scale contamination of the site, further tests will be required upon removal of the existing tanks to determine if contaminants have coagulated underneath them.


 

In the event that such testing reveals contamination levels that exceed the relevant guidelines (UPSS guidelines), Category 1 remediation (ie remediation that requires further development consent) will be required. This arises due to the environmental sensitivity affecting the subject site, a product of the high water table and the location of the site within a heritage conservation area and the water supply catchment. A condition to address this issue is included in the consent.

Submissions have raised a number of concerns which in general remain wholly or partially unresolved. Some of the issues can be addressed with conditions. The most important issue of concern to the local residents are the proposed 24 hours of operation. The applicant has submitted a noise report that suggests a twenty four operation would be acceptable from a noise amenity point of view, but has not addressed light glare or how the proposed 24 hour operation might affect the general village character. It is considered that a twenty four hour operation has a high probability of causing significant nuisance to the local residents, and will have difficulty meeting or reinforcing the objectives of the village zone, where mixed residential and commercial land uses can intermingle and where the commercial activities must be sufficiently low impact as to achieve reasonable co-existence. It is considered that 24 hour operation would not be reinforcing of that objective. The applicant has by late submission indicated that they would be prepared to accept a limit in the hours running from 5am to 12 midnight, but for the current proposal, the configuration remains a 24 hour operation (they have not formally amended the proposal to reflect their revised hours). It is on the basis of a 24 hour operation that this assessment is carried out. However for either of the applicants suggested hours, the impacts on character and amenity is considered to be excessive. As a result, the consent includes a restriction on the hours to 7am to 10pm, seven days per week (which essentially relate to a daytime use).

It is recommended that Council supports the subject proposal subject to the conditions included in the attached Notice of Determination.

Figure 1 - locality plan


 

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 COMMENT

This development application sees the revamp of the existing service station in Lucknow. Staff and the Heritage Advisor have worked with the applicant to lift the building design. Notwithstanding, access issues have been a concern throughout and are of concern to the neighbouring property owners. Staff do not support a 24 hour operation as the Village zoning mandates that development needs to enhance and maintain the unique village character of Lucknow and Spring Hill. The current operation is not 24 hours. The recommendation is to allow a 7am to 10pm opening regime.

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 resolves to issue a consent to development application DA 33/2018(1) for Demolition (existing service station), Service Station (includes sales building, fuel dispensing canopy, underground fuel tanks), and Business and Site Identification Signs at Lot 101 DP 1053642 - 4613 Mitchell Highway, Lucknow pursuant to the conditions of consent in the attached Notice of Approval.

 

 

further considerations

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

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

THE APPLICATION/PROPOSAL

Council's consent is sought for the demolition of the existing service station including the removal of tanks and associated infrastructure and the construction and operation of a replacement service station with neighbourhood shop. Business identification signage is also proposed. The applicant proposes to operate the facility on a 24 hour basis. To facilitate the development on a level site, it is proposed to undertake some site regrading and construct retaining walls.

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 prior to 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.

Notwithstanding, Section 28 of the Biodiversity Conservation (Savings and Transitional) Regulation 2017 states that the former planning provisions continue to apply to the determination of a pending planning application, being an application for planning approval made before the commencement of the new Act but not determined before that commencement. The relevant provisions are set out at Part 5A of the historical version of the EP&A Act 1979 dated 24 August 2017.


 

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 have a significant effect on any threatened species, populations or ecological communities or their habitats.

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,

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

The application is considered to be consistent with aims (b) and (c) as listed above. With respect to (a), changes are required as recommended by conditions in the consent to ensure the DA has outcomes that are sympathetic to the achievement of reasonable character. This matter is discussed in detail later in this report. With regard to (f), conditions are included regarding the architectural detail, protection of landscape , signage impact and certain other issues that will result in the responsible management of the environmental, heritage and scenic landscape setting of the development.

Clause 1.6 - Consent Authority

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


 

Clause 1.7 - Mapping

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

Land Zoning Map:

Land zoned RU5 Village

Lot Size Map:

Minimum Lot Size 1,000m2

Heritage Map:

Located in a heritage conservation area

Height of Buildings Map:

No building height limit

Floor Space Ratio Map:

No floor space limit

Terrestrial Biodiversity Map:

No biodiversity sensitivity on the site

Groundwater Vulnerability Map:

Groundwater vulnerable

Drinking Water Catchment Map:

Within a 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/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

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.

Part 2 - Permitted or Prohibited Development

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

The subject site is located within the RU5 Village zone. The proposed development is defined as a Service Station under OLEP 2011 and is permitted with consent for this zone. This application is seeking consent.


 

“Service Station” is defined under the LEP as

a building or place used for the sale by retail of fuels and lubricants for motor vehicles, whether or not the building or place is also used for any one or more of the following:

(a)     the ancillary sale by retail of spare parts and accessories for motor vehicles,

(b)     the cleaning of motor vehicles,

(c)     installation of accessories,

(d)     inspecting, repairing and servicing of motor vehicles (other than body building, panel beating, spray painting, or chassis restoration),

(e)     the ancillary retail selling or hiring of general merchandise or services or both.

Clause 2.3 of LEP 2011 references the Land Use Table and Objectives for each zone in LEP 2011. These objectives for land zoned RU5 Village are as follows:

1 - Objectives of the RU5 Village Zone

·   To provide for a range of land uses, services and facilities that are associated with a rural village.

·   To enhance and maintain the unique village character of Lucknow and Spring Hill.

In general, the proposed development is considered to be consistent to the zone objectives. However, the proposed 24 hour operation would, if carried out, create land use conflicts with other existing permissible land uses, namely the residential development within the village. The village zone contains a fairly wide range of permissible land uses, but this does not mean that inherent conflicts should be left unconsidered. Whilst the subject development is located on the Mitchell Highway the 24 hour operation of a development is considered to be inconsistent with the general village character of Lucknow. Hence, as alluded to elsewhere in this report it is recommended that the hours of operation be limited to 7.00am to 10.00pm to be more in keeping with the village character in this case.

Clause 2.7 - Demolition Requires Development Consent

This clause triggers the need for development consent in relation to a building or work. This requirement does not apply to any demolition that is defined as exempt development.

The proposal involves demolition and the applicant is seeking the consent of council. The demolition works proposed will have no significant impact on adjoining lands, streetscape or public realm.

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

There is a minimum lot size applicable to the subject property, however this control is only relevant to applications involving subdivision. Subdivision does not form part of the subject application.


 

Part 5 - Miscellaneous Provisions

5.10 - Heritage Conservation

The subject property is located within the Lucknow Heritage Conservation Area. The original submitted plans called for a flat roofed modern style building with canopy, as well as standard corporate signage.

Figure 2 - preliminary south-eastern elevation

Figure 3 - preliminary north-eastern elevation

The initial plans were referred to Council’s Heritage Advisor who provided a generally negative response:

The issues raised in the DCP to the design of new development – Design of new development should complement heritage character. This can be achieved in three ways:

·   Restoration works that return the building to its original form and style.

·   Respectful Design: A “low key design approach where heritage building forms, proportions and materials are applied but reproduction of decorative work and detailing is avoided the design should demonstrate that it is a contemporary building whilst respecting the surrounding heritage setting.


 

·   Interpretative Design: Forms and proportions that relate to but do not reproduce heritage features. Good modern architecture is favoured that fits in to the heritage setting

Comment: The proposal is a standard flat roofed building with glazing to the south eastern elevation on the hardstand forecourt and a solid light grey clad wall to the other predominant elevation to the road (the NE elevation). The fascia’s surrounding the roof are standard corporate colours and graphics. The roof is zincalume steel which is not supported in conservation areas. There are no indications on the drawings that the heritage design principals in the form of respectful design or Interpretative design.

Issues: The following checklist is the analytical process established under the key reference document (“Design In context’) and should guide the preferred form of development in this location. 

·   Character: While recent lack of guidance means very limited character, the ethos is traditional and heritage related with pitched roofs and traditional box built forms with pitched roofs. Several post buildings utilised skillion roofs. There are variable setbacks to accord with vehicle related uses.

·   Scale: Single storey buildings with heights that come from traditional roofs 

·   Form: traditional forms which are often extended either as extrusions or pavilions.

·   Siting: the core area has closer setbacks near the roads while residential land has garden setbacks.

·   Materials and Colour: There is a predominance of light weight cladding to the core earlier buildings such as timber and tin/steel and later structures in masonry. Generally the colours are lighter as opposed to dark. Tree planting relates to larger trees left over from earlier residential uses and larger lots while commercial uses have generally seen them removed.

·   Detailing: Traditional detailing predominates including verandahs awnings and chimneys

There are no flat roofed buildings in the vicinity. The similar buildings such as the skin shop have skillion roofs while the Fat Ladies and the adjoining hotel have traditional pitched roofs.

The Lucknow Strategy developed in 2014 as the Lucknow Scoping Study provides the following guidance for future development and public works:

1        New buildings are to be fine grained and relate to the scale of the existing built forms

2        A sample palette of contemporary materials and forms includes iron, stone recycled timber and muted colours with hipped roofs and verandahs


 

Recommendations

The applicant submitted amended plans 29 May 2018, along with a written response in support, which are now the subject of this assessment:

1        The fuelling canopy be provided with a hipped pitched roof with 25 deg pitch slope clad in colourbond windspray or basalt and set above the line of the proposed fascias.

2        The fascias shall be horizontal metallic colourbond Astro or similar without the Metro corporate colour

3        The Metro Corporate sign panel shown on the SE Elevation shall be mounted on a framed element to interpret a verandah in a contemporary style with a pair of circular steel columns

4        The cladding to the NE elevation is run horizontally to interpret the local vernacular

5        A full height window is to be inserted into the NE elevation between the cigarette display and office doors

6        The Service building/Convenience store be provided with a similar hipped 25

degree pitched roof

7        All perimeter fencing to be traditional cyclone open mesh type and not colourbond or solid fencing to allow the landscape to be expressed and visually dominate the surrounds

8        All concrete hardstand is to be through coloured using oxide to achieve a dark grey equal to CCS stallion

9        The concrete blockwork on the convenience store shall be clad in horizontal colourbond basalt and not painted to reflect the local vernacular.

10      The site ID sign shall be limited to a maximum height of 5400mm (planners note: it has been submitted as a 6m high structure) or equal to the height of the fuelling canopy to ensure the sign element does not visually dominate the setting and affect other business identification elements, signs and graphics. The base of the sign shall be clad in local stone similar to basalt to the level of the bottom price indicator and replacing the ATM graphic which is redundant.

11      A professionally prepared landscape plan is required to specify the planting to the SW side and northern corner.

12      All lighting in the soffit of the fuelling canopy and the convenience building is to be fully recessed to reduce glare

13      Although internally illuminated graphics are not supported in conservation areas, subject to agreement with the above, the internal signage components for signs under this application will be acceptable (planners note; the applicant did not fully accept all of the heritage advisers recommendations).


 

Council’s Heritage Advisor provided the following conceptual sketches which were passed on to the applicant prior to the submission of their response.

Figure 4 - heritage recommended amendments

The applicant submitted amended plans on 22 May 2018 which adopted some of the changes sought by the Heritage Advisor and provided additional information in support of varying, or not applying other elements of the initial advice. These amended plans are now the subject of this detailed assessment.

The applicant submitted the following response to the itemised issues raised by the Heritage Advisor:

Issue 1: “This request was deemed unreasonable and addressed by a previous email (sent 04/04/2018) where it was advised that a proposed pitched roof would not be seen when close by on the Mitchell Highway due to the difference in levels and the original proposal would suffice in this instance without disrupting the local character that is trying to be achieved within the Lucknow Scoping Study. On Council’s follow up email on 03/05/2018 it was advised that this would be acceptable provided the sales building signage was modified to not disrupt the form of the proposed pitched roof. This is reflected on the revised Architectural drawings accompanying this application and addressed further below”.


 

The applicant’s position is accepted; however the refusal to provide a canopy with pitched roof has implications on the assessment of heights for the proposed pylon sign.

Issue 2: “As discussed in a previous response (sent 04/04/2018) it was seen as an unreasonable request to remove Metro corporate colours which are featured throughout all of their service stations Australia wide. We do not believe the request to remove Metro branding would enhance the local character and would make navigation more difficult. It is also believed that the inclusion of the Metro petroleum corporate colours would not detract from the preferred streetscape the Lucknow Scoping Study is trying to promote.

The Heritage Advisor comments were revised and amended as a result of this submission and further negotiations with the applicant.

Issue 3: “This element has been included on the updated Architectural drawings accompanying this application and provides a sympathetic entry statement and allows for a good visual navigation element as well as staying in keeping with the local character the Lucknow Scoping Study has alluded to”.

The Heritage Advisor and the applicant’s architect have reached agreement with respect to this issue.

Issue 4: “The proposed façade treatment has been amended to show a horizontal treatment as requested by Council. The exact nature of this cladding will form part of a future Construction Certificate application”.

A precautionary condition that ensures this amendment is implemented is included in the consent.

Issue 5: The requested full height glazing has been included on the updated Architectural drawings accompanying this application. Security issues will be looked at as part of a future Construction Certificate application.

A condition ensuring that this element is included in the building is attached to the consent.

Issue 6: “As addressed in previous correspondence (sent 04/04/2018) and also shown on the updated elevation drawings & 3D views accompanying this application the service building has been modified to show a Dutch gable roof that is in keeping with the local character and is sympathetic to the Lucknow Scoping Study. Council’s follow up email on 03/05/2018 stated the roof pitch needs to be 30 degrees which is now reflected on the amended Architectural drawings accompanying this application”.

There is agreement between the two experts on this issue. A condition specifying a 30 degree pitch is included in the consent.


 

Issue 7: “The request of Council for an open mesh fence was deemed as not acoustically suitable due to potential noise source disturbances for neighbouring residences. An Acoustic report was undertaken by Rodney Stevens Acoustics and it was deemed that a 1.8m high solid fence is required for noise attenuation to neighbouring residences instead of an open mesh fence as requested by Council. The Acoustic report has been submitted as part of this application. Council’s follow up email on 03/05/2018 declares that if a block wall is required, it needs to be planted with a creeper plant specified by the Landscape Architect. This is depicted on the Landscape Plans accompanying this application”.

The applicant’s position is accepted, however to achieve some level of restraint in the visual presentation of the site, it is considered appropriate to require the fencing that faces into the site to be “Shale Grey” to tie-in better with the canopy and other elements of the development.

Issue 8: “As stated in our previous response (sent 04/04/2018) the addition of the dark grey oxide would be an unreasonable request due to the elevated nature of the fuelling area, making the area unobservable to all but those using the facility. The non-oxide concrete will still form a more formal approach to the fuelling area that will not only enhance the current look but will also be supportive of the Lucknow Scoping Study. Council’s follow up email on 03/05/2018 deemed this as acceptable”.

The applicant’s response is accepted on the proviso that the perimeter fencing is finished in a suitably sympathetic colour.

Issue 9: As depicted on the revised elevation drawings accompanying this application, the concrete block walls have been amended to show a horizontal Colorbond ‘basalt’ treatment as requested by Council.

Conditions are included in the consent to ensure this outcome

Issue 10: The site ID element will remain at 6m in height with the ATM signage removed and base of sign clad in local stone as part of the amended drawings accompanying this application. As depicted on the 3D views accompanying this application, the site ID sign doesn’t visually dominate the site. Council’s response email on 03/05/2018 deems this solution acceptable.

There is a large sign erected at the boundary of the property which is approximately 8m high. This sign has no approval from Council and should not be given a great deal of weight in the assessment as a result. The subject land is zoned RU5 Village, which is a mixed use zone but one in which residential development is the dominant land use. The subject property is located within a designated Heritage Conservation Area.

Council’s DCP 2004 contains chapters with controls applicable within the Lucknow village, and further a separate chapter with controls and guidelines for appropriate signage and includes provisions for advertising with possible effects on residential areas. With respect to the controls on signage, DCP 2004 (Chapter 14) the following provisions are applicable:

a)      Freestanding or pylon signs relate to the height of associated buildings in

b)      Freestanding signs in residential areas are at a personal scale (i.e. about 2m high or less) within a landscaped setting.


 

Signs within a residential context have further generally been required to be set back to the building line. The character assessments by the applicant have not taken these underlying character and land use observations into account in their signage assessments.

The building heights are considered the more appropriate surrogate measure to apply in determining the correct sign height. The convenience store proposes a wall height of 4.2m and is immediately set behind the proposed sign, whilst the awning proposes a height of 5.4m but is closer to the street frontage than the store. The proposed pylon sign is forward of these structures by approximately 4m (from the front of the convenience store) and 2m (from the front of the awning). It is not practicable to set the pylon sign further back because of the obstruction caused by the existing adjoining building to the west of the site.

With a height of 6m and a zero setback from the front boundary, it can be expected that the sign would be out of scale with the buildings nearby.

In his initial advice Council’s Heritage Advisor recommended a height comparable to the proposed awning. Under the circumstances this would appear the more appropriate standard to apply. It would result in a 10% reduction in height for the sign compared to what the applicant wants, but should pull the massing and scale of the sign back to a bulk and height that relates to the associated buildings. Attached is a condition of consent addressing this issue.

Issue 11: “A professional landscape design has been undertaken by Taylor Brammer and is included with this application. It specifies the planting to the SW & SE boundaries and northern corner. The design enables an easily maintained natural element to the project. Council’s follow up email on 03/05/2018 declares that if a block wall is required, it needs to be planted with a creeper plant specified by the Landscape Architect. This is depicted on the Landscape Plans accompanying this application”.

The applicant has submitted a landscaping plan, but the densities, planting areas and plant selections are inadequate and/or inappropriate. The consulting landscape designer is known to have landscaping experience, but this particular plan is unsuited to the site conditions. The principal plantings are centred on six trees, of the following species:

Backhousia citriodora (common names lemon myrtle, lemon scented myrtle, lemon scented ironwood): Two specimens proposed. A cultivated ornamental plant theoretically capable of a mature height of 6m, but in practice more usually 3m. It can be grown from tropical to warm temperate climates, and may handle cooler districts provided it can be protected from frost when young. It is unsuitable to the local growing conditions because of this.

Backhousia myrtifolia (common names include carrol, carrol ironwood, neverbreak, ironwood or grey myrtle, Australian lancewood and Cinnamon myrtle): Two specimens proposed. This specimen is a rainforest tree species which grows in subtropical rainforests of Eastern Australia and is known to reach a mature height of over 30m. It is unsuitable for this site because the species is not frost tolerant and the expected height cannot be supported on such a small sized lot.

Melaleuca leucadendra, (common names weeping paperbark, long-leaved paperbark or white paperbark): Two specimens are proposed. This is widespread in northern Australia, South East Asia and New Guinea. It is a tree with an expected mature height in excess of 20 m. Although it will withstand some frost, it is not recommended for cold areas such as mountainous regions or Tasmania. It will grow well in most other areas.

Clearly the species selection is inappropriate. Further, it is considered appropriate for a landscaping strip to be installed in the currently concreted verge area to a bed width not less than 1.5m and incorporating tree plantings that are suited to local climate and growing conditions, and able to achieve a minimum height of 4m. This landscape strip shall be provided on the southern side of the pavement, just above the cutting that steps down to the Mitchel Highway. Attached is a recommended condition of consent addressing this issue.

Issue 12: All lighting within the fuel canopy will be fully recessed to reduce glare as stated in our email response (sent 04/04/2018).

Noted. Conditions to ensure compliance are included in the consent.

Issue 13: The majority of requests of Council have been updated on our drawings accompanying this application and although there is a small amount of internally illuminated signage we believe they work well within the desires of Council and the Lucknow Scoping Study in providing easily navigable streetscape and also easily recognised landmark to the entry of Lucknow.

On planning grounds, it is considered the applicant’s discussion so as to allow internal illumination whilst the business is trading is reasonable. However, at times when the business is not trading it is considered appropriate to require internal lighting, except that needed for security and safety purposes, to be switched off during the overnight period. A condition relating to the ongoing performance standards is included to ensure compliance with this outcome.

Heritage Advisor’s Final Advice (received 1 June 2018)

I have reviewed the current revised drawings and agree on the conditional approach as they have met or negotiated all of the issues and recommendations made.

On the conditions, you may be wise still to write in some of the items which have been agreed but are not specified on the drawings:

·   All blockwork walls are to be fully concealed on all exposed surfaces by planting in the form of a creeper specified by the landscape consultant with appropriate planting media, watering and the means of adhering to the subject walls;

·   All lighting to the soffit of the fuelling canopy is to be fully recessed from the soffit surface;

·   The soffit to the fuelling canopy is to be equal to the Colorbond standard custom orb profile in Shale Grey

·   The colour of the gable infills is to be Windspray

The supplementary advice by the Heritage Advisor reinforces certain issues, but does not eliminate the original concerns. Conditions are included to address these final heritage matters. In addition to these formal responses, the Heritage Advisor is strongly supportive of additional landscaping along the frontage.


 

Part 7 - Additional Local Provisions

7.1 - Earthworks

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

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

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

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

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

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

(f)     the likelihood of disturbing relics

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

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

The earthworks proposed within the application are considered ancillary to the principle development. There are significant earthworks proposed along the southern shared boundary, with an existing sloped batter to be replaced by a retaining wall approximately 1.3m high. Removal of the batter will require excavations at the base of the batter to approximately 3m past its present position to allow the retaining wall to be installed at the boundary. This will require conditions to address the structural adequacy of the retaining wall, as well as ensuring that such works minimise the damage to the adjoining (southern) neighbour’s landscaping.

The proposed earthworks also envisage the removal of the existing underground storage tanks. Other earthworks proposed in the application relate primarily to the grading and filling of the site to provide a more level area for vehicles to utilise the development. The extent of cut/fill required is approximately 300-500mm. The extent of earthworks and the degree of disruption to the drainage of the site are considered to be minor and will not detrimentally affect adjoining properties or receiving waterways.

The site is not known to contain any Aboriginal objects, or European or archaeological relics. Previous known uses of the site do not suggest that any object or relics are likely to be uncovered. The site is not in proximity to any waterway, drinking water catchment or sensitive area. Notwithstanding this, conditions are imposed that require a sediment control plan, including silt traps and other protective measures, to ensure that loose dirt and sediment do not escape the site boundaries.


 

7.3 - Stormwater Management

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

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

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

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

Council’s Technical Services Division has assessed the development in regards to stormwater. Relevant conditions are attached to ensure that the post-development run-off levels do not exceed pre-development levels.

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.


 

7.7 - Drinking Water Catchments

(1)     The objective of this clause is to protect drinking water catchments by minimising the adverse impacts of development on the quality and quantity of water entering drinking water storages.

(2)     This clause applies to land identified as “Drinking water” on the Drinking Water Catchment Map.

(3)     Before determining a development application for development on land to which this clause applies, the consent authority must consider whether or not the development is likely to have any adverse impact on the quality and quantity of water entering the drinking water storage, having regard to:

(a)     the distance between the development and any waterway that feeds into the drinking water storage, and

(b)     the onsite use, storage and disposal of any chemicals on the land, and

(c)     the treatment, storage and disposal of waste water and solid waste generated or used by the development.

(4)     Development consent must not be granted to development on land to which this clause applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that:

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

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

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

The subject property is located within the City water supply catchment, and the discharge or release of contaminated or unsafe runoff to the catchment tributaries of the town water supply is a matter for concern since the site is relatively close to such water supply watercourses. It is considered that the risks posed by contaminants, particulates or bacterial water can be managed by standard erosion and sediment control, and water quality control measures, and that such risks as may arise are not excessive. It is considered that the effects arising from the proposed development do not pose a significant risk to public health if contained in the manner set out in the application and the attached consent.

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICIES

State Environmental Planning Policy 55 - Remediation of Land

State Environmental Planning Policy 55 - Remediation of Land (SEPP 55) is applicable. Pursuant to 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.

Under Clause 7 of the SEPP, Council must consider whether the land is contaminated and if the land requires any form of remediation to render it suitable for the purpose for which it is proposed to be used. The previous land uses must be considered, along with any visible or tangible evidence on the site.

The subject property has for many years been used as a service station and convenience store (it is believed that this use extends back to 1947), which acts as a trigger for a preliminary contamination assessment under Council’s draft remediation strategy. The structure of Council's contamination strategy can be found in the quick reference guide produced by Contamination Central at the time of the adoption of the draft policy, and should be used in the assessment of the preliminary site investigation, which the applicant has completed and submitted as part of the application. The submitted report is by NEO Consulting).

There is a flowchart that sets out the procedures when receiving new development applications.

This flow chart is reproduced below:

Figure 5 - development assessment flowchart


 

Initial Evaluation - matters for consideration

 

Figure 6 - determining if the property is on the Contaminated Lands Information System (CLIS)

The subject land is not on Council’s local CLIS (contaminated lands register). It is not recorded on the EPA register as being contaminated. The Consultant is silent on whether the site is on a contamination register.

 

Figure 7 - checking previous reports

There are no reports on the CLIS relevant to this matter. The consultant’s report does not mention any reports or notations on adjoining land.

 

Figure 8 - site inspections

Site inspections have been carried out by both staff and the applicant’s consultant. Potential sources of contamination on the site were identified as the forecourt and the fuel fill spill box. Petroleum hydrocarbon contamination is possible in delivery, storage and dispensing of fuel and oil products, spills and overflows at refilling, and leakage of underground storage tanks due to corrosion and leakages of feeder lines due to pipe work failures. Contamination is possible from fuel spills and overflows at the time of refilling and pump dispensing.


 

Potential contaminants include:

·    unleaded petrol - detected by laboratory analysis of TRH (C6-C40) and BTEX

·    leaded petrol - detected by laboratory analysis of lead TRH (C6-C40) and BTEX

·    diesel - detected by laboratory analysis of TRH (C10-C40) and naphthalene

·    movement of contaminants is possible in the groundwater or underground electricity, stormwater, sewer and telephone services conduits.

Preliminary test results undertaken by the consultant do not show any significant signs of site contamination, however it is noted that at the underground storage tanks have not been removed, rendering it impossible for the consultant to have tested under the tanks (where contamination hotspots most usually occur).

To address this shortcoming in the available information, a condition requiring further soil testing following removal of the tanks with the results being submitted to Council. In the event that contamination is found post removal of the tanks it will be necessary to stop work and seek further consent for Category 1 Remediation given the location of the development within a heritage conservation area.

 

Figure 9 - site history

A complete site history is unavailable.

The site has been used as a small service station with convenience store for many years. The known development history is not fully known but does include the following:

On 3 August 1989 and application to upgrade and modify the existing service station was refused. In the report to Council at the time the site was described as having been used as a service station since at least 1947. It had been proposed to increase the size of the building and also to increase the number of fuel dispensing points. The application was refused on the grounds of inadequate parking on the site. There was no mention of possible contamination of the site at that time.

DA 02/044, an application to modify the subdivision boundaries, was approved. No mention of possible site contamination was included in the assessment.

Service stations are included in appendix A as a potential contaminating land use.


 

Analytical Results Summary

Soil analytical results are summarized and compared to the relevant assessment criteria in the consultant’s report as follows:

The reported concentration of Benzene was less than the laboratory LOR (limit of reporting –detection limit) to which was less than the adopted assessment criteria. Toluene - The reported concentration of Toluene was less than the laboratory LOR (limit of reporting –detection limit) to which was less than the adopted assessment criteria.

Ethylbenzene - The reported concentration of Ethylbenzene was less than the laboratory LOR (limit of reporting –detection limit) to which was less than the adopted assessment criteria.

Xylene (total) - The reported concentration of Xylene (total) was less than the laboratory LOR (limit of reporting –detection limit) to which was less than the adopted assessment criteria.

TPH (C6-C10) Less BTEX (F1) - The reported concentration of TPH (C6-C10) Less BTEX (F1) was 110mg/kg, to which was less than the adopted assessment criteria.

TPH (>C10-C16) Less Naphthalene (F2) - The reported concentration of TPH (>C10-C16) Less Naphthalene (F2) was 100mg/kg, to which was less than the adopted assessment criteria.

TPH (>C16-C34)(F3) - The reported concentration of TPH (>C16-C34) was less than the laboratory LOR (limit of reporting –detection limit) to which was less than the adopted assessment criteria.

TPH (>C34-C40)(F4) - The reported concentration of TPH (>C34-C40) was less than the laboratory LOR (limit of reporting –detection limit) to which was less than the adopted assessment criteria.

Naphthalene - The reported concentration of Naphthalene was less than the laboratory LOR (limit of reporting –detection limit) to which was less than the adopted assessment criteria.

Lead - The reported concentration of Lead was less than the laboratory LOR (limit of reporting –detection limit) to which was less than the adopted assessment criteria. Total PAHs - The reported concentration of Total PAHs was less than the laboratory LOR (limit of reporting –detection limit) to which was less than the adopted assessment criteria.

Field observations and analytical results indicate that there was no hydrocarbon impact in soil at the site from sample locations above the adopted assessment guidelines

Conclusion on the need to submit an Environmental Site Assessment

The preliminary site assessment under the Council draft guidelines indicates a need for an ESA. The applicant has responded to this by submitting a report that generally complies to the Contaminated Lands Assessment Guidelines. However, this assessment does not include the area beneath the underground storage tanks.


 

A condition is included requiring that further testing is required following the removal of those tanks. In the event that no contamination is detected under the tanks, a validation report is required to be submitted to Council. In the event that contamination levels are found in the soils under the tanks, further work on the development would need to stop pending the processing of an application for Category 1 remediation (remediation requiring further consent), followed only then by a further validation report. In the event that no contamination is revealed after the tank removal, the applicant can proceed simply to validation of the site.

State Environmental Planning Policy 33 - Hazardous and Offensive Development

This policy seeks to ensure that the consent authority has sufficient information to assess whether a development is potentially hazardous or offensive, and to impose conditions to reduce or minimise any adverse impacts. The policy sets out the definition of a ‘potentially hazardous industry’ as follows:

a development for the purposes of any industry which, if the development were to operate without employing any measures (including, for example, isolation from existing or likely future development on other land) to reduce or minimise its impact in the locality or on the existing or likely future development on other land, would pose a significant risk in relation to the locality:

(a)     to human health, life or property, or

(b)     to the biophysical environment,

and includes a hazardous industry and a hazardous storage establishment.

Guidelines titled Applying SEPP 33 Development Application Guidelines and Multi Level Risk Assessment Guidelines are particularly relevant to this application, among others. The applicant has prepared a Multi-Level Risk Assessment and PHA in accordance with these guidelines which concludes that the proposed development is within the risk thresholds set by the supporting guidelines.

The multi risk assessment’s principal recommendation is that all equipment to be installed on the site be installed strictly in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. The following conditions are included in the consent as a result of that recommendation:

·   All equipment must be installed to manufacturer’s recommendations and must comply with all the relevant standards listed within.

·   Specific safety features of the site, as set out in the submitted Preliminary Hazard Analysis (PHA) submitted with the Development Application shall be adhered to strictly at all times. The applicant shall ensure that safety procedures are well posted on the site and shall further ensure that all staff are adequately inducted as to correct safety procedures and protocols as set out in the PHA.

·   Prior to the issuing of an Occupational Certificate, the Applicant shall submit to Council documentation demonstrating that the following plans and systems have been developed and implemented:


 

(a)     TRANSPORT OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

Arrangements covering the transport of hazardous materials including details of routes to be used for the movement of vehicles carrying hazardous materials to or from the development. The routes selected shall be consistent with the Department of Planning’s Hazardous Industry Planning Advisory Paper No. 11, ‘Route Selection’. Suitable routes identified in the study shall be used except where departures are necessary for local deliveries or emergencies.

(b)     EMERGENCY PLAN

A comprehensive Emergency Plan and detailed emergency procedures for the development. The plan shall be consistent with the Department of Planning’s Hazardous Industry Planning Advisory Paper No. 1, ‘Emergency Planning’.

(c)     SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

A comprehensive Safety Management System, covering all on-site operations and associated transport activities involving hazardous materials. The Safety Management System shall be consistent with the Department of Planning’s Hazardous Industry Planning Advisory Paper No. 9, ‘Safety Management’.

Assessment Guidelines Appendix 6 - Ongoing Acceptability

The guidelines state:

"If, following the assessment of a PHA and other considerations, Council considers that the proposal can proceed, it should consider imposing relevant hazards-related conditions as recommended by the Department. This condition will help ensure the ongoing safety of a potential development."

Not all of the recommended conditions are considered relevant to this situation. It is recommended that the following condition be included to address this issue.

·   Twelve (12) months after the commencement of operations of the development, and every three (3) years thereafter, the Applicant shall carry out a comprehensive Hazard Audit of the proposed development consistent with the Department of Planning’s Hazardous Industry Planning Advisory Paper No. 5, ‘Hazard Audit Guidelines’. The audit shall be carried out by a qualified person or team, independent of the development. Compliance documentation shall be submitted to the Council within 28 days from the date of the audit.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

Development In Or Adjacent To Road Corridors And Road Reservations

The provisions of the SEPP place a requirement to obtain RMS concurrence to this proposal. This was done early in the process, but there were difficulties in getting the RMS to agree to the proposal until changes were made to the access and vehicle queuing arrangements, and restrictions were placed on the size of vehicles fuelling from the site.


 

By letter dated 28 August 2018, the RMS has granted conditional concurrence to the proposed development. The conditions are included in the draft Notice. RMS preamble in their concurrence letter notes the following main points:

I refer to an email from Craig Ridgewell from MCHP Architects on 10 August 2018 referring amended plans (Reference 17-077-DA07 and 17-077-DA08) to Roads and Maritime Services and Council for comment. Reference is also made to Roads and Maritime’s previous submission in relation to this proposal dated 19 June 2018 and a telephone conversation between Roads and Maritime’s Andrew McIntyre and Council’s Michael Glenn on 27 August 2018.

Roads and Maritime notes the amended plans show left and right turn treatments on the Mitchell Highway servicing the site and, includes an undertaking by the proponent to restrict access to the site to vehicles 12.5m and below (with one exception, the 19 metre tanker required to refill storage tanks).

Following review of the amended plans, Roads and Maritime, pursuant to clause 104 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007, does not object to the proposed development and provides the following recommendations for Council’s consideration”:

(the recommendations have been included as conditions in the consent)

The solution settled upon by the RMS has raised concern with some nearby and surrounding landowners. Council’s Director Technical Services requested that RMS further advise on the implications of the painted median strip on the ease of access into both the eastern and western neighbours. To address or clarify these concerns, the following questions were raised to the RMS, with the indicated responses provided:

i)       Vehicles crossing painted islands to access the Goldfields Tavern and private residence adjoining the service station (see attached plan with vehicle turns shown) Is this a legal manoeuvre?

RMS response

“Yes, I am advised these are legal manoeuvres. (see also extract below from RMS website regarding driving over painted islands)”


 

 

Figure 10 - broken lines around painted medians allow queuing and right turns

into the median area - solid lines prohibit this manoeuvre

ii)      Does the RMS have any objection to vehicles turning right when exiting the service station? (as shown in Figure 11)

RMS response

“No, we don't. Whilst not ideal, it was determined that the right turning movements out of the development will be low and therefore, we are accepting of the development providing right turns out”.


 

 

Figure 11 - right turns out of the service station and the adjoining residence

are permissible across the painted median

iii)     Does the RMS formally approve the roadworks plan as part of the Construction Certificate approvals process? (This is to ensure that the full extent of pavement widening etc is noted on the final approved engineering plans).

RMS response

“Yes, as per our letter the applicant will need to enter into a Works Authorisation Deed with RMS”.

State Environmental Planning Policy 64 - Advertising and Signage

State Environmental Planning Policy 64 - Advertising and Signage (SEPP 64) is applicable and states in part:

3        Aims, Objectives etc

(1)     This Policy aims:

(a)     to ensure that signage (including advertising):

(i)      is compatible with the desired amenity and visual character of an area, and

(ii)     provides effective communication in suitable locations, and

(iii)    is of high quality design and finish, and


 

(8)     Granting of Consent to Signage

A consent authority must not grant development consent to an application to display signage unless the consent authority is satisfied:

(a)     that the signage is consistent with the objectives of this Policy as set out in clause 3 (1) (a), and

(b)     that the signage the subject of the application satisfies the assessment criteria specified in Schedule 1.

1 - Character of the Area

·    Is the proposal compatible with the existing or desired future character of the area or locality in which it is proposed to be located?

·    Is the proposal consistent with a particular theme for outdoor advertising in the area or locality?

2 - Special Areas

·    Does the proposal detract from the amenity or visual quality of any environmentally sensitive areas, heritage areas, natural or other conservation areas, open space areas, waterways, rural landscapes or residential areas?

3 - Views and Vistas

·    Does the proposal obscure or compromise important views?

·    Does the proposal dominate the skyline and reduce the quality of vistas?

·    Does the proposal respect the viewing rights of other advertisers?

4 - Streetscape, Setting or Landscape

·    Is the scale, proportion and form of the proposal appropriate for the streetscape, setting or landscape?

·    Does the proposal contribute to the visual interest of the streetscape, setting or landscape?

·    Does the proposal reduce clutter by rationalising and simplifying existing advertising?

·    Does the proposal screen unsightliness?

·    Does the proposal protrude above buildings, structures or tree canopies in the area or locality?

·    Does the proposal require ongoing vegetation management?

5 - Site and Building

·    Is the proposal compatible with the scale, proportion and other characteristics of the site or building, or both, on which the proposed signage is to be located?

·    Does the proposal respect important features of the site or building, or both?

·    Does the proposal show innovation and imagination in its relationship to the site or building, or both?


 

6 - Associated Devices and Logos With Advertisements and Advertising Structures

·    Have any safety devices, platforms, lighting devices or logos been designed as an integral part of the signage or structure on which it is to be displayed?

7 - Illumination

·    Would illumination result in unacceptable glare?

·    Would illumination affect safety for pedestrians, vehicles or aircraft?

·    Would illumination detract from the amenity of any residence or other form of accommodation?

·    Can the intensity of the illumination be adjusted, if necessary?

·    Is the illumination subject to a curfew?

8 - Safety

·    Would the proposal reduce the safety for any public road?

·    Would the proposal reduce the safety for pedestrians or bicyclists?

·    Would the proposal reduce the safety for pedestrians, particularly children, by obscuring sightlines from public areas?

The proposed signage for the site is limited to two business identification signs, one being a pylon sign at the front of the site with a proposed height of 6m and a zero setback from the frontage, and the other being a flush-mounted wall sign (with some modification following the advice of Council’s Heritage Advisor). Lucknow is zoned RU5 Village, which is a mixed use zone intended and geared towards small scale development, with linkages to rural lands that surround the village. It is neither a fully-fledged commercial precinct nor a fully urban residential precinct. Council’s DCP 2004 includes some character observations in Chapter 7 (Residential Development) for the village of Lucknow, and Chapter 13 (Outdoor Advertising) that provide some guidance on what signage can be considered appropriate, taking into account location, heights and messaging. It is significant and worthwhile to take into consideration the heritage status of the village as well.

There are competing demands applicable to this site in terms of land use patterns and objectives or preferred outcomes. Such competing demands do not suggest or enable a more or less free-hand in signage outcomes. Compromises are needed to try and serve the competing demands of commercial exposure, residential amenity, and scale and heritage, with safety also a matter for consideration. On the one hand the pylon sign is located within a part of the village identified as predominantly commercial in character; but on the other hand the site is bounded on two sides by residential development. There are competing outcomes applicable to each of these “zones”. In the residential the emphasis is on achieving signage that is at a “human scale”, suggesting sign height limits of 2m and setbacks of at least the building line for the signs. However in this case given the semi-commercial nature of the precinct it is considered appropriate in these circumstances to limit the pylon sign to 5.4m in height being a height comparable to the height of the building.


 

The following diagrams show the imagery of the signage as proposed, and then with a maximum height of 5.4m and a setback closer to the shop:

LucknowServo as proposed

Figure 12 - proposed 6m height

LucknowServo reduced

Figure 13 -5.4m recommended height

The signs are proposed to be illuminated, which is generally considered acceptable in this case provided the illumination is constructed in a fully recessed receptacle and is switched off when the service station is not open.

Conditions are included that limit the height of the pylon sign to 5.4m, and require the sign illumination to be switched off outside the working hours of the service station.

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. 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 2v (Village) (Orange LEP 2000) is zone RU5 Village (Orange LEP 2011). As such, Orange DCP 2004 –Chapter 7 is relevant to this proposal. Chapters 12, 13, 14 and 15 are also applicable to the assessment.

CHAPTER 7 - DEVELOPMENT IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS

Shops and Businesses in the Urban Residential Zone

The LEP provides for a range of non-residential activities to be carried out in the Urban Residential zone (it is considered the RU-5 Village zone has a certain equivalency to standard residential zones for the purposes of DCP assessment) provided that the development complements the residential character and amenity of the area. Shops and businesses that are permissible in the RU5 zone are listed in the zoning table applicable to the zone. Business premises permitted in residential areas are restricted to neighbourhood-shopping centres in the City. In the case of the Lucknow village there is no neighbourhood shopping area, however the DCP notes that existing businesses are located within a limited part of the village, essentially the area adjacent to the highway at the western end of the village.

The DCP states that new commercial development in residential areas should aim to provide for the convenience-shopping needs of residents of the locality and should be located within or in association with existing neighbourhood-shopping areas. Neighbourhood-shopping centres should complement the predominantly residential character.

Planning Outcomes

·    Development complements the scale of residential development in the area and the predominant heights and form of residential development in the vicinity.

The heights of the building are comparable to surrounding development. The height of the proposed pylon sign as submitted is slightly more than that of the canopy, which is the highest structure otherwise proposed.


 

·    Business premises are located in neighbourhood business areas, existing prior to Orange LEP 2000.

There is no neighbourhood shop area within the village zone, but the DCP discussion identifies the north-western end of the properties facing the Mitchell Highway as the area of the village where commercial development has tended to occur. The proposed development would be located within this area on a site that is already being used as a service station.

·    Neighbourhood-business centres are small scale to serve the needs of the residents of the locality. Neighbourhood-business centres have a maximum commercial floor space of 1,000m² for the combined area of adjoining or adjacent shops and businesses, whether or not the premises are on the same land or adjacent to or in close proximity to each other.

The proposed development can be expected to provide services and goods likely to satisfy the local community needs, but also can be expected to rely on passing trade. Such reliance can be expected to lead to an elevated amount of commercial activity for the site. It is considered that such elevated levels of activity are acceptable within the day and early evenings, but would be likely to lead to land use conflicts with the adjacent residential development if permitted to operate in the overnight time slot. Attached is a condition of consent limiting the development to 10.00pm. The adjoining neighbour has indicated a preference for the development to be limited in terms of operating hours to 7.00am to 8.00pm.

·    New neighbourhood business centres are located at or near collector intersections, with the buildings addressing the street frontage and rear parking to provide quality urban design.

Not relevant to this application.

·    Onsite parking is provided according to Section 15.4 of this Plan.

Refer to the appropriate assessment contained elsewhere in this report.

·    Advertising signage is limited to exempt development (ie, sign with a maximum area of 1 square metre) for home businesses or businesses in converted dwelling houses.

This planning outcome is not relevant in this case given that the development does not comprise a home business or a business in converted dwelling houses. Attached is a condition of consent limiting the height of the pylon sign such that the signage will be sufficiently less intrusive as to be considered compatible with the surroundings.

·    Advertising signage in neighbourhood centres is not intrusive to the character of the residential locality. No more than 15% of the street façade elevation area of premises in a neighbourhood centre involves signage.

The revised signage scheme complies with this guideline.


 

Development in the Village of Lucknow

Village Character

The village has a number of areas with distinct characteristics that combine to make up the character of Lucknow. Urban development on the north-eastern side of the Mitchell Highway centred on a round hill comprises school and church buildings, with associated residences on relatively small lots. Commercial development is centrally located fronting the Highway. Land affected by former mining activity is situated on the fringes of the village and on steeper slopes. Residential development on larger lots is located southwest of the Highway, on Beasley and Phoenix Mine Roads, and on Chapel Hill Lane.

The DCP recommends that commercial development continue to centre on the Mitchell Highway and Beasley Road intersection. New development should reflect the historic character and form of the village.

Planning Outcomes

·    Development proposals involving new buildings or works on or near land identified as being subject to former mine activity include sufficient information to demonstrate to Council’s satisfaction that the land is suitable for the development. Particular attention is given to the location of former mine shafts, shallow drives, mine spoil or mining relics. A geotechnical professional prepares the information.

The applicant has provided limited information to suitably demonstrate that the site is suitable for development based on previous mining activity. Notwithstanding, Council staff have carried out an assessment of the location of former mine shafts in the general locality together with a review of assessments carried out on land that immediately adjoins the subject property. Applications for development on nearby properties (numbers 9, 11 15 and 19 Chapel Hill lane, all located to the rear of the site) have included geotechnical assessments assessing the risks for mine subsidence and soil contamination, and all have concluded that the risks as very low.

The applicant has submitted a contamination report establishing that no significant levels of contamination exist on the site. Based on the fact that the neighbouring sites are similar in terms of location and site conditions as the subject property it is considered the site is appropriate for the proposed development. The intent of these provisions is to minimise the risk of subsidence due to construction over former mine workings. There is always some risk of subsidence and mine working contamination for any development within the village. To minimise the risks from mine subsidence and contamination on new construction precautionary conditions have been recommended in the consent. The applicant will be required to submit a geotechnical report prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate to confirm that the site is suitable.

·    A professionally-prepared report identifying that the land is suitable for development after being investigated for potential land contamination is submitted with a development application for development involving works that will disturb the land.

An Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) has been submitted indicating no substantial contamination on the site. However, this ESA does not include appropriate assessment of the area immediately beneath the underground storage tanks. A condition of consent has been included in the attached Notice to address this issue.

·    Commercial development is located within the established business core of the Village centred on the Mitchell Highway/Phoenix Mine Road intersection. Buildings and associated signage are designed to relate to the traditional mining character of the Village to reinforce the mining history of the Village.

The site on which the proposed development is to be located is within the “commercial precinct” of the village. The specifics of the submitted design are not ideal, being essentially a compromise between broad brush heritage and streetscape considerations aiming to soften and control massing and bulk on the one hand; whilst on the other hand permitting a scale of commercialisation of the site that will be viable and functional. The height of signage has been limited to 5.4m.

·    Mining relics on land subject to development proposals are identified, interpreted and conserved.

There are no mining relics on the land.

·    Mine spoil areas remain undisturbed except for works associated with stabilising the area to prevent erosion.

There are no mine spoil areas on this site.

·    Heritage mine sites are made available for the interpretation of the Village’s mining history. Such development includes professional interpretation and conservation of the site.

The subject property is not an identified heritage site within the village precinct.

·    Residential lots have a minimum area of 1,000m2. Larger areas are created on land affected by former mining activity to permit an adequate area for development removed from disturbed sites.

The subject site is less than 1,000m2 but is also not a residential use.

·    Residential buildings are designed to relate to traditional building forms of the Village.

Not relevant to this application

·    The development is serviced by the public sewerage and water reticulation system, taking into account the planned capacity of these systems.

Council’s Environmental Health and Building Surveyor has reviewed the application and has raised no objection to the connection of the site to either Council’s reticulated water supply or the reticulated sewage system.


 

CHAPTER 12 - RURAL ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION ZONE

Water-Catchment Considerations

Whilst the land is zoned RU5 Village it is none the less located within the drinking water catchment for the City. Water supply catchments are areas that provide for public water supplies to service urban centres. The water catchment planning provisions apply the precautionary principle of Ecologically Sustainable Development through a “prudent-avoidance” approach. This approach includes provisions to reduce the chance of serious environmental problems, even where it is not certain when or if such problems will occur

There are no aspects of the proposed development where likely adverse impacts on water quality within the catchment are likely to arise. Conditions are included for such items as trade waste and stormwater management that should lessen the impacts on surface runoff quality to an acceptable limit.

CHAPTER 13 - HERITAGE

Consideration of Heritage Character

The unique and significant character of the village is enhanced by the extent of the remaining aboveground mine shaft structures - particularly the steel head frames of the Wentworth Main and Reform sites, which are rare survivors both within the region and the state, and give the village a striking historic immediacy, accessible to all because of their prominent location on the main road.

The historic significance of the village is enhanced by the degree to which it has retained elements of its early layout (particularly the road network) and various early buildings it has retained, which provide evidence of early residential and associated activities. Several individual buildings are of high historic and aesthetic significance (including “Mamhead” and the Anglican Church) while others are valuable representative examples of early building styles, and provide evidence of early development patterns in the village. The historic and aesthetic significance of many early dwellings in the village has been adversely affected by later alterations and loss of fabric, as well as a more general loss of early/appropriate architectural context.

The aesthetic significance of the village arises in large measure from its attractive siting on the Frederick's Valley Creek, surrounded by low, rolling hills, and the open, largely undeveloped, character of this setting. The simple linear character of the village itself, with its defined entry points, generally low scale development and remaining early structures, assists in maintaining the important early village identity and character, although this has been notably eroded and adversely impacted upon in recent years by inappropriate alterations to early buildings and unsympathetic new developments.

The proposed development is considered an adequate design response. The proposal, now with a pitched roof and with slightly more restrained signage scheme, can be expected to at least not demean or challenge the desirable or valuable character that defines the Lucknow Heritage Conservation area. The new development cannot be described as significantly reinforcing of the village character, but it is sufficiently restrained and limited as to be considered suitable on heritage grounds to the locality.


 

The imposition of landscaping conditions, the limits placed on signage (particularly height), and the detail changes specified by the Heritage Advisor (including the pitched roof for the store component) provide adequate mitigation to an otherwise uninspired design response to the heritage challenges of the locality. It is considered fair to describe the more modern changes to the Lucknow village architecture as not particularly sensitive to the heritage values of the village, and the current proposal is a continuation of that trend. However, in the case of this proposal, it is considered that sufficient respect and deference is worked into the design as to render its impacts acceptable.

CHAPTER 14 - ADVERTISING

Chapter 14 of the DCP contains the following requirements:

Controls for advertising seek to ensure that, where advertising is directed towards or across public places (including roads and public areas such as parks) to attract the attention of the public, then the advertising should complement the character of that area. Advertisements should be designed to relate to the land or building. While advertisers may wish signs to stand out, in order that signs complement the character of Lucknow they should fit within the built and landscape environment. It is recognised that business should be able to present their activity to the public in an appropriate manner. Business Identification Signs serve this function

Signs should complement the scale of associated buildings. For signs attached to buildings, the signs should not extend beyond the outline of a building when viewed at the front elevation. Pylon or free-standing signs in business areas should have a height consistent with the height of the main building on the site. In residential areas, free-standing signs should be located in a landscaped garden setting and should be at a personal scale (i.e., generally less than 2 metres in height). Proliferation of signs should be avoided since they detract from the character of the area and provide confusion for the travelling public”.

Planning Outcomes

·    The location, size, colour and design of advertisement complement the character of the locality.

The character of the locality is mixed. To the north and west the predominant character is commercial. It is considered that in terms of location, size (and height) and design the proposed signs are compatible with the commercial surroundings. However, there is also a predominantly residential style of development to the south and east of the site, and in this regard the signs are not at a scale or of a design that sufficiently respects that residential scale or character if viewed solely in the context of residential development. However, the applicable zoning does not restrict development to just residential development. The village zone permits a range of mixed uses; and further the DCP identifies that part of the village where the proposed development is to be located as predominantly a commercial precinct. On that basis the signs are satisfactory subject to adoption of the recommended condition of consent.


 

·    Advertisements on buildings fit within the envelope of the building.

The flush wall sign is consistent with this planning outcome.

·    Freestanding pole or pylon signs relate to the height of associated buildings in business and industrial areas.

As proposed the pylon sign would not relate to the height of the structures proposed for the site. However, a reduction in the height of the pylon sign of 600mm (10%) required by condition of consent will result in the sign conforming more to the planning outcome.

·    Freestanding signs in residential areas are at a personal scale (i.e., about 2-metres high or less) within a landscaped setting.

The proposed signs do not comply with this planning outcome, and the applicant has not submitted any basis to support the variation to the DCP that is needed. However, in this case a limited sign inventory and restrained signage scheme can be justified on the basis that the signs are within the commercial precinct of the village, and the impacts on the neighbouring residential lots are about the same as the existing unapproved signs on the site.

CHAPTER 15 – OFF-STREET PARKING

The exiting development has no statutory requirement to provide parking as no consent is known to exist for the building erected thereon. There is no formal parking area provided onsite, however the configuration of the site does allow off-street parking for the existing activities on the site. There is a gravelled area at the rear of the existing shop with dimensions to accommodate five vehicles. The existing shop has a floor area of 114 m2.

Service stations under the DCP have the following car parking rates applied to them:

3 spaces for each work bay plus 1 space per 25m² of gross floor area of shop, convenience store or payment area

For the proposed development there are no work bays proposed. The proposed convenience store has 186m2 of gross floor area, representing a net increase in floor area (compared to the existing shop) of 72m2.

Adding the previous car parking provision (five spaces) to the requirements arising from the net increase in gross floor area (72m2), the net requirement for parking is 7.88 spaces (rounded to eight).

The plans submitted with the application show eight onsite spaces being provided, which is considered sufficient to meet the demands of the site.

An alternative method for calculating parking, disregarding existing floor areas and existing (estimated) parking provision would simply be to calculate the parking requirements of the new development, without regard to the floor areas and parking provision of the existing situation. This method yields a requirement for 7.44 off street spaces (again rounded up to eight spaces).

The proposed development complies with the off-street parking requirements of Council’s DCP.


 

Problems arise, however, for larger sized vehicles. To address this the RMS requirements include a prohibition on the fuelling of vehicles larger than 12.5m (the size limit set for a large rigid vehicle). Mitchell Highway permits vehicles up to 26m semi-articulated vehicles. Further, it is noted that the delivery vehicle to provide fuel to the site is 19m. Arrangements in the access and egress geometry make it possible for the delivery vehicle to deliver fuel safely to the site, however the site is considered too small to accommodate trucks to receive fuel larger than the limits specified by the RMS.

INFILL GUIDELINES

The Orange Local Government Area has a number of items and areas of heritage significance (including the whole of Lucknow village) pursuant to Orange Local Environmental Plan (OEP) 2011. These areas are generally valued by the community.

The Burra Charter includes in Article 8 in its section on "Setting":

"Conservation requires the retention of an appropriate visual setting and other relationships that contribute to the cultural significance of the place. New construction, demolition, intrusions or other changes which would adversely affect the setting or relationships are not appropriate"

Good quality and sensitive design of infill development in heritage areas is of paramount importance in retaining the historic character of precincts within Lucknow. An important aspect of good design is designing in context and having regard to the site and its surroundings, with particular consideration to the surrounding built form and significant landscaping.

What is Infill Development?

The NSW Heritage Office and the Royal Australian Institute of Architects NSW 2005 publication Design in Context defines infill as:

A new building in an established and valued historic context. Good infill is building that is sympathetic to the surrounding buildings and historic context and creates new structures that enhance and complement the existing urban, suburban or rural character.

Purpose of the Guideline

Commercial infill takes advantage of premier business locations whilst contributing to active and vibrant streetscapes. Council’s Development Control Plan 2004 currently requires development to complement and relate to the relevant features and built form within existing streetscapes.

Infill should complement and enhance the local character by relating to the predominant scale, massing, colours and materials of the area. This does not mean that a developer must recreate the buildings nearby; it is acceptable to relate to the above factors with a contemporary design, and this has been expressed through the aims of the guideline.

Prescriptive numerical standards can often be counterintuitive in the sense that they reduce flexibility and can stifle a creative design that would otherwise satisfy the fundamental objects and performance criteria of the applicable provisions through an alternate design solution. Accordingly, the guidelines do not present numerical standards to control development in a heritage context per se.

Objectives of Infill Design

·    Retention of appropriate visual setting (Article 8 Burra Charter).

·    To ensure new buildings respond to and enhance the character and appearance of the streetscapes of the Heritage Conservation Areas.

·    To ensure contributory heritage items retain their prominence and are not dominated by new development within a Heritage Conservation Area and do not compromise the heritage values of the existing area.

·    To ensure new buildings do not adversely affect the significance, character or appearance of the Heritage Conservation Area or heritage items.

·    To allow for reasonable change within a Heritage Conservation Area while ensuring all other heritage objectives are met.

·    To ensure new development facilitates the retention of significant vegetation that contributes to the tree canopy, especially within the Central Orange Heritage Conservation Area.

The proposed development is consistent with the commercial character of the village, but is less consistent with the residential design objectives of the guidelines. The subject property is located just inside the commercial precinct of the village; however it is acknowledged that residential development adjoins the site to the east and south

Principle of Infill Development

The guidelines emphasise the context of a place and respond to it. Consideration should be given to the nature of adjoining and surrounding heritage items and places, significant vegetation (on the site and adjoining the site) and the overall significance and character of the heritage area where it is located.

New development within a conservation area should not have to replicate the existing built form, but should be compatible and enhance the existing streetscape. Contemporary designs may be acceptable provided the design relates to the assessment criteria”.

The proposed development is essentially a contemporary design with mitigating elements introduced or required by condition into the design, thereby adhering to the principals of the Infill Guidelines.

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

Demolition of a Building (clause 92)

A condition is attached requiring the demolition to be carried out in accordance with Australian Standard AS2601 - 1991: The Demolition of Structures.

Fire Safety Considerations (clause 93)

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

Buildings to be Upgraded (clause 94)

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


 

BASIX Commitments (clause 97A)

BASIX is not applicable to the proposed development. A Section J energy efficiency statement will be required with the Construction Certificate application.

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

The proposed development has likely impacts in the following subject areas:

·    hours of operation;

·    risks from naturally occurring asbestos

·    traffic and loading;

·    hazardous goods;

·    noise;

·    impacts on character;

·    heritage;

·    changes to site levels; and

·    heritage.

Conditions are included in the attached consent to address each of these issues, which have previously been mentioned and commented upon in this report (with the exception of naturally occurring asbestos contamination).

Naturally Occurring Asbestos

Figure 14 (below shows that the subject property is within a mapped area where naturally occurring asbestos can occur in development where soil disturbance is proposed.

Figure 14 - potential asbestos affection mapping


 

Council mapping system also records that naturally occurring asbestos events have been discovered within a 500m radius of the site.

The information available to Council is predictive only. It does not necessarily follow that naturally occurring asbestos will be found on this site, just that the soil conditions and previous survey mapping suggest a strong possibility. It is considered appropriate in this situation to apply the precautionary principle and impose the following condition to the consent:

The site is located within an area identified as containing serpentinite rock formations, which can contain chrysotile, a naturally occurring asbestos. Therefore the applicant or person with management or control of the site shall ensure that a written plan (an Asbestos Management Plan) for the site is prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 and Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011.

To assist applicants with developing an Asbestos Management Plan, applicants are encouraged to access the ‘Asbestos Management Plan for Orange City Council 2014’, which is available on Council’s website: www.orange.nsw.gov.au .

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

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

The site is currently used for the purposes of a service station. The site is considered suitable for the proposed use. It will be necessary to undertake further contamination testing once the underground storage tanks are removed, and this may trigger a need for further Category 1 remediation if contamination is found. However, even in this eventuality, the site can be considered suitable for the proposed development.

The site is located on the interface between the residential and commercial areas of the village. To achieve a degree of compatibility with the village character, conditions that limit the hours of operation, the height of the pylon sign, the times that the premises may be illuminated, the styles and finishes of the building and landscape treatments to be applied are imposed as conditions in the consent.

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 LEP. The application was advertised on two occasions for the prescribed period of 14 days. Two exhibitions were necessary because the application underwent some significant amendments in May 2018. At the conclusion of the two exhibitions, seven submissions had been received from the nearby and surrounding residents.

A summary of the objections raised, and the brief responses thereto are set out as follows:


 

Mr and Mrs Peter Campbell (two submissions)

·    Object to the 24 hour operation

As discussed in the body of this report the 24 hour operation of the development is not considered acceptable in this locality. The applicant has amended the application to operate from 5.00am to 12.00pm. However given the character of the surrounding locality, the location of the adjoining residential development and the objectives of the RU5 Village zoning it is recommended that the hours of operation be limited to 7.00am to 10.00pm to align with the evening night time noise criteria. Conditions are included that limit the hours of operation to 7am to 10pm.

·    Odour

The objection relates vapours emitted from the vent pipes of the underground tanks and the odour impacts these vapours have on the residential amenity of the neighbouring residence. The objector notes that there are existing vent pipes for the existing tanks which are already causing odour nuisances from the emissions.

Enquiries with the Environment Protection Authority reveal that in comparison to the existing equipment installation on the site, which is essentially obsolete technology with regards to vapour management, there are now heightened industry standards relative to the standard of equipment already installed on the site that should lead to improved vapour venting (and hence odour control) for the subject property.

·    Fencing on the eastern boundary should be at least 2m in height constructed in sound attenuating material.

The applicant, in relation to border fencing has indicated agreement to the construction of 1.8m high fencing (albeit as Colorbond fencing). The submitted noise report suggests no significant impacts for surrounding properties. 1.8m high fencing is considered to be acceptable in this case, however the material more likely to be compatible is considered to be timber lapped and capped. A condition of consent to this effect is included in the notice and reflects essentially a compromise between the expectations of the objector and the responses of the applicant.

·    The objector requests that kerb and gutter be provided along the frontages where roadworks are required.

This is considered reasonable in the circumstances and a condition is included to this effect in the Notice of Determination.

GB Heinrich

·    Objects to the 24 hour operation

As discussed above a condition of consent has been included that limits the hours of operation to 7am to 10pm.

·    19m vehicles not suitable for the site

Consistent with the requirements of the RMS conditions of consent have been recommended in the attached notice of determination that limit the maximum size of vehicles to 12.5m. A 19m long vehicle is only permitted on the site to service the subject development.

·    No provision for pedestrian footway

Conditions are included in the consent requiring the removal of the non-approved concrete slab at the front of the property (which tends to be used for unauthorised verge parking), with properly constructed footpath and verge landscaping as well as physical barriers to be installed to prevent the parking of vehicles on the verge.

·    There is no right turn capability travelling east

The amended plans, following input from the RMS, resulted in a right capability as well as a slip lane on the southern (westbound) side of the Mitchell Highway. Attached a range of conditions required by RMS to deal with access arrangements onto and off the highway.

A and K Anlezark

·    Concerned that the retaining wall proposed along the southern side of the subject land will result in the loss of landscaping from that neighbours property

The submitted plans show the installation of a retaining wall along the southern boundary to replace an existing batter. The batter encroaches approximately 3m to the north of the shared boundary, tapering down to approximately zero at the top of the bank. The installation of the retaining wall will require the removal of some spoil so as to allow the back boundary to be squared off, and if not carried out carefully this work could result in the demolition or killing of vegetation that would otherwise require consent for removal, and which if lost is likely to cause harm to the southern neighbour.

Figure 15 - landscaping of southern neighbour

To address this issue the following condition is included in the consent:

Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate

Structural details, certified by an engineer are required for the retaining wall to be installed along the southern boundary. A tree management plan is also required to be submitted outlining the details of the retaining wall construction, and including tree protection measures and harm minimisation measures that conform to the Australian Standards that apply to this situation, including AS 4970 – Protection Of Trees on Development sites.


 

Natalee Selwood (two submissions)

·    The Assessment and Traffic and Parking Implication section of the DA does not deal in full of the implications of the traffic in the area. It does not mention that there is no safe access into or out of the site

This submission was made in relation to the original plans submitted for consideration. The amended plans have addressed the traffic and access issues and have received concurrence from RMS, subject to conditions.

·    Pedestrian Access

Conditions are included to address the issue of pedestrian access.

·    Contrary to the village residential character

The village has a significant heritage character, and a mixed residential and commercial precinct. The subject property is located on the boundary separating the mainly residential parts of the village from the mainly commercial parts.

It is considered appropriate, in the interests of maintaining a village character and reflecting the mixed use zoning provisions of the village zone, to apply conditions that prevent the full 24 hour operation of the development. To this end it is recommended that the development be limited to 7.00am to 10.00pm.

·    The proposed development is a visual eyesore and fails to take into account the historic significance of the village

The proposed development is infill development, with aspects in the design that are not ideal to the surroundings in which they are to be placed. Conversely, changes have been incorporated into the amended plans following consultation with Council’s Heritage adviser and conditions are contained in the consent that will reduce these impacts.

Under the circumstances it would be a negative step to insist on a mock heritage solution. The amended plans and the suite of conditions included in the consent aim to contain interpretations of the dominant character of the village, whilst at the same time taking steps to minimise the dominance that the proposed development might otherwise possess.

Gai Fardell (second exhibition period only)

·    Objects to the 24 hour operation

As discussed above a condition of consent has been included in the Notice of Determination that limits the hours of operation to 7am to 10.00pm.

·    Traffic Safety

See comments above.


 

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. The RMS have recommended a suite of conditions to ensure that access/egress from the site is acceptable. 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, D18/58099

2          Plans, D18/57564

3          Submissions, D18/57569

  


Planning and Development Committee                                                   7 November 2018

2.3                       Development Application DA 33/2018(1) - 4613 Mitchell Highway, Lucknow

Attachment 1      Notice of Approval

 

ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

 

Development Application No DA 33/2018(1)

 

NA18/                                                                Container PR18810

 

 

NOTICE OF DETERMINATION

OF A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

issued under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Section 4.18

 

Development Application

 

  Applicant Name:

Brothers Three Pty Ltd

  Applicant Address:

C/- MCHP Architects Pty Ltd

Suite 5, 46 Albany Street

ST LEONARDS  NSW  2065

  Owner’s Name:

Brothers Three Pty Ltd

  Land to Be Developed:

Lot 101 DP 1053642 - 4613 Mitchell Highway, Lucknow

  Proposed Development:

Demolition (existing service station), Service Station (includes sales building, fuel dispensing canopy, underground fuel tanks), and Business and Site Identification Signs

 

 

Building Code of Australia

 building classification:

 

To be determined by the PC

 

 

Determination made under

  Section 4.16

 

  Made On:

7 November 2018

  Determination:

CONSENT GRANTED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS DESCRIBED BELOW:

 

 

Consent to Operate From:

8 November 2018

Consent to Lapse On:

8 November 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 MCHP Architects:

DA02(REVB), DA03 (REV D), DA05 (REV C) dated 26.08.2017;

DA07 (REV B) DA08 (REV B), DA09 (REV A) dated 17-05-2018;

DA07 (REV B – Roadworks sketch), DA08 (REV A – Roadworks Context Plan)

dated 3.08.2018 (8 sheets)

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

as amended in accordance with any conditions of this consent.

 

 

PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

(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.

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

 

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

 

(6)      A geotechnical report shall be submitted and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessments, that certifies that the site is not at risk from mine subsidence and that the site is suitable for the development having regard to mine subsidence.

 

(7)      Structural details, certified by an engineer are required for the retaining wall to be installed along the southern boundary. A tree management plan is also required to be submitted outlining the details of the retaining wall construction, and including tree protection measures and harm minimisation measures that conform to the Australian Standards that apply to this situation, including AS 4970 – Protection Of Trees on Development sites.


 

(8)      Amended plans are required that are to the satisfaction of the Manager Development Assessments, incorporating the following features:

·    All blockwork walls are to be fully concealed on all exposed surfaces by planting in the form of a creeper specified by the landscape consultant with appropriate planting media, watering and the means of adhering to the subject walls.

·    All lighting to the soffit of the fuelling canopy is to be fully recessed from the soffit surface.

·    The soffit to the fuelling canopy is to be equal to the Colorbond standard custom orb profile in “Shale Grey”. The fencing on the side facing the development around the perimeter shall also be finished in “Shale Grey” or “Windspray”.

·    The cladding to the north-eastern elevation is run horizontally to interpret the local vernacular.

·    A full height window is to be inserted into the north-eastern elevation between the cigarette display and office doors.

·    The building be provided with a similar hipped 30 degree pitched roof.

·    The colour of the gable infills is to be “Windspray”.

·    The concrete blockwork on the convenience store shall be clad in horizontal Colorbond “Basalt” and not painted to reflect the local vernacular.

·    The site identification sign shall be limited to a maximum height of 5.4m above existing ground levels to ensure the sign element relates to the maximum height of the structures to be erected on the site and does not visually dominate the setting and affect other business identification elements, signs and graphics. The base of the sign shall be clad in local stone similar to basalt to the level of the bottom price indicator and replacing the ATM graphic which is redundant.

·    A revised landscape plan is required that incorporates species suited to the local climate (in particular are frost tolerant), and which have mature heights suited to the growth plots to be provided. Existing species selection in the submitted plans are inappropriate. Further, the landscaping plans shall be amended to incorporate a landscaping strip in the two access driveways to the site to a minimum width of 1.5m (with the landscaping plan showing the existing unauthorised concrete pad in the Council verge area being removed). Plant selection shall incorporate native species capable of achieving a mature height of not less than 4m. This landscape strip shall be provided in the verge area on the southern side of the footpath construction elsewhere required by this consent.

 

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

 

(10)    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.

 

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

The plans shall detail the removal of the concrete slab between the two driveways and this area reinstated as public footpath. All signage shall be located within the site boundaries.


 

(12)    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.

Engineering plans shall include a road pavement design for widening works and all Roads and Maritime Services requirements as follows:

·    “No Entry” (R2-4) signs are to be provided on the land at each side of the exit driveway. The signs are to face the Mitchell Highway to advise motorists not to enter the site from the Mitchell Highway via the exit driveway.

·    “No Entry” (R2-4) signs are to be erected on the land on each side of the entry driveway. The signs are to face the site to advise motorists not to exit onto the Mitchell Highway via the entry driveway.

·    Prior to occupation of the development, signage on the site facing the Mitchell Highway is to be installed displaying “NO FUELING OF VEHICLES OVER 12.5 METRES LONG”.

·    Adequate turning circles, storage room and vertical clearance are to be provided within the site for the largest type of vehicle (19 metre fuel tanker) that will visit the site operation.

·    All activities including loading and unloading of goods associated with the development are to be carried out on site in the dedicated areas.

·    Landscaping, signage and fencing are not to impede sight lines of traffic within or when passing, entering or departing from the site. Safe Intersection Sight Distance (SISD) requirements outlined in Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 4A is to be provided in both directions at the intersection of driveways and the Mitchell Highway.

·    Prior to the occupation of the site, a Channelised Right (Short) [CHR(s)] turn lane generally in accordance with Figure 7.7 Part 4A Austroads Guide to Road Design 2017 and relevant Roads and Maritime supplements, is to be provided in the Mitchell Highway at its intersection with the site entry. The intersection works are to be designed and constructed for a 60km/h speed zone and be able to accommodate the largest vehicle accessing the site.

·    Prior to occupation of the site, a Basic Left (BAL) turn treatment as shown in Figure 8.2 Part 4A of the Austroads Guide to Road Design 2017 is to be provided at the intersection of site access and the Mitchell Highway. The BAL facility will also need to be sealed and built for a 60km/h environment.

·    A formal agreement in the form of a Works Authorisation Deed (WAD) will be required between the developer and Roads and Maritime for the developer to undertake “private financing and construction” of any works on the Mitchell Highway. This agreement is necessary for works in which Roads and Maritime has a statutory interest. A WAD is to be executed prior to issuance of a Construction Certificate.

·    Prior to the commencement of construction works, the proponent is to contact Roads and Maritime’s Field Traffic Manager to determine if a Road Occupancy Licence (ROL) is required. In the event that an ROL is required, the proponent is to obtain the ROL prior to works commencing within three (3) metres of the travel lanes on the Mitchell Highway.

·    All entry/exit points onto/from the Mitchell Highway, internal vehicular manoeuvring, parking and loading areas are to be constructed, sealed and maintained generally in accordance with submitted plans reference no.17-077-DA07 and 17-077-DA08 prior to the issuance of an Occupation Certificate.

·    Signage is to be in accordance with the Department of Planning and Environment’s Transport Corridor Outdoor Advertising and Signage Guidelines 2017, is not to flash, move or be objectionably glaring or luminous.


 

(13)    All stormwater from the site is to be collected and piped to a stormwater treatment system. The design and construction of the stormwater treatment system for the subject land shall ensure that the quality of stormwater leaving the developed site achieves 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);

·      No observable Hydrocarbons present in stormwater discharge (<10ppm).

Orange City Council is to approve engineering plans for this stormwater system prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate. The applicant shall undertake comprehensive water quality modelling on for the site, using an accredited assessment tool (recommended using Music™ or other approved assessment tool) and shall include copies of the electronic data files. Treated stormwater shall be piped to the existing roadside inlet pit that shall be reconstructed as a surcharge pit with a grated inlet.

 

(14)    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 0.6 ETs for water supply headworks and 0.9 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.

 

(15)    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.

 

(16)    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.

 

 

PRIOR TO WORKS COMMENCING

 

(17)    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.

 

(18)    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.

 

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

 

 

DURING CONSTRUCTION/SITEWORKS

 

(20)    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.


 

(21)    After removal of the underground storage tanks (USTs) from the site, work shall stop until it has been determined that the area under the USTs is free from contamination. Further soil testing for the ground under the USTs shall be completed, with the results also submitted to Council’s Manager Development Assessments. In the event that contamination under the tanks is discovered, work shall cease and further development consent shall be sought for that remediation (note that the remediation of this land must be completed as a Category 1 remediation under State Environmental Planning Policy 55 – Remediation of Land, which is remediation that requires development consent. Work on the site may only recommence on submission and acceptance by Council of the validation report for the related Remediation action Plan.

 

(22)    A Registered Surveyor’s certificate identifying the location of the building on the site must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

(23)    All construction works are to be strictly in accordance with the Reduced Levels (RLs) as shown on the approved plans.

 

(24)    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.

 

(25)    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.

 

(26)    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.

 

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

 

(28)    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.

 

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

 

(30)    Heavy-duty concrete kerb and gutter laybacks and footpath crossings are to be constructed for the entrances to the proposed development. The location and construction of the laybacks and footpath crossings shall accommodate the turn path of a 19m articulated vehicle. The driveway shall be constructed to the standards stated in the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code.

 

(31)    A 1.2m wide concrete pathway shall be constructed between the 2 driveways on the property frontage. Pram ramps shall be installed where the path intersects with kerb. The footpath shall be constructed to the standards stated in the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code.

 

(32)    All services are to be contained within the allotment that they serve.


 

(33)    The site is located within an area identified as containing serpentinite rock formations, which can contain chrysotile, a naturally occurring asbestos. Therefore the applicant or person with management or control of the site shall ensure that a written plan (an Asbestos Management Plan) for the site is prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 and Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011. To assist applicants with developing an Asbestos Management Plan, applicants are encouraged to access the ‘Asbestos Management Plan for Orange City Council 2014’, which is available on Council’s website: www.orange.nsw.gov.au

 

(34)    Road widening is to be constructed for the proposed development to the requirements of Roads and Maritime Services. This work shall include full depth road pavement, pavement surfacing and line marking for any new lanes or widened shoulders. The work shall include kerb and gutter construction and an earth-formed footpath on the development side of the road for the full frontage of the development and the full length of the left turn lane into the development.

 

 

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF AN OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE

 

(35)    All equipment must be installed to manufacturer’s recommendations and must comply with all the relevant standards listed within.

 

(36)    Prior to the issuing of an Occupational Certificate, the Applicant shall submit to Council documentation demonstrating that the following plans and systems have been developed and implemented:

(a)      TRANSPORT OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

Arrangements covering the transport of hazardous materials including details of routes to be used for the movement of vehicles carrying hazardous materials to or from the development. The routes selected shall be consistent with the Department of Planning’s Hazardous Industry Planning Advisory Paper No. 11, ‘Route Selection’. Suitable routes identified in the study shall be used except where departures are necessary for local deliveries or emergencies.

(b)      EMERGENCY PLAN

A comprehensive Emergency Plan and detailed emergency procedures for the development. The plan shall be consistent with the Department of Planning’s Hazardous Industry Planning Advisory Paper No. 1, ‘Emergency Planning’.

(c)      SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

A comprehensive Safety Management System, covering all on-site operations and associated transport activities involving hazardous materials. The Safety Management System shall be consistent with the Department of Planning’s Hazardous Industry Planning Advisory Paper No. 9, ‘Safety Management’.

 

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

 

(38)    A total of 8 off-street car parking spaces shall be provided upon the site in accordance with the approved plans, the provisions of Development Control Plan 2004, and be constructed in accordance with the requirements of Council's Development and Subdivision Code prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

 

(39)    1.8m high hardwood timber fencing, lapped and capped shall be provided along the shared eastern boundary of the subject property.

 

(40)    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.

 

(41)    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.


 

(42)    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.

 

(43)    A Certificate of Compliance, from a Qualified Engineer, stating that the stormwater treatment system complies with the approved engineering plans is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issuing of an Occupation Certificate.

 

(44)    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.

 

(45)    Certification of the installation and commissioning of testable Backflow Prevention Devices shall be submitted to Orange City Council by a plumber with backflow qualifications prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

 

(46)    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

 

(47)    Twelve months after the commencement of operations of the proposed development and every three years thereafter, the Applicant shall carry out a comprehensive Hazard Audit of the proposed development consistent with the Department of Planning’s Hazardous Industry Planning Advisory Paper No. 5, ‘Hazard Audit Guidelines’. The audit shall be carried out by a qualified person or team, independent of the development. Compliance documentation shall be submitted to the Council within 28 days from the date of the audit.

 

(48)    Specific safety features of the site, as set out in the submitted Preliminary Hazard Analysis (PHA) submitted with the Development Application shall be adhered to strictly at all times. The applicant shall ensure that safety procedures are well posted on the site and shall further ensure that all staff are adequately inducted as to correct safety procedures and protocols as set out in the PHA.

 

(49)    Internal and external illumination (including signage) of the service station is permitted only during the approved hours of operation. Outside of the approved hours, all lighting, except that needed for security and safety purposes shall be switched off.

 

(50)    The hours of operation of the premises shall not exceed 7am to 10pm seven days per week.

 

(51)    No sandwich boards or the like are to be placed on Council's footpath.

 

(52)    A separate development application shall be submitted to and approved by Council prior to the erection of any advertising structures (including business identification signs) or signs of a type that do not meet the exempt development provisions of Orange Local Environmental Plan 2000 (amended) and Development Control Plan 2004.

 

(53)    Emitted noise shall not exceed 5dB(A) above background sound level measured at the nearest affected residence.

 

(54)    Any ancillary light fittings fitted to the exterior of the building are to be shielded or mounted in a position to minimise glare to adjoining properties.


 

(55)    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.

 

(56)    Copies of maintenance records for servicing of the approved stormwater treatment system shall be forwarded to Council on 1 December annually.

 

(57)    POST-STARTUP COMPLIANCE REPORT

Three months after the commencement of operation of the development, the Applicant shall submit to Council, a report verifying that:

(a)      transport routes specified under this consent (generated by the HIPAPS requirements) are being followed;

(b)      the Emergency Plan required under this consent and generated by the HIPAPs requirements are effectively in place and that at least one emergency exercise has been conducted; and

(c)      the Safety Management System required under this consent and brought out by the HIPAPs requirements have been fully implemented and that records required by the system are being kept.

 

(58)    HAZARD AUDIT

Twelve months after the commencement of operations of the proposed development and every three years thereafter, or at such intervals as Council may agree, the Applicant shall carry out a comprehensive Hazard Audit of the proposed development and within one month of each audit submit a report to Council.

The audits shall be carried out at the Applicant’s expense by a qualified person or team, independent of the development, prior to commencement of each audit and shall be consistent with the Department of Planning’s Hazardous Industry Planning Advisory Paper No. 5, ‘Hazard Audit Guidelines’.

The audit shall be carried out by a qualified person or team, independent of the development.

 

 

 

 

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:

 

8 November 2018

 



Planning and Development Committee                                                                    7 November 2018

2.3                       Development Application DA 33/2018(1) - 4613 Mitchell Highway, Lucknow

Attachment 2      Plans

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator



Planning and Development Committee                                                             7 November 2018

2.3                       Development Application DA 33/2018(1) - 4613 Mitchell Highway, Lucknow

Attachment 3      Submissions

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                          7 November 2018

 

 

2.4     Development Application DA 335/2018(1) - 185-193 Bathurst Road

RECORD NUMBER:       2018/2674

AUTHOR:                       Ella Wilkinson, Senior Planner    

 

 

EXECUTIVE Summary

Application lodged

18 September 2018

Applicant/s

Mrs MJ Boardman

Owner/s

Mr AR and Mrs LJ Leahey

Land description

Lot 102 DP 842161 – 185-193 Bathurst Road, Orange

Proposed land use

Demolition (existing building and ancillary structures)

Value of proposed development

$75,000

Council's consent is sought for the demolition of the existing building and ancillary structures on Lot 102 DP 842161 – 185-193 Bathurst Road, Orange. The site was formally occupied by Prime and Southern Cross Austereo.

Figure 1 - locality plan


 

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 COMMENT

This development application is for the demolition of the old Prime 7 building. Several trees will be kept and conditions of consent have been added to ensure that the site is kept well presented until such time as a future use is determined.

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 resolves to issue consent to development application DA 335/2018(1) for Demolition (existing building and ancillary structures) at Lot 102 DP 842161 - 185-193 Bathurst Road, Orange pursuant to the conditions of consent in the attached Notice of Approval.

 

further considerations

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

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

THE APPLICATION

Council's consent is sought requesting consent for the demolition of the existing building and ancillary structures on Lot 102 DP842161 – 185-193 Bathurst Road, Orange. The site was formally occupied by Prime and Southern Cross Austereo.

THE PROPOSAL

The proposal outlines that the demolition is required as the building has been vandalised with internal damage sustained, including the stripping of copper wires. The power has been disconnected to reduce any hazard associated with the associated vandalism.

The application outlines that the demolition of the building is a first stage in the redevelopment of the site. The subject site and neighbouring site (Lot 103 DP 842161 (229‑249 Lone Pine Avenue) are jointly owned. The intention is to redevelop and subdivide both lots for redevelopment.

The subject site is not located within a Heritage Conservation Area, but is located to the northwest of Heritage Item I352 – The Lone Pine Memorial, a prominent memorial established at the location by the Orange sub-branch of the RSL in 1934.

The proposal was initially lodged requesting the removal a number of trees, including various species such as eucalypts and elm trees. However, the request to remove this vegetation has been removed as part of this application and will be assessed as part of a future application, when a future use and development are the site is known.

Some vegetation will be removed as part of the proposal, however this is limited to smaller trees and shrubs that are not covered by the provisions outlined on page 0.4 of Orange Development Control Plan 2004 (the DCP). This is discussed in greater detail in the following report.

Figures 2-19 included below show the perimeter of the building and ancillary structures that are proposed to be demolished; and trees (that have grown up around the building and rely on the building for structural integrity, but do not require consent for removal) that are proposed to be removed.

 

 

IMG_1425

Figure 2 – northern elevation of existing building

 

IMG_1426

Figure 3 - northern elevation of existing building

 

 

IMG_1432

Figure 4 - western elevation of existing building

 

IMG_1434

Figure 5 - western elevation of existing building

 

 

IMG_1435

Figure 6 - western elevation of existing building

 

IMG_1437

Figure 7 - ancillary shed structure

 

 

IMG_1439

Figure 8 - western elevation of existing building

 

IMG_1440

Figure 9 - western elevation of existing building

 

 

IMG_1441

Figure 10 - ancillary shed structure

 

IMG_1442

Figure 11 - western elevation of existing building

 

 

IMG_1443

Figure 12 - ancillary shed structure

 

IMG_1451

Figure 13 - western elevation of existing building

 

 

IMG_1457

Figure 14 – south-western corner of existing building

 

IMG_1459

Figure 15 - southern elevation of the building

 

IMG_1465

Figure 16 - eastern elevation of the building

 

IMG_1466

Figure 17 - eastern elevation of the building


 

 

IMG_1471

Figure 18 - eastern elevation of the building

 

IMG_1474

Figure 19 - eastern elevation of the building


 

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.

In this instance, site inspection reveals that the subject property is characterised by a number of mature plantings. The initial request included the removal of these trees. However, this request has been removed from the application, and tree removal will need to be assessed as part of a future development application on the site following further certainty in regard to the future use and development on the site. As such a Biodiversity Development Assessment Report is not required in this instance. Further assessment against the provisions of Part 7 of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 will be required for any future development application on the site.

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,

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

The application is considered to be broadly consistent with the aims outlined above.


 

Clause 1.6 - Consent Authority

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

Clause 1.7 - Mapping

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

Land Zoning Map:

Land zoned B5 Business Development

Lot Size Map:

No Minimum Lot Size

Heritage Map:

Not a heritage item or conservation area

Height of Buildings Map:

No building height limit

Floor Space Ratio Map:

No floor space limit

Terrestrial Biodiversity Map:

No biodiversity sensitivity on the site

Groundwater Vulnerability Map:

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

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.


 

Part 2 - Permitted or Prohibited Development

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

The subject site is located within the B5 Business Development zone. The proposed development is defined as “demolition” under OLEP 2011 and is permitted with consent. This application is seeking consent.

Clause 2.3 of LEP 2011 references the Land Use Table and Objectives for each zone in LEP 2011. The objective for land zoned B5 Business Development is as follows:

1 – Objectives of the B5 Business Development zone

·   To enable a mix of business and warehouse uses, and bulky goods premises that require a large floor area, in locations that are close to, and that support the viability of, centres.

The proposed demolition of the building will facilitate a number of redevelopment options into the future. The site is located in a high profile location at the entrance to the City. The existing building is dilapidated and is unlikely to be reused in its current state. To this end the demolition of the building is considered to be consistent with the overall objectives of the zone.

Uses permitted with consent in the B5 Business Development zone include: centre-based child care facilities; funeral homes; garden centres; hardware and building supplies; home industries; hotel or motel accommodation; kiosks; landscaping material supplies; neighbourhood shops; passenger transport facilities; respite day care centres; roads; rural supplies; self-storage units; shop top housing; signage; specialised retail premises; take away food and drink premises; timber yards; vehicle sales or hire premises; warehouse or distribution centres; any other development not specified in item 2 or 4.

Clause 2.6 - Subdivision - Consent Requirements

The provisions of clause 2.6 are not applicable to this application.

Clause 2.7 - Demolition Requires Development Consent

This clause triggers the need for development consent in relation to a building or work. This requirement does not apply to any demolition that is defined as exempt development.

The proposal involves demolition and the applicant is seeking the consent of Council. A referral was provided to Council’s Environmental, Health and Building Surveyor. The referral outlined that the demolition works proposed will have no significant impact on adjoining lands, streetscape or public realm. Conditions have been imposed in respect of hours of operation, dust suppression and the need to investigate for, and appropriately manage the presence of, any materials containing asbestos.

The hours of operation are also considered to be appropriate to manage noise impacts to residential properties located to the west, south and east of the subject site.

Clause 2.8 - Temporary Use of Land

The provisions of clause 2.8 are not applicable to this application.


 

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

The provisions of clause 4.1 are not applicable to this application.

Clause 4.1AA - Minimum Subdivision Lot Size for Community Title Schemes

The provisions of clause 4.1AA are not applicable to this application.

Clause 4.1B - Minimum Lot Sizes for Dual Occupancy, Multi Dwelling Housing and Residential Flat Buildings

The provisions of clause 4.1B are not applicable to this application.

Clause 4.2 - Rural Subdivision

The provisions of clause 4.2 are not applicable to this application.

Clause 4.2A - Erection of Dwelling Houses on Land in Certain Rural and Environmental Protection Zones

The provisions of clause 4.2A are not applicable to this application.

Clause 4.2B - Strata Subdivisions in Certain Rural Zones

The provisions of clause 4.2B are not applicable to this application.

Clause 4.3 - Height of Buildings

The provisions of clause 4.3 are not applicable to this application.

Clause 4.4 - Floor Space Ratio

The provisions of clause 4.4 are not applicable to this application.

Clause 4.6 - Exceptions to Development Standards

The provisions of clause 4.6 are not applicable to this application.

Part 5 - Miscellaneous Provisions

Clause 5.1 - Relevant Acquisition Authority

The provisions of clause 5.1 are not applicable to this application.

Clause 5.4 - Controls Relating to Miscellaneous Permissible Uses

The provisions of clause 5.4 are not applicable to this application.


 

5.10 - Heritage Conservation

The provisions of clause 5.10 are not applicable to the proposal as the subject site is not located within the bounds of a Heritage Conservation Area or listed as an item of Heritage Significance in Schedule 5 of Orange LEP 2011.

The proximity of Heritage Item I352 – The Lone Pine Memorial to the proposed demolition has been considered under the Provisions of any Development Control Plan s4.15(1)(a)(iii) section of this report.

Part 6 - Urban Release Area

The provisions of Part 6 are not applicable to this application as the subject site is not located within an identified Urban Release Area.

Part 7 - Additional Local Provisions

7.1 - Earthworks

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

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

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

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

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

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

(f)     the likelihood of disturbing relics

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

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

In consideration of the matters outlined above, the following comments are made in relation to the proposal.

The existing drainage patterns and soil stability are not envisaged to be detrimentally effected by the proposal. Mature vegetation is proposed to be retained as part of the proposal, which will mitigate any impacts on soil stability. Drainage will not be largely impacted as the proposal involves only the demolition of the existing building and ancillary structures at this stage. Therefore, the extent of disruption to the drainage of the site is considered to be minor and will not detrimentally affect adjoining properties or receiving waterways.


 

The extent of the earthworks will not materially affect the potential future use or redevelopment of the site that may occur at the end of the proposed development's lifespan. Further, the proposed demolition of the building and ancillary structures will likely result in a positive effect for the likely future use or redevelopment of the land as the owner of the subject site also holds ownership over the adjoining lot to the northeast. The intention of this proposal is to demolish the existing building and ancillary structures on the subject site to demonstrate the overall potential of both sites to potential buyers.

The site is not known to be contaminated. A waste management plan has been included as supporting documentation to the proposal. The waste management plan was reviewed by Council’s Environmental Health and Building Surveyor who was satisfied that waste will be disposed of in a satisfactory manner. Further, the building proposed to be demolished is located over 50m from nearby buildings, resulting in a minimal impact to neighbouring properties.

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. However, conditions have been imposed to ensure that should site works uncover a potential relic or artefact, works will be halted to enable proper investigation by relevant authorities and the proponent required to seek relevant permits to either destroy or relocate the findings.

The site is not in proximity to any waterway, drinking water catchment or sensitive area. Conditions have been imposed requiring soil erosion control measures to be implemented onsite.

7.2 - Flood Planning

The provisions of clause 7.2 are not applicable to this application.

7.3 - Stormwater Management

The provisions of clause 7.3 are not applicable to this application.

7.4 - Terrestrial Biodiversity

The provisions of clause 7.4 are not applicable to this application.

7.5 - Riparian Land and Watercourses

The provisions of clause 7.5 are not applicable to this application.

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.

7.7 - Drinking Water Catchments

The provisions of clause 7.7 are not applicable to this application.

7.9 - Airspace Operations

The provisions of clause 7.9 are not applicable to this application.

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.

Notwithstanding the above, the proposal outlines that the electricity supply to the building has been disconnected due to safety concerns. As the proposal involves the demolition of the existing building and ancillary structures, it is not considered that the supply of electricity is necessary to complete the proposed works. However, any future application for redevelopment should consider the access to electricity and ensure that power is reconnected.


 

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICIES

State Environmental Planning Policy 55 - Remediation of Land

State Environmental Planning Policy 55 - Remediation of Land (SEPP 55) is applicable. Pursuant to 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.

Assessing the requirements outlined above, it is considered that the subject site is highly unlikely to be contaminated. According to a previous planning report prepared for a development application finalised in 1996, the site has been used for approximately 35 years for media services. The 1996 report outlines a request to rezone the land to accommodate commercial uses. Neither uses are listed in Table 1 of Managing Land Contamination Planning Guidelines SEPP 55 – Remediation of Land.

In January 2018, the Department of Planning and Environment released an Explanation of Intended Effect and draft Guidelines outlining the intent to review SEPP 55. The draft Guidelines state that when undertaking an initial evaluation of contamination, a planning authority should consider whether there is any known or potential contamination on nearby or neighbouring properties, or in nearby groundwater, and whether that contamination needs to be considered in the assessment and decision making process.

There are two properties surrounding the site that are identified as being potentially contaminated on Council’s contamination register. As outlined in Figure 20, neither of the identified sites immediately adjoins the subject site. Both potentially contaminated sites are located on the opposite side of the road to the subject site. The site itself is not identified as being potentially contaminated.

Therefore, it is considered that the potential for contamination on the site is low. However, a condition of consent has been included requiring works to cease immediately onsite if an unexpected find occurs.


 

 

Figure 20 – location of subject site in relation to surrounding potentially contaminated sites

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007 is applicable to the application, in particular clause 101, which outlines the requirements for a consent authority granting consent to development on land that has frontage to a classified road. The consent authority must not grant consent unless it is satisfied that:

(a)     where practicable and safe, vehicular access to the land is provided by a road other than the classified road, and

(b)     the safety, efficiency and ongoing operation of the classified road will not be adversely affected by the development as a result of:

(i)      the design of the vehicular access to the land, or

(ii)     the emission of smoke or dust from the development, or

(iii)    the nature, volume or frequency of vehicles using the classified road to gain access to the land, and

(c)     the development is of a type that is not sensitive to traffic noise or vehicle emissions, or is appropriately located and designed, or includes measures, to ameliorate potential traffic noise or vehicle emissions within the site of the development arising from the adjacent classified road.


 

Bathurst road is zone SP2 Infrastructure and is a classified road. The proposal is considered to be consistent with the provisions of the SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007 as:

·   The existing vehicular access to the site is provided via:

-     Lone Pine Avenue through a two way driveway;

-     two single lane driveways onto the site from Bathurst Road.

·   The existing vehicular access arrangements are not proposed to change as part of this proposal. Currently, the two single lane driveways from Bathurst Road are left hand turn only. A right hand turn across Bathurst Road is not permissible to access either driveway. Any future development application on the site that proposes to utilise the existing access from Bathurst Road may be required to request RMS concurrence.

·   The emission of dust from the proposed demolition will be required to be managed in accordance with Australian Standard 2601:2001 – The Demolition of Structures and the requirements of Safe Work NSW as required by conditions included in the consent. Further, a condition of consent has been included requiring that all three existing concrete footpath crossings shall be maintained, including a minimum of 20m of bitumen driveway within the site associated with each footpath crossing, to mitigate dust or debris being dragged onto the road from the subject site.

·   It is not considered that the nature, volume or frequency of vehicles using the classified road to gain access to the land as a result of the proposed demolition will be greater than that previously generated by the approved uses. Any future use on site will be reconsidered as part of a future development application.

·   The proposed demolition is of a type that is not sensitive to traffic noise or vehicle emissions at this stage. The impacts of the classified road on any future use onsite will be considered as part of a future development application.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017

Whilst the proponent has withdrawn the request for consent to remove various trees on site, State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017 remains applicable to the subject development as the proposal requests consent to demolish the existing building and ancillary structures onsite. Some vegetation has grown up around the existing building, and a site visit with Council’s Manager City Presentation indicated that this vegetation may be structurally reliant on the building. Further, due to the proximity of this vegetation it would be difficult to demolish the building without causing an impact on some of this vegetation.

Part 3 of the SEPP applies to vegetation in any non-rural area of the State that is declared by a development control plan to be vegetation that Council can issue a permit to a landholder to be cleared. Clause 26 of the SEPP (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017 outlines that a development control plan (DCP) that is in force on the commencement of this Policy can establish the process, such as requiring a permit or development consent, for the clearing of vegetation.


 

Chapter 0 Transitional Provisions of Orange DCP 2004 (the DCP) prescribes the kinds of trees and other vegetation that are subject to Clause 10 of the SEPP (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017. The vegetation that would be impacted by the proposed demolition is not of a size or species that would trigger the requirements outlined in these provisions.

However, given the large number of vegetation that exists onsite, and despite the proponent withdrawing the request for consent to remove some trees that are subject to the provisions of Chapter 0 of the DCP, a condition has been included that outlines vegetation removal may only be carried out in line with the provisions of Chapter 0 of the DCP. Any proposed removal of vegetation that is covered by the provisions of Chapter 0 will need an additional development consent. No approval for the removal of vegetation covered by the provisions of Chapter 0 has been given as part of this proposal.

It is therefore considered that the requirements of the SEPP (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017 have been met and the proposal is consistent with the provisions as outlined in the Policy and the DCP, provided the demolition is carried out in line with the conditions of 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 (Part 8). 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 3(b) Business Services (Orange LEP 2000) is zone B5 Business Development (Orange LEP 2011). As such, Orange DCP 2004 – Chapter 8 is relevant to this proposal. The provisions of Part 8 are considered below.


 

PO 8.2-1 Planning Outcomes - Business Services Areas

·    Applications clearly demonstrate that the development will not detract from the role of the CBD as a regional centre.

The proposal requests consent to demolish the existing building and ancillary structures on the site. This proposal does not request consent to construct a new building or development on the site at this stage. As such, the proposal cannot be assessed against this provision as it is unknown at this stage what use/s will be supported onsite and how this will impact the role of the CBD as a regional centre.

A future development application for development on the site will be required to address this provision.

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

The proposal requests consent to demolish the existing building and ancillary structures on the site. This proposal does not request consent to construct a new building or development on the site at this stage. As such, the proposal cannot be assessed against this provision as no physical building is proposed that is required to take these requirements into account.

A future development application for development on the site will be required to address this provision.

·    Heritage streetscapes are conserved and enhanced through adaptive reuse of heritage buildings, restrained advertising and landscaped gardens.

The proposal is not located in a Heritage Conservation Area, but is located to the northwest of Heritage Item I352 – The Lone Pine Memorial, a prominent memorial established at the location by the Orange sub-branch of the RSL in 1934. The Lone Pine Memorial is located on the eastern corner of Lone Pine Avenue and Bathurst Road, the corner directly opposite the subject site.

The proposal to demolish the existing structures onsite is considered to have a neutral impact on the Heritage Item and its curtilage. This is because the demolition of the existing building and ancillary structures is proposed to occur approximately 70m from the heritage item. A setback of approximately 40m is provided to the corner of Lone Pine Avenue and Bathurst Road. There is no proposed change to this existing setback at this stage.

Further, the retention of the vegetation at this stage, with removal deferred until a time when it is known what will replace the existing building, will retain the existing park-like setting within the location and retain the existing character presenting to the heritage item.

The view to the Heritage Item from the front of the existing building that is proposed to be demolished is included as Figure 21. The impact of future development on the site will be required to be assessed for any future development applications.


 

 

IMG_1468

Figure 21 - view to the Lone Pine Memorial (shown within the red square)

from the eastern elevation of subject site (façade of the building)

·    Areas on the main roads into and out of Orange (such as Molong Road and Bathurst Road) provide a high level of architectural design to enhance the visual character of the City entrances.

As previously mentioned, the proposal is requesting consent to demolish the existing building and ancillary structures on the subject site. Further, the proposal is not requesting consent to demolish existing vegetation requiring consent. Therefore at this stage, the proposal does not require assessment against this provision as no development is proposed onsite.

A future development application for development on the site will be required to address this provision.

·    All sites contain an element of landscaping. Landscaping provided is of a bulk, scale and height relative to buildings nearest the front property boundary so as to provide beautification and visual relief to the built form proposed or existing on the site. The depth of the landscaped bed at the site frontage is sufficient to accommodate a spread of plantings that meet the abovementioned outcomes but, where practicable, a minimum depth of 3m is provided. Plantings are designed to provide shade for parking areas, to break up large areas of bitumen, to enhance building preservation and to screen against noise.


 

As previously mentioned, the proponent withdrew the request for the removal of vegetation requiring consent as part of this proposal. This proposal will only involve the demolition of the existing buildings and ancillary structures. The only vegetation that will be impacted by the proposal will be vegetation that is not covered by the provisions of Chapter 0 of the DCP. It is considered that existing vegetation will remain largely the same as what currently exists onsite, with only minor changes. However, the demolition of the building and ancillary structures will leave part of the site vacant for a period prior to the sale of the land. Given the prominence of the site to the Mitchell Highway and location of the site at the Gateway of the City of Orange, it is considered that post demolition, disturbed soil should be hydromulched to promote a grass coverage within the area of the demolition works. It is also considered that vegetation should be adequately maintained on the site until such time as a new development application is lodged to develop the land. This will have two benefits:

·    hydroseeding (or equivalent) vacant sections of the site post demolition will reduce erosion and potential dust impacts to neighbouring properties; and

·    maintaining the existing vegetation until a use and development is proposed on the site will retain the existing park-like setting on a strategic Gateway site.

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

Demolition of a Building (clause 92)

The proposal involves the demolition of the existing building and ancillary structures. A condition is attached requiring the demolition to be carried out in accordance with Australian Standard AS2601 - 1991: The Demolition of Structures.

Fire Safety Considerations (clause 93)

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

Buildings to be Upgraded (clause 94)

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

BASIX Commitments (clause 97A)

BASIX is not applicable to the proposed development.

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

Environmental Impacts

The proposed development is not envisaged to have any major environmental impacts, particularly as the proponent has removed a previous request to demolish existing mature vegetation. Conditions of consent have been included to mitigate dust and noise from the proposed demolition and to manage soil erosion.

The impact to the Heritage Item located to the southeast of the subject site is considered to be neutral, as the existing park-like setting within the location is proposed to be retained as part of this proposal. As such, the existing surrounding character of the heritage item remains largely unchanged.


 

Social Impacts

The proposal is considered to have a positive social impact as the proposed demolition of the building will remove the possibility for break-ins and theft at the abandoned building. The demolition of the building will demonstrate the potential of the site to future occupants and provide space for appropriate development of a Gateway site.

Economic Impacts

As previously mentioned, the site has remained unoccupied for a number of years. During this time the building has become dilapidated and has been subject to a number of break-ins and theft, including the stripping of copper wire. The building is not a heritage item or located within a Heritage Conservation Area. The site is, however, located on a very prominent site along the main route into the City from the east. Therefore, it is considered that the potential economic impacts on the site are positive as the demolition of the existing building will demonstrate the potential of the subject site and the adjoining site in a strategic Gateway location.

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

The site is suitable for the proposed development as it is a dilapidated building which is currently unoccupied, and has been unoccupied since the relocation of the previous use on the site. The subject site is not a listed heritage item or situated within a Heritage Conservation Area. The site is zoned B5 Business Development and the proposed demolition of the building onsite would provide additional land to support further uses on a strategic Gateway site.

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

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

PUBLIC INTEREST 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, D18/58067

2          Plans, D18/57536

 


Planning and Development Committee                                                   7 November 2018

2.4                       Development Application DA 335/2018(1) - 185-193 Bathurst Road

Attachment 1      Notice of Approval

 

ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

 

Development Application No DA 335/2018(1)

 

NA18/                                                                Container PR15902

 

 

NOTICE OF DETERMINATION

OF A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

issued under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Section 4.18

 

Development Application

 

  Applicant Name:

Mrs M J Boardman

  Applicant Address:

38 Goldfinch Way

ORANGE  NSW  2800

  Owner’s Name:

Mr AR and Mrs LJ Leahey

  Land to Be Developed:

Lot 102 DP 842161 - 185-193 Bathurst Road, Orange

  Proposed Development:

Demolition (existing building and ancillary structures)

 

 

Building Code of Australia

 building classification:

 

Not applicable

 

 

Determination made under

  Section 4.16

 

  Made On:

7 November 2018

  Determination:

CONSENT GRANTED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS DESCRIBED BELOW:

 

 

Consent to Operate From:

8 November 2018

Consent to Lapse On:

8 November 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)      Plan/s - two unnumbered plans (2 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

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

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

 

 

PRIOR TO WORKS COMMENCING

 

(3)      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.

 

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

 

 

DURING CONSTRUCTION/SITEWORKS

 

(5)      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 is obtained in writing.

 

(6)      If any unexpected find in relation to Aboriginal objects, relics, or other historical items or the like are located during the removal and rehabilitation of the soil, including stump grinding and removal of saw dust generated from the stump grinding process, all works will be required to cease and the Office of Environment and Heritage 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.

 

(7)      Removal of vegetation on site shall be limited to only that vegetation that is affected by the demolition and is located in the immediate proximity to the building. The removal of this vegetation may only be carried out in line with the provisions of Chapter 0 of the Orange Development Control Plan and State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017. Any proposed removal of vegetation that is covered by the provisions of Chapter 0 and State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017 will require an additional development consent.

 

(8)      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.

 

(9)      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.

 

(10)    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.


 

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

 

(12)    The existing water and sewerage services to the building are to be sealed off at their respective Council mains.

 

(13)    The three (3) existing concrete footpath crossings shall be maintained including a minimum of 20m of bitumen driveway within the site associated with each footpath crossing.

 

(14)    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

 

(15)    Disturbed soil is to be hydroseeded (or equivalent) following demolition of the building and ancillary structures to promote grass coverage on the site. Hydroseeding (orequivalent is to be undertaken with a cool climate turf mix and include:

(a)      fertiliser;

(b)      an appropriate polymer binder (eg Terra Control); and

(c)      appropriate mulch (eg sugar cane straw) for seed protection.

The site is to be maintained to the satisfaction of Council’s Manager City Presentation, including vegetation maintenance and ongoing hydroseeding, as required, until such time as a development application for the future development and use is received by Orange City Council.

 

 

ADVISORY NOTES

 

(1)      The condition requiring that hydroseeding (or equivalent) be undertaken on disturbed soil post demolition, and the maintenance of vegetation and ongoing hydroseeding (or equivalent), as required, has been requested to:

(a)      reduce erosion and potential dust impacts to neighbouring properties while the site remains vacant;

(b)      retain the existing park-like setting presenting to the Mitchell Highway at a strategic Gateway site until a future development and use is proposed on the site.

 

 

 

 

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:

 

8 November 2018

 


Planning and Development Committee                                                             7 November 2018

2.4                       Development Application DA 335/2018(1) - 185-193 Bathurst Road

Attachment 2      Plans

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator